PDA

View Full Version : How a monk should be



....
2007-09-27, 11:31 AM
When I think monk, I think of this. (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/15849)

Not some loser with high saves.

Lord Tataraus
2007-09-27, 11:49 AM
That is what the monk does. He hits real hard, is very agile with high AC. Gets a lot of attacks, uses nunchaku and quarterstaffs, we can say that sword was a kama. He just has a lot of ranks in jump and tumble, all of that is represented by the monk in D&D. The only problem is that their are also wizards and guys with big swords that tend to hurt a little more.

....
2007-09-27, 11:54 AM
No D&D monk could ever take out that many people. Its the idea of a monk, yes, but mechanically it never works out that way.

NerfTW
2007-09-27, 11:59 AM
If a monk could take out that many people, why would anyone ever play anything else?

sikyon
2007-09-27, 12:07 PM
Big Magic Flaming Sword in hands of skilled swordsman > limbs made of flesh.

Works on monsters too!

Telonius
2007-09-27, 12:16 PM
That is what the monk does. He hits real hard, is very agile with high AC. Gets a lot of attacks, uses nunchaku and quarterstaffs, we can say that sword was a kama. He just has a lot of ranks in jump and tumble, all of that is represented by the monk in D&D. The only problem is that their are also wizards and guys with big swords that tend to hurt a little more.

That might be what the monk is supposed to do, bit it's not what it does. What the monk does is try to attack quickly, and misses; or attacks quickly and doesn't exceed the DR. "Wizards and guys with big swords" encompasses most of the the other core classes (along with "guys who turn into bears and eat you," and "guys who eviscerate your kidney if they're flanking you or invisible.")

Arakune
2007-09-27, 12:18 PM
That might be what the monk is supposed to do, bit it's not what it does. What the monk does is try to attack quickly, and misses; or attacks quickly and doesn't exceed the DR. "Wizards and guys with big swords" encompasses most of the the other core classes (along with "guys who turn into bears and eat you," and "guys who eviscerate your kidney if they're flanking you or invisible.")

With absurd efficiency compared with others flanking and invisible guys.

....
2007-09-27, 12:46 PM
If a monk could take out that many people, why would anyone ever play anything else?

Well, reading these forums it seems no one ever plays anything but a min/maxed wizard or CoDzilla; maybe a crazy ToB swordsage/warblade thing for variety.

Dullyanna
2007-09-27, 01:03 PM
Well, reading these forums it seems no one ever plays anything but a min/maxed wizard or CoDzilla; maybe a crazy ToB swordsage/warblade thing for variety.

Or an Initiate of the Sevenfold Limburger.

Spiryt
2007-09-27, 01:10 PM
How a monk should be

Should not be. Buahahahahah!

I couldn't resist

Anyway, I like him how he is, however they should make him do something.

Monk basically has tones of abilities, ultimate saves, quite a lot skills/skill points.

It represents quite well the idea of the class, but from some reason it isn't working.

Solo
2007-09-27, 01:16 PM
Perhaps because a Monk fills no niche?

ocato
2007-09-27, 02:07 PM
Perhaps you feel that monks can't do that because that guy is fighting worthless drones instead of orc barbarians and magical dragons. It's the stormtrooper law (known by many other names), when one fights many, the one has the advantage.

SurlySeraph
2007-09-27, 02:21 PM
The good thing about monks is that they are pretty survivable. The good saves, the high AC, and the various immunities and whatnot make them hard to kill directly. Their fast movement and movement abilities like Abundant Step mean they can flee when in trouble.

The problem with monks is that they can't do much except stay alive. Their damage output is pretty feeble before high levels - being able to do as much damage with your fists as with a sword is nice, but why wait for it when you could do that much with an actual sword at level 1? Their special abilites are cool, but not often very useful, and they're hard to keep track of.

The best way to improve monks, in my opinion, is as follows:
1. Make them progress faster. They get plenty of special abilities, but they have to wait a long time to get the useful ones.
2. Instead of lots of special abilities with 1 or 2 uses per day, give Monks more uses of their special abilities as they go up in level. Quivering Palm isn't bad, but once per week? Hell, wizards get save-or-die spells by the time they're level 11, and they can use those at least once per day even then.

Fixer
2007-09-27, 02:25 PM
Monks and Bards fill a similar role. Jack of all trades and the masters of nothing. Bards are Fighter/Wizard/Thief. Monks are Cleric/Fighter/Thief.

They are played more for style than for combat ability. Maybe if a Monk had ANY healing abilities they would be more viable as a PC class instead of in the support tier.

Zincorium
2007-09-27, 02:52 PM
I think a monk should be the ultimate battlefield controller. Doing more damage with your hands than a sword is absurd. Grappling, tripping, or disarming your enemies mercilessly is not.

The problem is that those three things are all based on things (BAB, weapon size) that the monk is not the best class for. A barbarian of equal level can be easily much better at any of those categories.

Lord Tataraus
2007-09-27, 03:04 PM
That might be what the monk is supposed to do, bit it's not what it does. What the monk does is try to attack quickly, and misses; or attacks quickly and doesn't exceed the DR. "Wizards and guys with big swords" encompasses most of the the other core classes (along with "guys who turn into bears and eat you," and "guys who eviscerate your kidney if they're flanking you or invisible.")

Exactly, everything else has huge advantages over monks. The guy in the video is fighting a bunch of lower level monks, a monk in D&D can do that. Basically any class can. The problem is that you hardly ever face only lower level versions of yourself.

WhiteHarness
2007-09-27, 03:24 PM
How should a monk be?

That kind of monk should be confined to East-Asian style settings. Unfortunately, it seems like many modern D&D players don't see it that way. Deplorable...

PlatinumJester
2007-09-27, 03:34 PM
A monk should be like Pai Mei from Kill Bill Volume 2. A powerful unarmed warrior rather than a back up class.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-27, 03:35 PM
Monks and Bards fill a similar role. Jack of all trades and the masters of nothing. Bards are Fighter/Wizard/Thief. Monks are Cleric/Fighter/Thief.

I disagree. Bards were given the ability to do everything. Monks weren't. They are supposed to be Fighters. All their abilities are designed for melee combat. The problem is they ended up being weaker than Rangers in everything... in Damage output, attacks per round, skills, enhanceability, utility... everything.

Spiryt
2007-09-27, 03:45 PM
A monk should be like Pai Mei from Kill Bill Volume 2. A powerful unarmed warrior rather than a back up class.

I disagree. Idea of doing the same damage with halberd and fist is laughable.

Monks should be backup, but better designed.

Like I said, everything looks OK with them, but in practice they do nothing.

They should be "tanks" (ability to survive many harm due to their mystical blah blah), with ability to take down light armored enemies, and interesting stuff like slow falling.

They had it all.The whole problem is to make it useful and practical.

PlatinumJester
2007-09-27, 03:49 PM
Ok but they should have a full bab.

Telvos
2007-09-27, 03:50 PM
That's all well and good.

THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ9e3Dy7obA), however, is a monk.


With a little bit of barbarian thrown in :)

PlatinumJester
2007-09-27, 03:55 PM
Yeah, a Bruce Lee style class.

Svethnika
2007-09-27, 03:59 PM
If you ignored alignment restrictions would a barbarian monk be a good mix?

imperialspectre
2007-09-27, 04:01 PM
Monks and Bards fill a similar role. Jack of all trades and the masters of nothing. Bards are Fighter/Wizard/Thief. Monks are Cleric/Fighter/Thief.

They are played more for style than for combat ability. Maybe if a Monk had ANY healing abilities they would be more viable as a PC class instead of in the support tier.

The problem is, bards are mid-level spellcasters (with some frighteningly good spells--Otto's Irresistible Dance is positively brutal, for example), pretty solid party buffers, easily the best party faces among the core classes (paladins aren't bad, but they don't have Bluff and have the whole Lawful Good thing going), AND capable of a variety of jack-of-all-trades melee and skillmonkey tasks. No prestige classes required, even for that (once you start optimizing with PrCs, bards become even better).

A bard probably can't be a true batman, but s/he can be almost as useful for the party as a whole.

A monk, on the other hand, has a little bit of battlefield control capability, but not really enough to stack up against a barbarian or fighter/warblade/whatever, decent survivability, but a swordsage with good CON and a little bit of help on Fort saves is way better with that +1 mithral chain shirt (or without--the swordsage still gets just about as much AC and Child of Shadow, a first-level stance, gives 20% miss chance), and is just generally weak.

Bottom line, bards can do the jack-of-all-trades thing reasonably well (one step below Batman, really). Monks can only attempt melee and skillmonkey, and aren't actually good at either.

Lord Tataraus
2007-09-27, 04:06 PM
That's all well and good.

THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ9e3Dy7obA), however, is a monk.


With a little bit of barbarian thrown in :)

Wow, I never realized how fake that looked until now.
Anyway, I agree that the monk has no place in most D&D settings, I usually don't allow it. I think the Battle Dancer is a much better class.

Ralfarius
2007-09-27, 04:08 PM
How should a monk be?

That kind of monk should be confined to East-Asian style settings. Unfortunately, it seems like many modern D&D players don't see it that way. Deplorable...
I say monks should give it up and get bowl haircuts, brown habits, and start doing gregorian chants. Much more fit in with the west of the heavily western influenced core of D&D.

blacksabre
2007-09-27, 04:17 PM
I've always felt that Monks should scale much better then they do as they advance..The current progression scale wasn't enough

To fix this brokenness..House rules

AC progession +1 every 3 levels..starting at 3rd..
So
levels
3-5= +1
6-8= +2
9-11=+3
12-14=+4
15-17=+5
18-20=+6


Also, in My world I have a couple class specific Feats....
Tiger Strike [Monk]
Prerequisite
Base attack bonus +5
Improved Unarmed Strike

Benefit
Add Wisdom Bonus to all damage for Unarmed attacks
_______________________________________
Improved Tiger Strike [Monk]

Prerequisite
Base attack bonus +10
Tiger Strike

Benefit
Add 2x Wisdom Bonus to all damage for all Unarmed attacks

Zincorium
2007-09-27, 04:19 PM
@blacksabre: you might want to match up the description of the feats to what they actually do.

Picking an exotic weapon and knowing how to use it in combat sounds like, I dunno, exotic weapon proficiency. Not adding wisdom to attacks without a weapon.

blacksabre
2007-09-27, 04:20 PM
Doh, copied format..left some things...fixed

CaptainSam
2007-09-27, 04:27 PM
That's odd. Maybe it's because I'm a Brit, but this (http://l.yimg.com/img.tv.yahoo.com/tv/us/img/site/47/62/0000034762_20061021013514.jpg) is what I think of when I think monk.

Rad
2007-09-27, 04:32 PM
I say monks should give it up and get bowl haircuts, brown habits, and start doing gregorian chants. Much more fit in with the west of the heavily western influenced core of D&D.

YAY! let's show the designers what monks should do!:smallbiggrin:
Actually, that role is not well represented by the cleric class, which is more like a crusader. Monks should be something similar to cloistered clerics.
Ah, I say now that I'll refuse to call them euromonks or something like that!:smallannoyed:

Threeshades
2007-09-27, 04:45 PM
I disagree. Idea of doing the same damage with halberd and fist is laughable.

Waving your hand while saying a bunch of words in a strange language resulting in tactical mininukes firing out of your mind is too, and still there are several base classes doing that.

DnD is not about being realistic. And the monk is supposed to be on the way to supernatural power, through Ki and everything. Not just some guy who goes to kung fu school for an hour once a week.

I think monks just need full BAB and better AC and/or HP. Their purpose is jumping around between the enemy lines and beating everyone senseless. And its also pretty much all they can do practically. Except that they suck at it.

Xeon
2007-09-27, 04:49 PM
You guys are missing the point. The monk has a role that it fills very well just as it is, it's a wizard killer. With high saves, a good AC, and evasion it's able to withstand many of the spellcasters attacks. It deals good damage and even with the low BAB its still easy to hit a caster thats not wearing armor (mage armor only goes so far). Then you add in a crazy base move that allows the monk to move from outside casting range to into melee range in a single round and you have a formidable opponent for any caster. the monks special abilitys allow him to cripple things with low fort saves and add a little more survivability and flavor to the class. Put a good monk up against any spellcaster type and see where the fight goes from there.

Jack Mann
2007-09-27, 04:54 PM
Xeon, even if it was good enough for a full role (and it isn't, unless you come across casters far more than usual), monks aren't actually very good at it. Casters have too many ways of covering their weak points, and have too many spells that don't offer saves. And while monks have strong defenses, they can still be hit. Their fortitude save, for example, typically suffers some, since monks need to push up their dexterity and wisdom more than constitution.

AslanCross
2007-09-27, 04:56 PM
I think full BAB would actually solve the Monk's biggest problems.

Morty
2007-09-27, 05:02 PM
Xeon, even if it was good enough for a full role (and it isn't, unless you come across casters far more than usual), monks aren't actually very good at it. Casters have too many ways of covering their weak points, and have too many spells that don't offer saves. And while monks have strong defenses, they can still be hit. Their fortitude save, for example, typically suffers some, since monks need to push up their dexterity and wisdom more than constitution.

However, monks do have more ways of surviving against casters than other non-casters, even if it's not enough. But indeed, better survivablity against casters doesn't cover not being able to do much to anything else.

ocato
2007-09-27, 05:08 PM
Well, I think a couple minor tweaks would help. Full BaB for example. The ability to power attack as if using a two-hander wouldn't hurt (and if you are punching for like 2d10 by L20, that's not obscenely out of step, ever hear of the polish hammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_hammer)?) This would give monks similar abilities to a two handed weapon wielder, such as a staunt leap attack (add in flying kick for fun and flavor) and ... roundabout kick isn't bad, allowing you to attack again at the same bonus any enemy you crit. That and cleave? Flurry of blows to pound on them, any crits are double slaps and when you take them down, you turn to their friend, cleave attack him, and finish your full attack. Sounds a lot like what we have been linking. Punch the junk out of a foe, then continue the spree on an adjacent foe. Flying kick of doom a few times. Also, I agree that Eagle Claw Attack (+wis to damage vs objects) needs to be changed to not only work on objects (and swap improved sunder as a prereq for power attack or somesuch).

I like Improved Trip and such as monk skills, though they could settle for swapping some of their free feat choices out for something a bit stronger. Though their ability to use unarmed attacks with their hands full is pretty useful too. Double Sais and Improved Disarm will make that fighter into a fish out of water faster than you can say +12 bonus. Your 1d3 that envokes an attack of opportunity against the monk's 2d6 (or better) power punch.

Also, and this is just from playing too much FF:tactics probably, but I like monks having the option to focus their Ki or whatever to cure disease/poison and heal a little. They should get a lay on hands esque ability or something similar, I think that'd be nice.

WhiteHarness
2007-09-27, 05:09 PM
I don't ever want to see monks with either BAB or AC as high as those of a fighter. Fighting with no weapons/armour should never be as effective as fighting with them. If it were possible for an unarmed man to be as effective as a fully armed and armoured one, then it would have been done more often in reality.

And before somebody gets on his "well, D&D is fantasy, not history" high horse, let me say that I don't care. Some things just stretch credibility too far, and for me, Asian-flavored monks are one of those things. Keep that sort of nonsense in the obiligatory "Oriental adventures" supplement where it belongs and I don't have to deal with it.

Neon Knight
2007-09-27, 05:11 PM
I think full BAB would actually solve the Monk's biggest problems.

I don't think so. He'd still have sub par AC and more MAD than a bulldog with rabies. Alongside a confused design goal and bizarre abilities. (I can speak with any living creature... because of my Kung Fu.)

In addition, consider this:

Even if one got the monk up to the same power level of the other melee guys...
He'd still have all the problems of normal DnD melee characters.

In a race where anyone without full spellcasting starts 5 laps behind, the Monk is 10 laps behind.

Spiryt
2007-09-27, 05:18 PM
I think full BAB would actually solve the Monk's biggest problems.

Well, I still think it's not good idea. They will be then able to power attack as well as fighter e.c. We can talk about Ki and other stuff, but yes it's a fantasy , so we also have magic swords and fighters slashing harder than they should.

So monks really shouldn't kick as hard as polearm chop :smallyuk:

If monks have to exist as some "eastern meditation, self perfection guys" they should do this whole stuff - wall running, meditation e.c.

The whole problem could be that D&D really doesn't support that stuff, but I rather think that monk abilities are just very poorly designed.

He can use stuff like dimnesion door but too rarely, for example.

F.L.
2007-09-27, 09:07 PM
If you're shooting for a more supernatural monk, tying more combat powers to wisdom instead of strength (to reduce MAD) would be the absolute minimum of a start for this. Also, possibly adding the monk's BAB to any combat maneuver that doesn't incorporate it normally (bull rush, trip, etc)? Resolving the difficulties with upgrading a monk's unarmed strike/un-muddying the rules on unarmed strike would also be a major help. Finally, if you replaced dimension door 1/week or whatever with air walk monk level rounds per day or something you'd have a class that almost was as good as a fighter.
A major problem that hurts monks over fighers is:
-5 BAB
+0 unarmed strike instead of +5 weapon
at least -2 strength bonus
or -12 compared to a fighter over the course of their career. (not that monks will last long)

Telvos
2007-09-27, 10:09 PM
I forget; can a monk take two weapon fighting, ambidexterity, etc., in order to use both fists in combat for even more attacks per round?

Jack Mann
2007-09-27, 10:12 PM
There is no ambidexterity in 3.5. But yes, a monk can take the two-weapon fighting tree and gain more attacks. But the penalties stack too, so it's rarely worthwhile.

ocato
2007-09-27, 10:19 PM
Monks cannot take TWF for two reasons.

Number one:


There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed

Number two: Flurry of blows is the same thing, except it gets way better later (minuses go away and amount of attacks increase) and doesn't require a feat.

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-28, 08:22 AM
This one should help curb some of the abuse: You gain base saves for whichever level of class you take, but you cannot exceed the base saves of a monk of your HD.

Telonius
2007-09-28, 08:30 AM
Monks cannot take TWF for two reasons.

Number one:



Number two: Flurry of blows is the same thing, except it gets way better later (minuses go away and amount of attacks increase) and doesn't require a feat.

Well, I suppose it would be possible for them to use the primary attack with the unarmed strike, and use a Monk weapon (Kama or Sai for example) as an offhand attack. I'm not saying it would make sense (except maybe having one free hand to Deflect Arrows, and that's stretching it), but there's nothing in the rules that prevent it.

truemane
2007-09-28, 08:46 AM
The Official FAQ says that Monks can benefit from the TWF Feat chain. Flurry of Blows is a separate ability, and so both can be used at once. When the SRD means there is no off-hand attack for a Monk, they mean in terms of Attack Penalties or Damage Penalties.

I.e. if you have a left handed Monk and you cripple his left arm, he can still strike with his right hand (or feet, or knees, or whatever) at full BAB and full damage bonus.

But, as someone said already, those two '-2's' stack, so it's a poor option at early levels. And Monk's being so Feat-poor, and needing so many feats to be even passably effective, it's not usually a very efficient choice anyway.

Although having 8 attacks per round is entertaining, it is not as useful as it might appear.

And I find Monks really shine in Gestalt games, actually. As one side of a Cleric, Fighter (or even Sorceror with a 40+ point buy) build, the AC and the movement rates and such are really helpful. Nothing more fun than using that FOOLISHLY high Jump bonusl to leap over a whole battlefield, drop a healing spell on someone, and then leap right the heck back out again.

Or use the Fighter side to get enough feats to give the poor guy more than one line of attack.

But the base class is tricky to make work.

Not impossible, just tricky.

Dausuul
2007-09-28, 08:47 AM
Well, reading these forums it seems no one ever plays anything but a min/maxed wizard or CoDzilla; maybe a crazy ToB swordsage/warblade thing for variety.

Not true at all. Remember that there is a huge difference between theoretical optimization and actual play. I actually avoid playing the Big Three (wizard/cleric/druid) classes, because I know how easily such a character can wreck the game. It's fun to debate the finer points of IotSV optimization or the ways in which a cleric can become a melee god; but most of us know better than to actually play such monstrosities. I'm about to start a campaign where I will be playing a single-class bard.

As for the ideal role of a monk... well, I agree that it's silly to have an unarmed fighter do the same damage as a guy with a big sword. And even setting that aside, the game already has classes for people who just want to hit stuff and do damage; that's fighter and barbarian turf. Monks ought to have their own shtick.

I think the monk's role should be oriented more around dealing with supernatural threats and powers. It looks like they actually tried to do this with the 3E monk, they just failed to implement it effectively.

Some possibilities:

--A special ability allowing their unarmed attacks to bypass all damage reduction.
--Agreed on the use of Wisdom to replace or augment Strength. Perhaps the monk gets +Wisdom to damage as well as AC.
--Special attacks that let them suppress an enemy's spells and spell-like abilities.
--Innate spell resistance equal to 2 x monk level.
--Built-in air walk at higher levels to let them deal with flying foes. Wire Fu for everyone!

Indon
2007-09-28, 11:18 AM
The Monk would be a fine anti-caster class, if casters were on the same level of power as non-caster classes.

Dausuul
2007-09-28, 11:31 AM
The Monk would be a fine anti-caster class, if casters were on the same level of power as non-caster classes.

But D&D is not built around fighting other PCs, it's built around fighting monsters, with only the occasional NPC. And the subset of caster-like monsters is too small to justify a whole class built around opposing it. Moreover, monks are too defensively oriented; classes built around defense are a losing proposition in general, because the enemy just targets your buddy instead.

That's why I'm suggesting that monks should expand their mandate to cover anything with a lot of special/supernatural powers, and shift to a more offensive focus.

Indon
2007-09-28, 11:37 AM
But D&D is not built around fighting other PCs, it's built around fighting monsters, with only the occasional NPC. And the subset of caster-like monsters is too small to justify a whole class built around opposing it.

But monks aren't _just_ anti-caster. They're pretty good generalists, that's just their niche.

Zincorium
2007-09-28, 11:42 AM
But monks aren't _just_ anti-caster. They're pretty good generalists, that's just their niche.

Actually, monks aren't very good generalists compared to, say, bards or rangers. They don't have strong damage output, their battlefield control is a disgrace, they can't properly take advantage of their admittedly good mobility, and are one of the worst non-combat classes around.

They need to be rebuilt from the ground up as either realistic martial artists or go all the way fantasy, trying to fulfill both views isn't working.

Dausuul
2007-09-28, 11:44 AM
But monks aren't _just_ anti-caster. They're pretty good generalists, that's just their niche.

Not really. They do stealth and perception, but they don't have enough skill points for much else. They have a random hodgepodge of abilities, most of which don't do much. They can run super-fast at high levels, but by that point teleportation and flight magic is cheap enough that their speed isn't that valuable.

Rogues are generalists. Bards are generalists. Monks are not generalists. They do three things: sneak, run, and make saving throws. None of these is enough to build a class around.

Freelance Henchman
2007-09-28, 11:47 AM
So was that cartoon a Lvl 20 Monk smacking around a bunch of Lvl 1 Commoners? And the Boss was like a Lvl 3 Fighter? :smallsmile:

Kurald Galain
2007-09-28, 11:49 AM
But monks aren't _just_ anti-caster. They're pretty good generalists, that's just their niche.

Actually, they fail at both. This is a recurring thread on these and many other forums, but while lots of people enjoy playing monks, statistically they are just very, very weak compared to the other PC classes.

Indon
2007-09-28, 11:55 AM
Not really. They do stealth and perception, but they don't have enough skill points for much else. They have a random hodgepodge of abilities, most of which don't do much. They can run super-fast at high levels, but by that point teleportation and flight magic is cheap enough that their speed isn't that valuable.


Again, you're comparing the monk with what you no doubt consider to be an overpowered magical system.

The monk can do a lot. He has fair damage, excellent mobility, stealth and perception as you noted. It largely takes spellcasting to obsolete the monk's unique abilities... but spellcasting can render all the non-spellcasters obsolete except _maybe_ the rogue.

kemmotar
2007-09-28, 12:05 PM
After seeing multiple threads on why the monk sucks i decided to play a monk for the fun of it and he has turned out to be much much better than i expected. His current saves are higher than the wizards DCs, he hits harder than the twf fighter and almost has more hp than the barbarian.

Yes he is quite optimized but the other players arent bad either. A few tricks that can really help a monk are improved trip(I prefer trip over disarm since it has nothing to do with BAB and it works on anyone, ie disarm works only when the other has a weapon...), superior unarmed strike, improved natural attack, leap attack, mantis leap, also the knockdown feat from sword and fist(if your DM allows it since its 3.0e), dodge and defensive throw are very good candidates.

I've also found that taking 2 levels of swordsage can be very beneficial even though it stops you from further advancing in monk lvls. The second level class feature stacks with the monk's ability to add the wisdom modifier to AC, thus you get your wis modifier to your ac twice(my monk currently as 46 AC, 4 of which is armor...hehe)

Also one very helpful thing in increasing your damage is enlarge person and powerful build in conjunction with superior unarmed strike and improved natural attack this giving you 3 increases to your damage dice. For powerful build look at goliath and half giant. Really useful racial feature :smallbiggrin:

One other very good role i have found for my monk is the guard. By taking one level in tattoed monk and taking the ocean tatoo i dont need to sleep, drink or eat thus making him the best candidate for guard duty in addition to crazy spot and listen checks:smallwink:

One more useful feat is karmik strike if you want to consider not buffing up you ac as much but damage and hp.

And so, the twf blademaster fighter was disgraced in front of my monk after fighting some dire, undead, tainted, werewolf beings(havent finished the quest yet so i dont rly know what they are...)...apparently they had DR10/silver...so the magic swords of the fighter couldnt bypass the DR and his 8 attacks barely scratched him(no crits for you twf fighter:smalltongue: )...thus my monk turns on burning blade(ToB maneuver) for a sweet 1d6+12 fire damage in addition to my 3d6+13 damage for each attack...thus 3 attacks each round give us 12d6+100 damage if all attacks hit...not to mention tripping the hell out of them
The good part was that even though they carried a disease that supposedly we contracted through touch thanks to the monk's godly saves i didnt even get it once...

Sure monks may not be as powerful as some of the other classes but if correctly built,PrC'd and played(definately not pure monk lvls) can beat many other classes easily...

well that's my little contribution towards the monk argument, make what you want of it...i doubt as big a team as the one that created D&D would ever gimp that much any class...many things just depend on you imagination and devotion to finding the correct feats for a char and concentrating on something in particular. Nobody said they would beat the uberchargers and codzillas or batman wizards...but they sure as hell stand a pretty good chance, even more so in normal play.

Jack Mann
2007-09-28, 12:11 PM
But it's not just when measured against casters that the monk is weak. The monk is weak when compared with any of the other core classes, from fighter to bard. Again, even if casters were weaker, and the monk could take them out, the monk would still be underpowered, because parties just don't go up against casters all that often, outside of specific campaigns. Against ninety percent of the monsters in D&D, the monk just isn't worth having around. The monk isn't useful to the party. That is why he's weak. He's a combat-oriented class that's no good at combat. He's a skillmonkey without enough skills. He has a lot of special abilities, but they don't add up to anything useful. In most combats, the best thing the monk can do is set up flanking for the rogue.

Indon
2007-09-28, 12:15 PM
He's a combat-oriented class that's no good at combat.


He's about as good with combat as the rogue; dealing less damage, but more durable.


He's a skillmonkey without enough skills.


You don't need 6 or 8 + int skills to be a skillmonkey. The monk is a lesser skillmonkey than the rogue, but better than non-skillmonkey classes.


He has a lot of special abilities, but they don't add up to anything useful.

Largely because spells can do the same functions.

Dausuul
2007-09-28, 12:26 PM
He's about as good with combat as the rogue; dealing less damage, but more durable.

Monks deal way less damage than a sneak attacking rogue or a well-built tank. Durability is nice to have, but it doesn't help you do anything. Smart opponents, which includes almost all caster-types, will just target your buddies instead of you. And dumb opponents are usually melee brutes, against whom the fighter is much more durable than you are.

A lot of people build their characters around personal defense. What they fail to realize is that personal defense is pointless if your buddies have substantially less defense than you do. What happens is that you sit there defending yourself (but not doing any damage to speak of) while the monsters slaughter your friends; and then you run away.


You don't need 6 or 8 + int skills to be a skillmonkey. The monk is a lesser skillmonkey than the rogue, but better than non-skillmonkey classes.

No, you really do need 6+Int or 8+Int skills to be a skillmonkey. Given that they need decent scores in Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom, monks are unlikely to have much if any Int bonus. If you have a human monk with Int 12, you can max out six skills total. That'll get you (for instance) Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Listen, Tumble, and Escape Artist, which cover the basics of stealth, perception, and combat. Notice the complete lack of social skills, trapfinding/lockpicking, climbing/swimming, wilderness skills, useful knowledges, Use Magic Device, et cetera--and even if you had the skill points for those, most of them aren't class skills.

That's not a skill monkey.


Largely because spells can do the same functions.

Or very, very cheap magic items. Take Slow Fall, for example. For 2,000 gold pieces, you can get a ring of feather falling that will outperform Slow Fall in every conceivable way. For that matter, you could just buy a rope.

Indon
2007-09-28, 12:32 PM
Monks deal way less damage than a sneak attacking rogue or a well-built tank. Durability is nice to have, but it doesn't help you do anything. Smart opponents, which includes almost all caster-types, will just target your buddies instead of you. And dumb opponents are usually melee brutes, against whom the fighter is much more durable than you are.


Nonoptimized monk damage is pretty comparable with nonoptimized 1-1 Power Attacking. It's only the extremely rapid scaling of 2-1+ PA and TWF Sneak Attack that outstrip him.



No, you really do need 6+Int or +Int skills to be a skillmonkey. Given that they need decent scores in Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom, monks are unlikely to have much if any Int bonus. If you have a human monk with Int 12, you can max out six skills total. That'll get you (for instance) Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Listen, Tumble, and Escape Artist, which cover the basics of stealth, perception, and combat. Notice the complete lack of social skills, trapfinding/lockpicking, climbing/swimming, wilderness skills, useful knowledges, Use Magic Device, et cetera--and even if you had the skill points for those, they're not class skills.

That's not a skill monkey.


You don't have to max out a skill for it to be useful. Tumble is an obvious example of that.



Or very, very cheap magic items. Take Slow Fall, for example. For 2,000 gold pieces, you can get a ring of feather falling that will outperform Slow Fall in every conceivable way. For that matter, you could just buy a rope.

Magic items are based on the spell system, and the price of a magic item is based on the level of the spell it mimics.

Thinker
2007-09-28, 12:41 PM
Nonoptimized monk damage is pretty comparable with nonoptimized 1-1 Power Attacking. It's only the extremely rapid scaling of 2-1+ PA and TWF Sneak Attack that outstrip him.
You could make a better unarmed damage dealing character without any monk levels.


You don't have to max out a skill for it to be useful. Tumble is an obvious example of that.
No, but not having maxed ranks in some skills (like hide and move silently) can be very hazardous for your health.


Magic items are based on the spell system, and the price of a magic item is based on the level of the spell it mimics.
So you're saying that a monk isn't weak compared to comparably optimized characters because there's something wrong with the spell system?

Mr Horse
2007-09-28, 12:43 PM
Now, see, THIS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faFSdlNEgiY&mode=related&search=

is how I think a eastern style monk should be. (don't mind the terrible song btw)

Dausuul
2007-09-28, 12:44 PM
Nonoptimized monk damage is pretty comparable with nonoptimized 1-1 Power Attacking. It's only the extremely rapid scaling of 2-1+ PA and TWF Sneak Attack that outstrip him.

Not really. Fighters and barbarians can afford to specialize in Strength, which the monk cannot. Throw in magic weapons, superior BAB, and weapon specialization/rage, and they still outstrip the monk quite handily.


You don't have to max out a skill for it to be useful. Tumble is an obvious example of that.

But that doesn't make you a skill-monkey. It makes you a guy with some skills that are slightly better than untrained. A skill-monkey needs to have either great breadth or great depth of skills, and the monk can afford neither.


Magic items are based on the spell system, and the price of a magic item is based on the level of the spell it mimics.

And...? Magic items are fundamental to the entire 3E system. I'm willing to concede for the sake of argument that the full casters (wizard, sorceror, cleric, and druid) should be excluded from this debate, since everyone agrees they're too powerful. Excluding all magic items is quite another matter.

Yes, if you strip out Power Attacking fighters, Two-Weapon Fighting rogues, the caster classes, and all magic items, monks become sorta useful. If you take out everything else that grants access to their abilities, their abilities become unique.

And if you got rid of every class except commoner, commoners would be the best class in the game.

Indon
2007-09-28, 12:44 PM
You could make a better unarmed damage dealing character without any monk levels.

Given the same level of optimization, I don't see how. Monks can buy Monk's belts and take Superior Unarmed Attack, as well (and can take Improved Natural Attack in addition).



No, but not having maxed ranks in some skills (like hide and move silently) can be very hazardous for your health.


True, but if someone else in the party has max Listen and Spot, it's not nearly as vital for you.

And if nobody else has that, then that's something you do that nobody else does.



So you're saying that a monk isn't weak compared to comparably optimized characters because there's something wrong with the spell system?

Aren't spellcasting classes considered the most powerful in the game _because_ of the spell system?

Edit: ALso, isn't a major complaint of 3.x character reliance on very powerful magic items?

Edit again: Dausuul, my point was that the Monk would be a good class if spellcasters (and thus, their spells, and the magic items based on spells) were of similar power to non-casting classes. It seems to me you just agreed with your "strip out caster classes" comment.

Morty
2007-09-28, 12:50 PM
Yes, if you strip out Power Attacking fighters, Two-Weapon Fighting rogues, the caster classes, and all magic items, monks become sorta useful. If you take out everything else that grants access to their abilities, their abilities become unique.


Except that lack of magic items hurts monks as well, as it denies them their bracers of armor, amulets of natural armor and stat-boosters to cover up MAD.

Indon
2007-09-28, 12:52 PM
Except that lack of magic items hurts monks as well, as it denies them their bracers of armor, amulets of natural armor and stat-boosters to cover up MAD.

About as much as it 'hurts' everyone else who purchases magical items to improve what they do.

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-28, 12:52 PM
there's something wrong with the spell system?

That kind of goes without saying. :smalltongue:

Morty
2007-09-28, 12:54 PM
About as much as it 'hurts' everyone else who purchases magical items to improve what they do.

Which means that monks are as dependant on magic items as everyone else. So if you strip everyone from magic toys, they won't be able to duplicate mok's abilites, but monk would be preety screwed too.

Indon
2007-09-28, 12:57 PM
Which means that monks are as dependant on magic items as everyone else. So if you strip everyone from magic toys, they won't be able to duplicate mok's abilites, but monk would be preety screwed too.

Is that a matter of poor monk class design, or poor magic item system design?

Morty
2007-09-28, 12:58 PM
Is that a matter of poor monk class design, or poor magic item system design?

Both. Everyone is dependent on magic items in D&D, but monks are also badly designed, because even though they fight unarmed, they still need magical gear. And they're weak overall.

Dausuul
2007-09-28, 01:06 PM
Edit again: Dausuul, my point was that the Monk would be a good class if spellcasters (and thus, their spells, and the magic items based on spells) were of similar power to non-casting classes. It seems to me you just agreed with your "strip out caster classes" comment.

Magic items based on spells do not equal spells.

The caster classes are overpowered not because they have access to spell effects, but because they have access to so many different spell effects, with a huge number of uses per day; and because they can jack their save DCs through the roof by boosting their casting stats, while magic items use the minimum possible.

If magic items were as overpowered as casters, then casters wouldn't be overpowered, because everyone else could buy some magic items and match them.

Indon
2007-09-28, 01:36 PM
Magic items based on spells do not equal spells.


But magic items based on less potent spells would be less potent magic items.

Thinker
2007-09-28, 01:45 PM
Given the same level of optimization, I don't see how. Monks can buy Monk's belts and take Superior Unarmed Attack, as well (and can take Improved Natural Attack in addition).
Its easy. A higher attack bonus means the a full BAB class may PA for more. A higher strength means it can do more damage and is more likely to hit. For a brawler you really only need high strength and con. You don't have to be unarmored, you can freely multiclass, etc. There are PrC's out there with rage requirements (that a former monk can meet) that are really good for a non-monk, but not so good for a monk itself.


True, but if someone else in the party has max Listen and Spot, it's not nearly as vital for you.

And if nobody else has that, then that's something you do that nobody else does.
You don't get to go in the surprise round if any random person in your party noticed the threat. Monks work pretty well as scouts since they can run away from danger better than others, but that just proves their survivability.


Aren't spellcasting classes considered the most powerful in the game _because_ of the spell system?
No one here is using the primary casting classes as the baseline for the discussion. People are using other classes, such as the barbarian, ranger, and bard.


Edit: ALso, isn't a major complaint of 3.x character reliance on very powerful magic items?
It is certainly a complaint, but one that affects all classes equally and thus contributes nothing to the discussion.


Edit again: Dausuul, my point was that the Monk would be a good class if spellcasters (and thus, their spells, and the magic items based on spells) were of similar power to non-casting classes. It seems to me you just agreed with your "strip out caster classes" comment.
What he meant was disregard the caster classes for the purpose of this discussion. Even if monks were ridiculously good at taking down casters its an overspecialization.

Dausuul
2007-09-28, 01:48 PM
But magic items based on less potent spells would be less potent magic items.

Magic items based on less potent spells would be worthless. My point is that, aside from a handful of spells like polymorph, the brokenness of casters does not derive from any intrinsic quality of the spells themselves; it derives from the fact that casters get a zillion spells known, a zillion spells a day, and their save DCs can go insanely high.

Draz74
2007-09-28, 02:04 PM
Simple idea for a monk fix for Core 3E:

- Flurry does not impose a -2 penalty on attack rolls. It doesn't have to, since it's on a Medium-BAB class and already is restricted in terms of weapon choice.

- 6+Int skill points per level. Definitely. (Actually, wait, I could make a case for a full 8+Int skill points per level. Int being their natural dump stat and all.)

- Increase the AC bonus. Should start at +1, and increase by another +1 for every 3 Monk levels, for a maximum of +7 (+Wis) at 18th level.

- At 5th level, when Flurry's penalty would normally be reduced by 1, give them "Quick Flurry:" Flurry is no longer restricted to a Full Attack action. Anytime they attack as a standard action (or a Spring Attack attack), they can add a second attack with Flurry. (Optionally, this second attack could be restricted to an unarmed strike, like the Snap Kick feat.)

- At 11th level, when the remaining Flurry penalty would disappear, ignore that. They still get an additional attack while Flurrying starting at 11th level. (Not sure whether this third attack should work with Quick Flurry as described above.)

- Instead of gaining DR 10/magic at 20th level, give it to them gradually: their DR x/magic increases by 1 for every 2 Monk levels. Yeah, this makes their capstone ability lame, but that's why this is a "simple" monk fix. :smalltongue: At least the DR might actually be useful at levels, say, 2-6, before every monster or NPC starts being able to penetrate it.

- SR is actually one of the cooler abilities monks get at higher levels. Improve it to Monk Level +15 so that it actually scares casters if they don't have Assay Spell Resistance.

- Quivering Palm can be used a number of times per day equal to the Monk's Wisdom bonus (minimum 1).

None of this will make the Monk an uber class. But it would sure help. I'd play a Monk with these rules. :smallamused:

Svethnika
2007-09-28, 02:08 PM
Draz74: It looks nice.

Indon
2007-09-28, 02:08 PM
Its easy. A higher attack bonus means the a full BAB class may PA for more. A higher strength means it can do more damage and is more likely to hit. For a brawler you really only need high strength and con. You don't have to be unarmored, you can freely multiclass, etc. There are PrC's out there with rage requirements (that a former monk can meet) that are really good for a non-monk, but not so good for a monk itself.


They'd still need to multiclass with monk or else they're PA'ing with a light weapon.



You don't get to go in the surprise round if any random person in your party noticed the threat. Monks work pretty well as scouts since they can run away from danger better than others, but that just proves their survivability.

The surprise round only gives you one standard action. And Monks working well in a party role proves their potential for usefulness.



No one here is using the primary casting classes as the baseline for the discussion. People are using other classes, such as the barbarian, ranger, and bard.


But you largely need spellcasting to obsolete the monk's special abilities, and this was even cited against the monk earlier.



It is certainly a complaint, but one that affects all classes equally and thus contributes nothing to the discussion.


It's in response to the claim that monk special abilities being duplicated by items makes them ineffective; magical items are tied to spells, which have a variety of potent effects very early (and thus, inexpensively for magical items).



What he meant was disregard the caster classes for the purpose of this discussion. Even if monks were ridiculously good at taking down casters its an overspecialization.

No, what he meant was that without caster classes, monks could contribute. That's pretty easily extrapolatable to monks still being able to contribute if spellcasting classes were at the same level of power/utility as nonspellcasting classes.

And Dausuul; Individual (utility) spells are often comparable to entire class features, not just the monk's.

And...


Magic items based on less potent spells would be worthless.

Is self-evidently false, unless you mean in comparison to magic items based on _more_ potent spells.

Indon
2007-09-28, 02:13 PM
None of this will make the Monk an uber class. But it would sure help. I'd play a Monk with these rules. :smallamused:

Personally, my buffed monk would:

-Gain full BAB.

-Gain 6+Int skill points.

-Gain the ability to multiclass freely at 5'th level, and lose the lawful requirement at 9'th (I think).

-Retain their offensive abilities with the use of armor; a monk would lose only features like Evasion and Wisdom to AC when wearing armor.

-Gain the ability to use their unarmed attack as if it were a 2-handed attack (to include when flurrying), probably at 7'th level.

Dausuul
2007-09-28, 02:27 PM
Here is my first cut at fixing the monk:

Skills increase to 6/level.

Level 1: Ki Attack. A monk can add her Wisdom modifier instead of Strength to her unarmed attack damage.
Level 3: Remove Still Mind. Instead, grant Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat.
Level 4: Change Ki Strike to let a monk's unarmed attacks bypass all damage reduction.
Level 7: Remove Wholeness of Body. Instead, grant Wire Fu (30 feet). Once per round, the monk can air walk for 30 feet as part of her normal movement.
Level 10: Remove Ki Strike (Lawful). Instead, grant Wire Fu (60 feet).
Level 12: Remove Abundant Step; instead, gain Diamond Soul one level earlier.
Level 13: Grant Wire Fu (unlimited).
Level 16: Remove Ki Strike (Adamantine).

(Okay, it doesn't actually have to be called Wire Fu. Call it Walk on the Wind or something. I just find the term "Wire Fu" unreasonably amusing.)


No, what he meant was that without caster classes, monks could contribute. That's pretty easily extrapolatable to monks still being able to contribute if spellcasting classes were at the same level of power/utility as nonspellcasting classes.

No, what I meant was that I'm not using caster classes as a baseline for measuring whether the monk is overpowered or not. Magic items based on spells, which are available to everyone and are far less powerful, are a whole different matter.

Mr Horse
2007-09-28, 02:38 PM
high level and epic monks should be able to make people's heads explode.
monsters' too.


clerics can cast destruction. wizards can cast power word: kill.
monks should be able to punch someone in the head and make them explode.



yes.

Yakk
2007-09-28, 02:45 PM
Monks already need Strength, Dexterity and Wisdom.

For the Monk to have a decent number of skillpoints, they need Intelligence.

How MAD are you at the Monk? :)

...

Some small possible tweaks:
1> Full BaB, Flurry of Blows costs -1 to hit at all levels (instead of -2 at the start scaling down to -0).

2> Damage from Flurry of Blows blows is resisted by DR once.

3> During or Before or After a Full Attack action, a Monk can move her Bonus Movement.

4> Wall Running: The monk may move up to her slow fall distance along or down a wall during her turn as if she was on a stable surface. She can also run up a wall, but that costs twice as much movement and slow fall distance. At the end of her turn, she must be on a surface she can balance on. This movement is not free, it must be paid for via other movement.

5> Perfection of Body and Mind:
At L 5, 10, 15 and 20, the Monk gains a +1 to all of her stats.

Indon
2007-09-28, 03:05 PM
No, what I meant was that I'm not using caster classes as a baseline for measuring whether the monk is overpowered or not. Magic items based on spells, which are available to everyone and are far less powerful, are a whole different matter.

I haven't been talking about if the monk is underpowered; in 3.x the monk is clearly less powerful than many other classes. I'm positing why the monk would be considered that way.

Specifically, variety of utility spells that replicate Monk class features (and thus, magical items based on those spells), and caster utility/power keeping the Monk from performing an anti-caster role effectively, which impact the monk's generalization and specialization respectively.

Techonce
2007-09-28, 03:16 PM
If you ignored alignment restrictions would a barbarian monk be a good mix?

See Pit fighter from City Works.

Rages like a barbarian, uses hands like a monk.

They don't rage as well as a barbarian and their unarmed damage is less than a monk.

ONe of my players is playing one. It works well.

SurlySeraph
2007-09-28, 05:55 PM
Although having 8 attacks per round is entertaining, it is not as useful as it might appear.

Try Monk 11/ Rogue 7/ Assassin 1/ (any other PrC with Sneak Attack Progression) 1.


Now, see, THIS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faFSdlNEgiY&mode=related&search=

is how I think a eastern style monk should be. (don't mind the terrible song btw)

Yes. Also, that's a great song, you blasphemer. :smalltongue:

Xuincherguixe
2007-09-28, 11:55 PM
Probably more trouble than it's worth, and likely not going to do that much but how about giving Monks partial spellcasting like Paladins or Rangers?

triforcel
2007-09-29, 12:43 AM
I never understand why so many people keep complaining that the base classes are either too powerful or not powerful enough, and that everything needs to be "fixed".

Despite what you may think, a lot of work goes into every edition of D&D. No doubt the most effort goes into making sure that all the classes are balanced. If you think that they're not then you're probably not looking at them properly.

Reel On, Love
2007-09-29, 01:04 AM
I never understand why so many people keep complaining that the base classes are either too powerful or not powerful enough, and that everything needs to be "fixed".

Despite what you may think, a lot of work goes into every edition of D&D. No doubt the most effort goes into making sure that all the classes are balanced. If you think that they're not then you're probably not looking at them properly.

You're kidding, right?! If you think they ARE, then you must be stabbing yourself in the eyes. No, the classes are *not* balanced. I don't know how much effort they put into it, but it obviously wasn't enough. For the most glaring difference, compare what a Samurai (Complete Warrior) does each combat with what a Druid does each combat.

Kaelik
2007-09-29, 01:08 AM
I never understand why so many people keep complaining that the base classes are either too powerful or not powerful enough, and that everything needs to be "fixed".

Despite what you may think, a lot of work goes into every edition of D&D. No doubt the most effort goes into making sure that all the classes are balanced. If you think that they're not then you're probably not looking at them properly.

That's an incredibly silly thing to say. Lots of work goes into creating every MMORPG on the market, but every single one of them has tons of patches to correct obvious imbalance that the designers missed.

D&D gets much more play testing from gamers around the world then it could ever get at WotC. The simple fact is that the D&D world has united to discover that Spellcasting>everything else. Even WotC has agreed when they made ToB. Trust us, saying that things are imbalanced because "we aren't looking at it right" is like saying that a dagger is better then a submachine gun because it won't run out of bullets.

Artemician
2007-09-29, 01:13 AM
I never understand why so many people keep complaining that the base classes are either too powerful or not powerful enough, and that everything needs to be "fixed".

Despite what you may think, a lot of work goes into every edition of D&D. No doubt the most effort goes into making sure that all the classes are balanced. If you think that they're not then you're probably not looking at them properly.

This is a.. fallacious argument. I'll leave it at that.





Or maybe I won't. If you spend 10 days painstakingly crafting a horribly messy and ugly piece of art, regardless of how much effort you put into it, it is still a messy and ugly piece of art. People don't judge how good a product is by how it comes about, but rather what it is.

How much effort WotC put into class balance is a moot point, because the end result is that the classes are still unbalanced.

Xuincherguixe
2007-09-29, 01:33 AM
The classes aren't balanced, but how much this matters varies from game to game.

Hectonkhyres
2007-09-29, 02:07 AM
Some of the fancier monk tricks should be treated like the special abilities rogues get after level 10.

I don't particularly think going ethereal, being able to talk with garden snails, and magically implanting a remote-detonated bomb in somebody's chest is something I want to pay for... and yet I have little choice. I'm paying for a product I don't want.

As you advance, you should be able to pick how you want to supercharge your monk.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-29, 02:13 AM
The classes aren't balanced, but how much this matters varies from game to game.
That's right on.


The game is not balanced.
Until everything is a replication of the same class with different fluff involved (I am not referring to the ToB*), balance will not exist because the game is being made and played by fallible human beings.
You can not reasonably expect any two seperate entities in a gaming system (or a sport or a videogame or any other sort of competition) to be equal unless they are identical.


*I honestly do not intend to give a sarcastic tone with statement.

woc33
2007-09-29, 03:33 AM
The way i see to fix the monk is to combine it with the Ninja class (CAd), which is also concidered underpowered. gestalting ninja/monk would actually make it a balanced non-gestalt class.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-29, 04:54 AM
Despite what you may think, a lot of work goes into every edition of D&D. No doubt the most effort goes into making sure that all the classes are balanced. If you think that they're not then you're probably not looking at them properly.

We've seen playtest reports where WOTC's testers assumed that everybody would be playing a wizard as a blaster, and a cleric as a healbot. Now one might argue that everybody who does not play in the exact same manner as the 3rd ed playtesters is "not looking at them properly", but it might be more reasonable to assume that if WOTC only tested things for one particular configuration, then they haven't tested things enough.

Aside from that, "making sure that all the classes are balanced" is, despite your claim, hardly the top priority.

Hecore
2007-09-29, 04:54 AM
Some of the fancier monk tricks should be treated like the special abilities rogues get after level 10.

I don't particularly think going ethereal, being able to talk with garden snails, and magically implanting a remote-detonated bomb in somebody's chest is something I want to pay for... and yet I have little choice. I'm paying for a product I don't want.

As you advance, you should be able to pick how you want to supercharge your monk.

I really like this idea and want to expand upon it a little.

At 10th level a Monk begins specialized training that grants them mastery over the elementals. They can either follow the path of Nature, Flame, Stone, Iron, or Rain.

Each path would give a handful of special themed abilities that work well on the fluff level and would allow the player to have more input on what their Monk can do.

Draz74
2007-09-29, 11:13 AM
Yeah, ideally a re-worked Monk would have some of his abilities (Ki strike) progress sooner ... and have more customizable "talent tree" type abilities instead of having to get certain abilities (etherealness, Tongue of Sun and Moon ...) But hey, my solution was a "quick" fix.


Personally, my buffed monk would:
-Gain full BAB.

Strangely enough, I'm actually against this. Somehow it doesn't jive with my mental image of the monk ... I'd rather make the monk an effective combatant without giving full BAB.


-Gain the ability to multiclass freely at 5'th level, and lose the lawful requirement at 9'th (I think).

Oh yeah, hmmm, I forgot about these restrictions. Yeah, definitely get rid of the multiclassing restriction (for Paladins too). I meant to put that in my fix. As for the lawful requirement ... if you're using the standard Alignment system, I say keep it. If you're using a looser alignment system, then this should go bye-bye along with most other alignment restrictions.


-Retain their offensive abilities with the use of armor; a monk would lose only features like Evasion and Wisdom to AC when wearing armor.

Sure, why not.


-Gain the ability to use their unarmed attack as if it were a 2-handed attack (to include when flurrying), probably at 7'th level.

Why? Just so you get more Strength-based damage from it? Or are you intending for Monks to start using Power Attack? Because I don't think that's quite their style (their unarmed damage progression already represents hitting harder in a sort of Power Attack-like way). And if it was just so they could add 1.5 Strength to damage ... if it comes down to that, I'd rather give them the ability to add Wis to damage instead.

Indon
2007-09-29, 11:15 AM
Some of the fancier monk tricks should be treated like the special abilities rogues get after level 10.

I don't particularly think going ethereal, being able to talk with garden snails, and magically implanting a remote-detonated bomb in somebody's chest is something I want to pay for... and yet I have little choice. I'm paying for a product I don't want.

As you advance, you should be able to pick how you want to supercharge your monk.

Yeah, that'd be nice. Just have a big laundry-list of special abilities monks could develop, and let you pick freely among them.

Indon
2007-09-29, 11:25 AM
Oh yeah, hmmm, I forgot about these restrictions. Yeah, definitely get rid of the multiclassing restriction (for Paladins too). I meant to put that in my fix. As for the lawful requirement ... if you're using the standard Alignment system, I say keep it. If you're using a looser alignment system, then this should go bye-bye along with most other alignment restrictions.


Well, the way I flavor it, the monk's restrictions go away gradually as they advance upon their path to spiritual ascendance; they realize that such things as alignment are no longer neccessary for the path.



Why? Just so you get more Strength-based damage from it? Or are you intending for Monks to start using Power Attack? Because I don't think that's quite their style (their unarmed damage progression already represents hitting harder in a sort of Power Attack-like way). And if it was just so they could add 1.5 Strength to damage ... if it comes down to that, I'd rather give them the ability to add Wis to damage instead.

It's more than power attack. Using a 2-handed weapon gives you a bonus to Disarm and Sunder attempts. (Edit: Maybe trip too, but I don't remember)

My change is primarily for those who don't think the monk is good at combat, but want to retain the flavor. It also introduces a bit of variety by allowing you to multiclass, have (probably lightly) armored monks, or monks who effectively focus on strength.

triforcel
2007-09-29, 01:08 PM
Well, the way I flavor it, the monk's restrictions go away gradually as they advance upon their path to spiritual ascendance; they realize that such things as alignment are no longer neccessary for the path.

I'm probably just going to be told I'm flat out wrong again, but I don't think you get the point of the monk's restrictions.

The monk walks a path that leads to a point where he can deal more damage than any weapon sized for his species with his bare hands, he gains immunity to all poisons and most diseases, his body ceases to age, he gains the ability to speak with everything that lives, and the list goes one. Furthermore the monk gains all this not with the direct aid of a diety or tapping into arcane forces, but through rigorous training and endless reflection on all topics.

The path a monk walks requires immense discipline. Discipline is characteristic of the lawful alignment. Does it make sense now?

Reel On, Love
2007-09-29, 01:26 PM
The path a monk walks requires immense discipline. Discipline is characteristic of the lawful alignment. Does it make sense now?

Except... no, it's not! You think wizardry doesn't take discipline? You think Chaotic characters don't have things or causes they can devote themselves to with ironclad will? Lawful/Chaotic has nothing to do with it.

Lord Tataraus
2007-09-29, 01:32 PM
Except... no, it's not! You think wizardry doesn't take discipline? You think Chaotic characters don't have things or causes they can devote themselves to with ironclad will? Lawful/Chaotic has nothing to do with it.

I disagree. Yes, wizardry takes discipline, but not that much. A Chaotic character can have discipline but not the intense discipline that a monk requires. That requires unwavering discipline and stubborness that exemplifies the lawful alignment. I have never allowed non-lawful monks.

Indon
2007-09-29, 01:58 PM
The path a monk walks requires immense discipline. Discipline is characteristic of the lawful alignment. Does it make sense now?

At the beginning, certainly it requires discipline. But as the Monk advances, strength of spirit becomes more vital than discipline, until the Monk realizes that he has internalized all the discipline he needs; from then on, it is determination which carries his advancement forward.

Really, either way is a viable flavoring for the Monk; my way is really just a justification for a mechanical change.

Reel On, Love
2007-09-29, 02:41 PM
I disagree. Yes, wizardry takes discipline, but not that much.
Okay. Making the laws of physics sit down and shut up doesn't take a lot of discipline. I'm sure most wizards party all the time instead of, y'know, devoting themselves to the Art.


A Chaotic character can have discipline but not the intense discipline that a monk requires. That requires unwavering discipline and stubborness that exemplifies the lawful alignment. I have never allowed non-lawful monks.
Unwavering discipline and stubbornness is a personality trait. It's not an alignment trait.

I mean, c'mon. So my monk believes in stealing from the rich to give to the poor, that Chaos is the best force in the universe, resents governments making lots of laws, believes in freedom as a prime good and adaptability as a prime virtue...
...but he approaches his kung fu with discipline. So therefore he's lawful, no matter what. Because someone who doesn't like following other people's rules and does things his own way? They can never have hardcore discipline.

God, I wish there was an eyeroll smiley.

Arakune
2007-09-29, 03:24 PM
Now, see, THIS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faFSdlNEgiY&mode=related&search=

is how I think a eastern style monk should be. (don't mind the terrible song btw)

QFT, also it's one of the manga that inspired many of the current fighting genre manga and games.

I DEMAND! a 'monk' class that much bad ass!

Zincorium
2007-09-29, 07:39 PM
The classes aren't balanced, but how much this matters varies from game to game.

Very true, but what would be nice is a bit of transparency as far as that goes, to where if a DM doesn't want whatever the next CoDzilla turns out to be smashing his campaign to pieces, he has the option to prepare for that and make houserules as neccessary.

triforcel
2007-09-29, 08:15 PM
At the beginning, certainly it requires discipline. But as the Monk advances, strength of spirit becomes more vital than discipline, until the Monk realizes that he has internalized all the discipline he needs; from then on, it is determination which carries his advancement forward.

Really, either way is a viable flavoring for the Monk; my way is really just a justification for a mechanical change.

I know that it probably makes sense to you, but that's not how it works. The need for discipline never goes away. It's comparable to trying to be flexible in real life. To increase your flexibility you need to stretch every day or close to it. But once you reach the point you wanted and you just stop your going to start losing all you worked for and more.


Unwavering discipline and stubbornness is a personality trait. It's not an alignment trait.

It might be a personality trait, but it's not one you find outside of the lawful alignment.


I mean, c'mon. So my monk believes in stealing from the rich to give to the poor, that Chaos is the best force in the universe, resents governments making lots of laws, believes in freedom as a prime good and adaptability as a prime virtue...
...but he approaches his kung fu with discipline. So therefore he's lawful, no matter what. Because someone who doesn't like following other people's rules and does things his own way? They can never have hardcore discipline.

Lawful never meant following the rules of others no matter what. A cleric of Heironeous isn't going to follow laws that are contrary to the churches mandates. But someone who believes that chaos is the best force in the universe is not going to have the discipline needed to really be a monk. So it sounds like you need to rethink your character's alignment and class choices.

bugsysservant
2007-09-29, 10:31 PM
Okay. Making the laws of physics sit down and shut up doesn't take a lot of discipline. I'm sure most wizards party all the time instead of, y'know, devoting themselves to the Art.


Unwavering discipline and stubbornness is a personality trait. It's not an alignment trait.

Let's see...from the SRD-

"Law" implies...obedience to authority... reactionary adherence to tradition"


"Chaos" implies...freedom...resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully"

Master Monk Sensei: Apprentice, did you sweep the monastary's barracks's like I asked in order to teach you the value of manual labor?
Apprentice: No, I valued unfettered personal freedom too much to do that.
Master Monk Sensei: Well that's reasonable, it's not like we're lawful or anything.

:eyerollsmiley:

And as for the iron hard discipline of wizards, what of the magic quill which scribes scrolls for you, even in the item description it said that it was basically used so wizards could get drunk while keeping up with his arcane work. Or unseen servant, or the old Quimby's enchanting gourmet to do their work for them. Come on, they even have spells to clean themselves! We aren't talking about a highly disciplined class. Hell, the stereotypical wizard is an elf, a generally chaotic race.

Monks on the other hands are spawned by monasteries, where they are forced to obey the orders of the highly structured heirarchy. It is practically impossible to imagine a monk that arose from a chaotic setting. While I am generally opposed to alignment restrictions, for the fluff of the monk, you really do need it.

Ozymandias
2007-09-29, 11:18 PM
The problem with the monk (aside from its clear weakness) is that it's not generic enough; there are myriad different types of wizard, fighter, rogue, whatever, but monks come from monasteries, and they're lawful, dammit. They're shoe-horned into this 'far east' shaolin pastiche thing. While this is true, to a lesser extent, of several other core classes (druid, ranger, barbarian), those feel more like archetypes, while the monk is really more of a stereotype.

Admittedly, Rangers appear to be based largely off of Aragorn, Barbarians are obviously similar to Conan the, and druids are, well, a nature-based cleric variant (that does not closely resemble real druids). Either way, they are all close to an established 'generic' class (fighter/rogue, fighter, cleric), while the monk feels more like someone watched a bunch of wuxia movies and said "Hey, you know what would be really sweet? Combining every single protagonist of all those films together!". They don't fit at all; they seem more like a campaign specific class with a specific monastery that teaches all of the very specific abilities a monk learns; otherwise, just make a swordsage or something.

They clearly don't have a party role, but I'd argue that the fluff role they have is also negligible - a lawful neutral young boy trained by a bunch of old men in a monastery to be able to beat the bejeezus out of things with his hands can just as easily be a fighter or a ToB class - the title 'monk' should be the same as 'earl' or 'knight' (for non-Knights, of course). Although I guess a swordsage, unlike a monk, can't talk to turtles via his strict self-discipline, or whatever justification is given for the alignment restriction.

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-30, 12:09 AM
Given the arguments about/against alignment, I would say to drop it altogether. Lawfulness may imply discipline, but it strikes me that a Chaotic individual generally values the "individual" more than a group, and as such, self-enlightenment is a perfectly valid path to follow.

Hectonkhyres
2007-09-30, 01:30 AM
Lawful monestary monk-factories may crank out legions of equally lawfull students, but that doesn't always have to be the background story. Full fledged monks occasionally leave the confines of the monestary due to some form of conflict and they may eventually take an apprentice themselves. A chaotic monk will probably teach a chaotic student, fostering strength without binding him to dogma. If he can't think outside of the box, it earns him a brutal slap upside the head.

Think Bruce Lee. His singular philosophy was, to quote him, 'No way as way and no limitation as limitation.' Chaotic good without a doubt.

Sir Giacomo
2007-09-30, 12:44 PM
Summary of the 5 most common monk myths on these boards:


Myth 1): "Monks are so weak, they need to be fixed"

No. They do not need to be fixed. They do exactly what they are supposed to do (typical niches: unarmed combat, special abilities of which most cannot be dispelled, anti-spellcaster). On top of that, you can customise them with the existing rules to do whatevery strikes your fancy. With good skill points and plentiful magic items out there, you can pull numerous amazing stunts.
OF COURSE you can houserule the monk to do other stuff you like more (say, a full BAB monk, or one with the spring attack feat for free, but with less special abilities), but it is not necessary by the rules to keep the game "balanced". Any experienced DM can keep the game balanced in levels 1-10, regardless of the classes. It gets complicated for ALL classes due to magic (spells or items) at higher levels. Complicated, but again not unbalanced by default.


Myth 2): "But monks suffer from MAD" or "ALL monks need to have high STR and WIS to work at all".

No. They make use of all stats (STR, WIS, DEX..etc) like all classes. They can use whatever they like from their class abilities with all their stats at 8 (which spellusers, btw, cannot do). Maybe some feats they wish to take would require some minimum stat. And high WIS is nice to make use of the AC bonus.
You can have monks that put their 2 highest stats in DEX/WIS, STR/CON, CHR/INT, INT/WIS, whatever...


Myth 3) "Monks are a melee oriented class"

No. You can make them to be so, but nothing prohibits you to somehow maximise the possiblities of flurrying shuriken with two-weapon fighting and have plenty of attacks with poisoned shuriken etc. (or, make use of your immunity to disease by throwing around infected shuriken and wait for a day to weaken your enemies. Have fun).
Of course, due to some aspects like having unarmed strike, taking deflect arrows, having great move, you could use your level feats ot specialise in composite longbow archery.
And the fact that monks early on have medium hps, lower AC than the tanking babarian/paladin/fighter should teach you that the monk is meant to specialise in special effects on the battlefield IF he goes melee at all. I mean, comeon, the monk is supposed to be lawful and wise- not some crazy idiot wading into melee whenever the opportunity presents itself. A monk will shine when he manages to AVOID melee combat.


Myth 4) "Monks need more magic items to actually shine"

No. Actually, with a lot of special abilities that replicate useful items (dimdoor, healing, enhanced movement. 3 good saves etc.) you need LESS items than the others. Heck, you do not even need none of the expensive metamagic rods or weapons or armour that other classes use, so you could spend some stuff on nice rings and wondrous items.


Myth 5) "Monks raising UMD to get some spellcasting items actually show that their class is useless without magic that casters get daily."

No. There are some awfully effective tricks that monks can do with spells that no other class can do better, INCLUDING spellcasters. Here are two:
1) Antimagic field (available lvl 11&up). This is awesome, since the monk retains his great mobility and skills. Very few spellcasters actually ever will use AMF, and also some non-spellcasters will hesitate, because their magic weapons no longer work. But the monk? His movement enhancement, for instance, is an extraorinary ability. Put up the AMF, charge those 180ft up to that spelluser from hiding (outside his true seeing) and win...
2) Polymorph (available lvl 7&up). Now this is truly awesome for the monk, since he retains all his kung fu while in, say, cloaker or pixie form (hast fly plus monk enhancement speed, for instance) or whatever. Have fun. The monk can even with +19 UMD use some wands to do the trick himself if no party member is around...

Repent, o monk disbelievers....:smallbiggrin:

- Giacomo

Adumbration
2007-09-30, 12:58 PM
In my opinion a monk should be a warrior who starts every battle with fists and finishes it with the weapons of his enemies, throwing, skewering and bashing.

Oh, and let's not forget about improvised weaponry. Nothing kills a werecreature than a well aimed boulder, especially when lacking in silver department.

Reel On, Love
2007-09-30, 01:22 PM
Summary of the 5 most common monk myths on these boards:


Myth 1): "Monks are so weak, they need to be fixed"

No. They do not need to be fixed. They do exactly what they are supposed to do (typical niches: unarmed combat, special abilities of which most cannot be dispelled, anti-spellcaster). On top of that, you can customise them with the existing rules to do whatevery strikes your fancy. With good skill points and plentiful magic items out there, you can pull numerous amazing stunts.
OF COURSE you can houserule the monk to do other stuff you like more (say, a full BAB monk, or one with the spring attack feat for free, but with less special abilities), but it is not necessary by the rules to keep the game "balanced". Any experienced DM can keep the game balanced in levels 1-10, regardless of the classes. It gets complicated for ALL classes due to magic (spells or items) at higher levels. Complicated, but again not unbalanced by default.
You're wrong. Monks suck at levels 1-10 just like they do at higher levels.
They have crappy skill points (4+INT isn't enough given how many skills they want, especially since they dump INT).

The DM can't do much. There's no real way of tailoring encounters so the monk will shine, beyond situations where someone needs to run really fast.

"Unarmed combat" isn't a niche--besides which, monks suck at it: they use their fists better than other classes, but they suck at *combat* in general.
"Special abilities which can't be dispelled" aren't a niche... because those abilities suck. Woooo, slow fall! Ki strike (magic)! Speed, which is useless most of the time! Wholeness of Body, a miniscule amount of healing!

At level 1, what's your monk's AC? 14, 15? And his attack bonus is... what?
At level 10, a fighter/barbarian can actually contribute in melee, the cleric has Quickened Divine Favor + Divine Power, the druid's a druid, and the wizard's got Overland Flight, Greater Invisibility (which he's made a bunch of scrolls of), and his usual tricks. The monk... still can't do anything. He can run up, flurry, and get squished in exchange. He can flurry with shuriken, which is useless.


Myth 2): "But monks suffer from MAD" or "ALL monks need to have high STR and WIS to work at all".

No. They make use of all stats (STR, WIS, DEX..etc) like all classes. They can use whatever they like from their class abilities with all their stats at 8 (which spellusers, btw, cannot do). Maybe some feats they wish to take would require some minimum stat. And high WIS is nice to make use of the AC bonus.
You can have monks that put their 2 highest stats in DEX/WIS, STR/CON, CHR/INT, INT/WIS, whatever...[/quote]
Are you really trying this:?
Monks are *more* reliant on WIS and DEX than armored melee characters and they're *more* reliant on STR and WIS than finesse melee characters. And they need a higher INT, too, so they can actually use some of their skills. And they have a lower hit die, so they'd *like* more CON, too.



Myth 3) "Monks are a melee oriented class"

No. You can make them to be so, but nothing prohibits you to somehow maximise the possiblities of flurrying shuriken with two-weapon fighting and have plenty of attacks with poisoned shuriken etc. (or, make use of your immunity to disease by throwing around infected shuriken and wait for a day to weaken your enemies. Have fun).
Of course, due to some aspects like having unarmed strike, taking deflect arrows, having great move, you could use your level feats ot specialise in composite longbow archery.
And the fact that monks early on have medium hps, lower AC than the tanking babarian/paladin/fighter should teach you that the monk is meant to specialise in special effects on the battlefield IF he goes melee at all. I mean, comeon, the monk is supposed to be lawful and wise- not some crazy idiot wading into melee whenever the opportunity presents itself. A monk will shine when he manages to AVOID melee combat.
A monk will shine when he manages to avoid melee combat...
...except that melee combat is what he's SUPPOSED TO DO. That's why he has the unarmed combat and flurry of blows and the Ki strikes and Stunning Fist.
What's more, the suggestions you give, well, suck. Throwing shuriken?! The damage on them is miniscule. Poison use? Yeah, except you risk poisoning yourself, poison is expensive, and what's more, poison sucks. Everything except the stuff that costs thousands a dose (when can you afford that, exactly?) has a tiny DC (against the strongest save) with a small effect (and, oh, yeah, the effect only kicks in once during combat). "Diseased shuriken" aren't even possible.
Specializing in the bow wastes your speed on top of wasting your unarmed combat, as archers want to be stationary and use Rapid Shot. What's more, you have 3/4 BAB, no bonus damage, and a pretty low STR. You don't make a good archer.

The monk's "special effects on the battlefield" are limited to tripping (which they totally suck at, given that they can't afford a high strength--the fighter does it way better), grappling (again, low strength, most monsters will easily outgrapple you; highly situational), disarming (you *really* suck at this, and it's generally useless to boot), and Stunning Fist... which is sharply limited in uses/day and has a fort save (which won't be very high, unless you're cranking WIS... which costs you everything else). Being able to do something useful on rare occasions? It doesn't make a class worthwhile.



Myth 4) "Monks need more magic items to actually shine"

No. Actually, with a lot of special abilities that replicate useful items (dimdoor, healing, enhanced movement. 3 good saves etc.) you need LESS items than the others. Heck, you do not even need none of the expensive metamagic rods or weapons or armour that other classes use, so you could spend some stuff on nice rings and wondrous items.[/quote]
Except that's as true as it's always been. "Dimension door 1/day" doesn't mean you don't need boots of teleport. "Enhanced movement" doesn't mean you don't want boots of speed for the extra attack. "3 good saves" doesn't mean you don't want a Cloak of Resistance.
You need more items: you need a very expensive Amulet of Natural Armor, you need MORE AC boosters, you need MORE stat boosters.

And apparently, you're bleeding cash by the truckload as you buy a Salve of Slipperiness and some scrolls and a box of poison every day, too.

Myth 5) "Monks raising UMD to get some spellcasting items actually show that their class is useless without magic that casters get daily."

No. There are some awfully effective tricks that monks can do with spells that no other class can do better, INCLUDING spellcasters. Here are two:
1) Antimagic field (available lvl 11&up). This is awesome, since the monk retains his great mobility and skills. Very few spellcasters actually ever will use AMF, and also some non-spellcasters will hesitate, because their magic weapons no longer work. But the monk? His movement enhancement, for instance, is an extraorinary ability. Put up the AMF, charge those 180ft up to that spelluser from hiding (outside his true seeing) and win...[/quote]
Antimagic field: not only does the monk have to make the huge UMD check, it's a crappy idea. The spellcaster's flying, and 95% of monsters will kill you *more* easily in an AMF. What's more, that involves *raising UMD*. At level 11, a monk--using skill points he needs for something else--will have *seven ranks*. And now he needs CHA, too. Okay, he has 12 CHA, a +2 cloak, a Circlet of Persuasion. He even wasted a feat on Skill Focus. Now he has a +15 UMD check. The DC on an AMF scroll? It's 31. Good luck whipping that out during combat. And look at how MAD that makes him (he needs CHA, too), and how he needs magic items for it. Wait, I thought monks weren't MAD and didn't need magic items as much?
A barbarian would do just as well with an AMF 90% of the time, since he can actually rage and fight inside it. You? You're a monk.

But then, I guess you assume all encounters take place against enemies who don't know you're there and are just sitting in the middle of a field.

You want to see good use of an AMF? An Eldritch Knight with the Archmage's Mastery of Shaping used to exclude himself and all of his buffs up.



2) Polymorph (available lvl 7&up). Now this is truly awesome for the monk, since he retains all his kung fu while in, say, cloaker or pixie form (hast fly plus monk enhancement speed, for instance) or whatever. Have fun. The monk can even with +19 UMD use some wands to do the trick himself if no party member is around...

Repent, o monk disbelievers....:smallbiggrin:

- Giacomo
Polymorph. Is. Broken. It's not an argument in favor of anything.
And it benefits the melee types more than it does you, anyway, since they suddenly become horrific melee monsters whereas you become okay at it. And, of course, it benefits Clerics even more.

What's more, monks get no UMD-related abilities. And they have CHA as a dump stat. If you're relying on UMD, maybe you should be a rogue.


Face it--monks suck. You can desperately try to compensate for their weaknesses with cheese, you can pull out oddball tactics (Blind-fight and an oh-so-fragile evermoking bottle, hurr!) that would be useless--actually, detrimental--in an adventuring party.


Face it, monks suck. You've yet to give any reasons why they don't suck--anything you've listed either doesn't help them much, has nothing to do with them, is flat-out false (no MAD, suuuuure), or just isn't worthwhile in the five rounds a fight lasts. Compare what they bring to the table with what a barbarian brings to the table. Or even a ranger.

The things you say are mostly true of a Warlock, besides AMF/polymorph (the Warlock has different uses for UMD, and is actually GOOD at it). They're not true of a Monk.

Zincorium
2007-09-30, 01:25 PM
Summary of the 5 most common monk myths on these boards:


Myth 1): "Monks are so weak, they need to be fixed"

No. They do not need to be fixed. They do exactly what they are supposed to do (typical niches: unarmed combat, special abilities of which most cannot be dispelled, anti-spellcaster). On top of that, you can customise them with the existing rules to do whatevery strikes your fancy. With good skill points and plentiful magic items out there, you can pull numerous amazing stunts.
OF COURSE you can houserule the monk to do other stuff you like more (say, a full BAB monk, or one with the spring attack feat for free, but with less special abilities), but it is not necessary by the rules to keep the game "balanced". Any experienced DM can keep the game balanced in levels 1-10, regardless of the classes. It gets complicated for ALL classes due to magic (spells or items) at higher levels. Complicated, but again not unbalanced by default.


The DM can keep anything balanced, but that doesn't mean the rules should force him to 90% of the time when simply changing the rules once would fix the problem once and for all.

They don't do combat as well as other combat classes, and they should be equal if that's all they can do (and it pretty much is).



Myth 2): "But monks suffer from MAD" or "ALL monks need to have high STR and WIS to work at all".

No. They make use of all stats (STR, WIS, DEX..etc) like all classes. They can use whatever they like from their class abilities with all their stats at 8 (which spellusers, btw, cannot do). Maybe some feats they wish to take would require some minimum stat. And high WIS is nice to make use of the AC bonus.
You can have monks that put their 2 highest stats in DEX/WIS, STR/CON, CHR/INT, INT/WIS, whatever...


A monk that does not have high strength cannot do much damage in combat, cannot disarm, cannot trip, cannot grapple, and to put it plainly, is just taking up space. And taking up space does not require a monk.

A monk with low dexterity and/or low wisdom is more easily hit than most melee classes, and they have lower dice and generally lower constitution, so that means they will die faster. Lower wisdom also hamstrings their stunning fist.



Myth 3) "Monks are a melee oriented class"

No. You can make them to be so, but nothing prohibits you to somehow maximise the possiblities of flurrying shuriken with two-weapon fighting and have plenty of attacks with poisoned shuriken etc. (or, make use of your immunity to disease by throwing around infected shuriken and wait for a day to weaken your enemies. Have fun).
Of course, due to some aspects like having unarmed strike, taking deflect arrows, having great move, you could use your level feats ot specialise in composite longbow archery.
And the fact that monks early on have medium hps, lower AC than the tanking babarian/paladin/fighter should teach you that the monk is meant to specialise in special effects on the battlefield IF he goes melee at all. I mean, comeon, the monk is supposed to be lawful and wise- not some crazy idiot wading into melee whenever the opportunity presents itself. A monk will shine when he manages to AVOID melee combat.


Poisons are terrible at downing enemies, as for the cost they have very low saves and there are way too many things immune to them, and shuriken are just plain bad. Add in the fact that monks will have less bonus damage to the attack than pretty much anybody, and you have officially created the worst ranged class available. They might hit fairly often, and even that's not certain, but any sort of DR they don't bypass will completely shut them down



Myth 4) "Monks need more magic items to actually shine"

No. Actually, with a lot of special abilities that replicate useful items (dimdoor, healing, enhanced movement. 3 good saves etc.) you need LESS items than the others. Heck, you do not even need none of the expensive metamagic rods or weapons or armour that other classes use, so you could spend some stuff on nice rings and wondrous items.


Your healing barely touches the damage you'll be taking, dimension door is a 700 gp scroll if you do need it, and without bracers of armor and amulets of mighty fists, you will be pathetic beyond all hope of saving. Monks need magic items just as badly as any fighter, more so since there are no mundane alternatives to go to.



Myth 5) "Monks raising UMD to get some spellcasting items actually show that their class is useless without magic that casters get daily."

No. There are some awfully effective tricks that monks can do with spells that no other class can do better, INCLUDING spellcasters. Here are two:
1) Antimagic field (available lvl 11&up). This is awesome, since the monk retains his great mobility and skills. Very few spellcasters actually ever will use AMF, and also some non-spellcasters will hesitate, because their magic weapons no longer work. But the monk? His movement enhancement, for instance, is an extraorinary ability. Put up the AMF, charge those 180ft up to that spelluser from hiding (outside his true seeing) and win...
2) Polymorph (available lvl 7&up). Now this is truly awesome for the monk, since he retains all his kung fu while in, say, cloaker or pixie form (hast fly plus monk enhancement speed, for instance) or whatever. Have fun. The monk can even with +19 UMD use some wands to do the trick himself if no party member is around...


Monks do not have UMD as a class skill and do not have charisma as a stat they can afford to buff. They just plain suck at it.

And if you have to do what a spellcaster does to beat a spellcaster, you've proved conclusively that what a spellcaster does is better than what you can do.



Repent, o monk disbelievers....:smallbiggrin:

- Giacomo


So basically you've made a lot of broad generalizations that completely ignore the mechanics of the game and claimed victory.

Those 'myths' are fundamental problems for the monk, and while they don't prevent the monk from having fun, you're intentionally blinding yourself by pretending they have no basis.

Aquillion
2007-09-30, 01:41 PM
Can we please stop arguing over whether or not the monk is underpowered? There are only like two people on the entire board that still don't accept it. You two, you're never going to convince anyone else. Give it up. If you see a thread based on the assumption that monks are weak (hint: all monk threads not started by you are going to be based on the assumption that monks are weak), just don't contribute to it. You can start another thread to argue that monks are useful if you want, but stop derailing other discussions of the class with that old argument. It is, for all intents and purposes, over.

Threads like these are based on the assumption that monks are severely underpowered. If you don't accept that, you have nothing useful to contribute to them.

bugsysservant
2007-09-30, 01:42 PM
Well in defense of the poor beleaugered monk, it does have its uses. Namely an anti-mage BBEG. Even batmen shudder when an optimized monk goes against them one on one, and since monks have fast movement and dimension door free, they can pretty much pick off the casters one by one and get away. I once DMed a party of relatively good powergamers, and for the BBEGs I used a collection of atypical NPCs to specifically counter each of the PCs. The uber charger, shock trooper barabarian had to contend with a high dex daring outlaw/robilar's gambit/karmic strike type fighter, and the wizard had to face a monk (I don't remember what the others got. I think the CODzilla fought a beholder or something). Essentially he snuck up to the wizard invisibly and killed him in a few rounds, then dimension doored away before the other characters could touch his 50 something AC. While I am aware that providing a good villain isn't enough for an entire core PC class, IMHO it does a lot to make up for it.

lord_khaine
2007-09-30, 01:46 PM
The DM can keep anything balanced, but that doesn't mean the rules should force him to 90% of the time when simply changing the rules once would fix the problem once and for all.

They don't do combat as well as other combat classes, and they should be equal if that's all they can do (and it pretty much is).

yes in the case where other combat classes are cleric/druid/ToB else they can keep up in melee combat.


A monk that does not have high strength cannot do much damage in combat, cannot disarm, cannot trip, cannot grapple, and to put it plainly, is just taking up space. And taking up space does not require a monk.

A monk with low dexterity and/or low wisdom is more easily hit than most melee classes, and they have lower dice and generally lower constitution, so that means they will die faster. Lower wisdom also hamstrings their stunning fist.


unfortunately this is true, str is needet for breaking stuff, wisdom for making it stand still while you break it and con to a certain degree for surviving while doing so.
this means rolling the stats are a advantage for a monk, and point by is a disadvantage.


Poisons are terrible at downing enemies, as for the cost they have very low saves and there are way too many things immune to them, and shuriken are just plain bad. Add in the fact that monks will have less bonus damage to the attack than pretty much anybody, and you have officially created the worst ranged class available. They might hit fairly often, and even that's not certain, but any sort of DR they don't bypass will completely shut them down

have to agree here as well.


Your healing barely touches the damage you'll be taking, dimension door is a 700 gp scroll if you do need it, and without bracers of armor and amulets of mighty fists, you will be pathetic beyond all hope of saving. Monks need magic items just as badly as any fighter, more so since there are no mundane alternatives to go to.


partly true, though either a stack of potions of mage armor, or bribing the mage with a pearl of power is a lot cheaper than wasting gold on the bracers.
avoid amulet of mighty fist, Its a trap!
take instead enchantet gauntlets for something like 1/2 to 1/3 the price.


Monks do not have UMD as a class skill and do not have charisma as a stat they can afford to buff. They just plain suck at it.

And if you have to do what a spellcaster does to beat a spellcaster, you've proved conclusively that what a spellcaster does is better than what you can do

while it is sligtly hard to use UMD, then there is still a lot of usefull lowlv buffs that a monk could benefit greatly from.

Reel On, Love
2007-09-30, 01:54 PM
Essentially he snuck up to the wizard invisibly and killed him in a few rounds, then dimension doored away before the other characters could touch his 50 something AC. While I am aware that providing a good villain isn't enough for an entire core PC class, IMHO it does a lot to make up for it.

So, See Invisibility's a second-level, 10 minutes-per-level spell. At level 20, that's 6 hours with a lesser rod of extend (3k). Two castings last you the whole adventuring day.

And as if that weren't enough, you can even get it permanencied.

Monks are annoying for wizards, but not really scary--they still can't touch you. Hit'em with enough Fort saves, or the right rays after True Strike, and they fold like chairs.

Zincorium
2007-09-30, 01:55 PM
partly true, though either a stack of potions of mage armor, or bribing the mage with a pearl of power is a lot cheaper than wasting gold on the bracers.
avoid amulet of mighty fist, Its a trap!
take instead enchantet gauntlets for something like 1/2 to 1/3 the price.

Not to harp on someone who's taken my side, but the bracers are something you can have on all the time. Monks get ambushed too, and spending a round and taking an attack of opportunity might mean an early end. Bracers are a good way of making sure you always have something in that category, and after +4 you would be falling behind by using the mage armor.

That and gauntlets being usable by monks is a sensible if not spelled out interpretation of the rules, amulets of mighty fists were expressly intended to be used by monks instead. That and you have to blow one of your few feats on proficiency or dip for a level in something with proficiency in it.



while it is sligtly hard to use UMD, then there is still a lot of usefull lowlv buffs that a monk could benefit greatly from.

Yes, but those can also generally be cast upon the monk, without expenditure of skill points or money on charisma raising effects. A few, like divine power, are pretty darn good for a monk to use, but that says nothing about the monk and everything about divine power. The same can be said for polymorph that was mentioned earlier, using an outright broken spell from a different class to be okay at your job is just digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Sir Giacomo
2007-09-30, 03:45 PM
OK, let me try to respond before retreating again for some days due to real life work overload...:smallbiggrin: And of course, I referred my myths to core. I do not know all the zillion of companions out there which make the monk a weaker base class or better base class or whatever. The only thing I know is that the core classes are pretty well balanced.


Can we please stop arguing over whether or not the monk is underpowered? There are only like two people on the entire board that still don't accept it. You two, you're never going to convince anyone else. Give it up. If you see a thread based on the assumption that monks are weak (hint: all monk threads not started by you are going to be based on the assumption that monks are weak), just don't contribute to it. You can start another thread to argue that monks are useful if you want, but stop derailing other discussions of the class with that old argument. It is, for all intents and purposes, over.

Threads like these are based on the assumption that monks are severely underpowered. If you don't accept that, you have nothing useful to contribute to them.

Now what kind of argument is that?
"It's a minority opinion so you should just shut up"?
How do you believe mankind finally came to end up seeing that the earth circulates around the sun and not vice-versa? Sheesh...Btw, read the OP. It was not based on "Let me assume monks are underpowered because of x and y. Now would you then consider..." (in which case, I would never have dreamed about opposing the assumption).

Now on with the real discussion. I'll pick Reel on Love, since he is most representative of what I consider misperceptions on these boards



You're wrong. Monks suck at levels 1-10 just like they do at higher levels.
They have crappy skill points (4+INT isn't enough given how many skills they want, especially since they dump INT).

How can then a cleric or a sorcerer (classes which many on these boards would argue are quite powerful) have the skills they want? The game limits the skill points for a purpose, so that you do not have characters that can do everything.



"Unarmed combat" isn't a niche--besides which, monks suck at it: they use their fists better than other classes, but they suck at *combat* in general.
"Special abilities which can't be dispelled" aren't a niche... because those abilities suck. Woooo, slow fall! Ki strike (magic)! Speed, which is useless most of the time! Wholeness of Body, a miniscule amount of healing!

er...what? Speed, useless most of the time? Sure, nobody ever wants to have boots of haste. Speed is key for all levels of play and makes great tactical advantage inside and outside of combat (since it means you can encounters when you like to, not when your opponent likes to).
Wholeness of body means healing without AoO. So yes, it can be quite useful.
Unarmed combat is a niche because even a fighter devoted to unarmed combat cannot do the same (stunning fist is not even available to a fighter until lvl 8, and quivering palm is never available, plus the monk does higher lethal damage).



At level 1, what's your monk's AC? 14, 15? And his attack bonus is... what?


At level 1, all classes except maybe the fighter or cleric are quite vulnerable. No use pinpointing the monk here.



At level 10, a fighter/barbarian can actually contribute in melee, the cleric has Quickened Divine Favor + Divine Power, the druid's a druid, and the wizard's got Overland Flight, Greater Invisibility (which he's made a bunch of scrolls of), and his usual tricks. The monk... still can't do anything. He can run up, flurry, and get squished in exchange. He can flurry with shuriken, which is useless.

Oh yes. One can already see how your druid is faring vs the "useless" monk in a duel of 11th level...:smallbiggrin: (referring to a duel elsewhere on these boards...)
A monk at 10th level can be quite an effective scout, unparalelled in melee combat when morphed (imagine a huge monk grappling...say, as a treant with 15ft reach...oh yes...). Plus, he can devote his skills in such a way as to eliminate enemy spellcasters or provide that decisive special combat move (trip, disarm, grapple, stun, take your pick) due to his superior movement that is up 24/7. Heck, he is as fast a s a horse at that point.



Are you really trying this:?
Monks are *more* reliant on WIS and DEX than armored melee characters

Um, yes, because the do not wear armour. Your point being? You do realise that wearing armour in some instances carries disadvantages? (like all movement skills with penalties). You also do realise that as an armour-wearing fighter/paladin/ranger specialising in STR and CON you have crappy saves in the will and reflex category?


and they're *more* reliant on STR and WIS than finesse melee characters.

How can that be? A monk taking weapon finesse can still do just fine. STR and DEX can be raised via morphing tactics as all the zilla characters do. Or, you could have a high STR/CON monk, although I would probably rather take a different class to "tank" which I consider is an inferior overall combat tactics.


And they need a higher INT, too, so they can actually use some of their skills. And they have a lower hit die, so they'd *like* more CON, too.

Er...no. 4 skill points/lvl is better than 2 skill points/level at all times. You can choose INT to be higher like all other classes (only the wizard in this respect has synergy with spellcasting in core). There is no way to maintain that a monk is bad due to his skill points, which are good (both number and class skills)



A monk will shine when he manages to avoid melee combat...
...except that melee combat is what he's SUPPOSED TO DO. That's why he has the unarmed combat and flurry of blows and the Ki strikes and Stunning Fist.

No, somehow it is YOU who believes the monk is SUPPOSED to go into melee on a constant basis and then say he sucks. It's like saying a sorcerer should go into melee since he has simple weapon proficiency. LOOK at the monk's class skills, ALL of them. Why should they be in melee combat all the time? Why should they be trading full attacks with some giants? Why?



What's more, the suggestions you give, well, suck. Throwing shuriken?! The damage on them is miniscule.

Not if you have a two-weapon-fighting monk with high STR and high DEX (or morphed into a creature with high stats in these). Then, the damage becomes quite interesting, in particular in situations where many attacks can count (as in total darkness, for instance...)


Poison use? Yeah, except you risk poisoning yourself,

Yes, but at higher levels a monk is immune to poison (although as a DM I would argue that the poison dose is gone at that point - a 1 in a 20 risk).


poison is expensive, and what's more, poison sucks.

Drow poison is actually a bargain, and if you produce it yourself with some ranks in craft, then it's even cheaper. Many attacks mean at one point or another your opponent is going to fail that fort save...
Poison DOES suck at high-highest levels because of quite easy availability of magic poison immunity. But inside an AMF....well...:smallbiggrin:


"Diseased shuriken" aren't even possible.

Er...why not? Read the DMG on disease. You'll be surprised. Or better yet, watch the old medieval movie classic "Flesh and Blood" with Rutger Hauer. Of course, such a thing would not be something a Lawful good or even Lawful Neutral monk would do. But a Lawful Evil one?


Specializing in the bow wastes your speed on top of wasting your unarmed combat, as archers want to be stationary and use Rapid Shot. What's more, you have 3/4 BAB, no bonus damage, and a pretty low STR. You don't make a good archer.

You do. From levels 7&up you can get a magic effect of divine power (scroll/wand or ring of spell storing) to make up for the worse BAB in those circumstances where it really counts (say, an ambush or decisive encounter). A monk archer is unusual and certainly not better than other full BAB archers, but he is different and brings in some nice new stuff.


The monk's "special effects on the battlefield" are limited to tripping (which they totally suck at, given that they can't afford a high strength--the fighter does it way better), grappling (again, low strength, most monsters will easily outgrapple you; highly situational), disarming (you *really* suck at this, and it's generally useless to boot), and Stunning Fist... which is sharply limited in uses/day and has a fort save (which won't be very high, unless you're cranking WIS... which costs you everything else). Being able to do something useful on rare occasions? It doesn't make a class worthwhile.

If those occasions are rare for you, it is apparently like that in campaigns you play in. But I do not think this is the way it is in other groups as well. If you take a monk with low STR and then make him do all the stuff that needs high STR, guess what - you'll suck! But if you make use of its advantages and disadvantages as you should do for all classes, then the monk is highly useful.



Except that's as true as it's always been. "Dimension door 1/day" doesn't mean you don't need boots of teleport.

Yes, but you do not necessarily need that coveted cape of the mountebank.


"Enhanced movement" doesn't mean you don't want boots of speed for the extra attack.

Yes, but you have it up 24/7, not just 10 rounds (which will not be enough to flee from a faster monster, you know...)


"3 good saves" doesn't mean you don't want a Cloak of Resistance.

Yes. But a cloak +5 then makes the difference between "failing the save in 30% of all times" to only "in 5% of all times", which reduces the risk of failing by a factor of 6!


You need more items: you need a very expensive Amulet of Natural Armor, you need MORE AC boosters, you need MORE stat boosters.

You do NOT NEED all of those. You can see from the above, that you need less? Is this so difficult to understand? If you have special abilities that emulate spells and items, you no longer need those and can save the money for other stuff.
For boosting your AC, you can always use items that are more espensive and less useful than others -what is that supposed to prove? Want to increase your armour? Get polymorphing items. Or want to be no longer hit at all in combat? Get an item of mirror images. What is the problem here?


And apparently, you're bleeding cash by the truckload as you buy a Salve of Slipperiness and some scrolls and a box of poison every day, too.

Why, o why should the king of grappling need to have MORE need of a salve of slipperiness than other characters? Scrolls (and poison doses) are expensive if used on a regular basis, but you normally never do that (ask the wizard and sorcerer players around here). The cheapest thing to do spells if not a spell-user is to use wands, anyway. Which a monk can use like all classses via UMD.


Antimagic field: not only does the monk have to make the huge UMD check, it's a crappy idea.

It's great for offense/surprise (you then only need to have an UMD skill of +11 and try repeatedly until finally you activate the AMF which lasts around 110 minutes).
It's great for a chance at defense/flee with better movement vs overwhelming magical odds What is the crap here? Of course it is not 100% sure to win- nothing in the game is (well gate, maybe...:smallbiggrin: )


The spellcaster's flying, and 95% of monsters will kill you *more* easily in an AMF.

Which is why you normally would not use AMF in these situations, don't you think? And 95% of all monsters at all levels do not the sufficient physical abilities to crush a monk pc that easily, believe me. In particular, since many high-level encounters are no longer monsters, but mighty npcs of humanoid race and size.


What's more, that involves *raising UMD*. At level 11, a monk--using skill points he needs for something else--will have *seven ranks*. And now he needs CHA, too. Okay, he has 12 CHA, a +2 cloak, a Circlet of Persuasion. He even wasted a feat on Skill Focus. Now he has a +15 UMD check. The DC on an AMF scroll? It's 31. Good luck whipping that out during combat.

AMF CAN be used at level 11 already, but it really kicks in to be useful at higher levels, when you can get your UMD up to the needed +30 with a reasonable effort.


And look at how MAD that makes him (he needs CHA, too), and how he needs magic items for it. Wait, I thought monks weren't MAD and didn't need magic items as much?

You thought correctly. The monk is not MAD. Only a CHR-based monk will likely try to use the UMD and magic item route (currently my favourite kind of monk), but you can build other monks which are also highly useful. Probably the CHR-based monk with high CHR/WIS is the best mage hunter, but I'm not sure yet.



A barbarian would do just as well with an AMF 90% of the time, since he can actually rage and fight inside it. You? You're a monk.

...and can use higher move than a barbarian, and can pack two extremely high Fort-Save-or-Suck attacks in just one strike (three, if you count a massive damage save into it). Cool, eh?



But then, I guess you assume all encounters take place against enemies who don't know you're there and are just sitting in the middle of a field.

Well, if a class has superior movement and the rare hide/spot/move silently/listen class ability combo, it is quite likely that it will have a suprise edge over opponents that do not have that, don't you think?:smallsmile:



You want to see good use of an AMF? An Eldritch Knight with the Archmage's Mastery of Shaping used to exclude himself and all of his buffs up.


Now, that one I did not know. Thanks for the idea!



Polymorph. Is. Broken. It's not an argument in favor of anything.

Er, why not? Why praise the coolness of uber casters and then all of a sudden say: but of course non-spellcasters should not use that or that spell. Probably you'd also say AMF is broken...
And btw, polymorph is NOT broken. It gets POWERFUL when used on a monk, but a monk will not auto-win with it. One simple dispel may be enough there...



And it benefits the melee types more than it does you, anyway, since they suddenly become horrific melee monsters whereas you become okay at it. And, of course, it benefits Clerics even more.


Utterly wrong. A monk makes greatest use out of all the morphs, because he is a master of unarmed combat and can use all his abilities in the other form. Whereas the fighter can just throw away his normal-sized cool spiked chain +5 when he assumes the form of a giant spider or whatever. Whereas the cleric has only his spells (which he already had without a morph to begin with, including the classic divine power/rightous might).



What's more, monks get no UMD-related abilities. And they have CHA as a dump stat. If you're relying on UMD, maybe you should be a rogue.


A rogue is better at using UMD, but some stuff you can do with UMD (AMF, morphing) is better used by the monk. Ah, the multitude of facets of this great game...
And once again: a monk using UMD of course does not have CHA as a dump stat. It's like the melee-oriented monks without high STR that get attacked sometimes around here. Would you play a cleric with WIS 8?



Face it--monks suck. You can desperately try to compensate for their weaknesses with cheese, you can pull out oddball tactics (Blind-fight and an oh-so-fragile evermoking bottle, hurr!) that would be useless--actually, detrimental--in an adventuring party.
Face it, monks suck. You've yet to give any reasons why they don't suck--anything you've listed either doesn't help them much, has nothing to do with them, is flat-out false (no MAD, suuuuure), or just isn't worthwhile in the five rounds a fight lasts. Compare what they bring to the table with what a barbarian brings to the table. Or even a ranger.

Well, maintining monks suck merely by repeating this assertion and backing this up with faulty arguments does nothing for your cause here.
I would never maintain that class X or Y sucks (maybe the Samurai...:smallcool: ) . Similarly, I am not saying that the monk is super-powerful compared to the other classes.
All I'm saying is that the monk is BALANCED. You can do great stuff with the monk class, be it fluff, combat, or maxing to hell and back.

And why do you think using blind-fighting for a monk and then creating an environment with an eversmoking bottle (usiing smoke=known kung fu movie tactics) that is to your advantage is "oddball" tactics? You do realise the one big weakness of spellcasting: largely dependence on sight? Whereas non-spellcasters will carry on...

...but that is something to see in the duel of our monk and druid characters (which I believe your druid is losing, but I may of course be wrong here... :smallbiggrin: )

- Giacomo

WitchSlayer
2007-09-30, 03:56 PM
Giacomo, he's losing? By the looks of it.. NOTHINGS HAPPENING.

Arakune
2007-09-30, 04:01 PM
please tell me this guy didn't replied... :smallfrown:

okay, this will be fun. The war of the ones that never change their opinions no matter the arguments against the ones that give a lot of inteligent arguments but are unable to give THAT final argument

Let the flaming begin!!!! :smallamused:

Zincorium
2007-09-30, 04:10 PM
please tell me this guy didn't replied... :smallfrown:

okay, this will be fun. The war of the ones that never change their opinions no matter the arguments against the ones that give a lot of inteligent arguments but are unable to give THAT final argument

Let the flaming begin!!!! :smallamused:

Let's hope it doesn't get to that.

As an armchair psychologist, I'd say Giacomo is convinced, when others are not, that his arguments while not final are more important than what other people are arguing, and are thus weighed more heavily in the final outcome.

I'm not going to keep arguing, because I know that the monk can be beaten in anything the monk cares to do, often without leaving core, and am willing to put forth the characters and mechanical statistics to prove it. I'm satisfied that my arguments would be good enough for the people who are willing to change their mind, and aware that Giacomo does not care what my evidence suggests.

Clementx
2007-09-30, 04:14 PM
One of the central problems of the monk class is that while they have large amounts of mobility, most of their (limited) offensive ability is tied up to full-attacks, which are hard to get in melee. I addressed this by allowing them to trade one of their FoB extra attacks for the ability to take half of a normal move action during their full-attack (and their second when they get it for a full movement). Suddenly monks are bouncing all around getting the most out of their attacks without having to slog out in melee, like they get Dervish Dance for free. That and a few other tweaks to their limited use abilities, and they become a mobile, infuriating class that serves as good support to other melee characters and an excellent skirmisher.

lord_khaine
2007-09-30, 04:54 PM
yeah well i am going to keep arguing because i dont belive the monk is as broken as people claim, though there is a few issues that could have been taken care off.


Not to harp on someone who's taken my side, but the bracers are something you can have on all the time. Monks get ambushed too, and spending a round and taking an attack of opportunity might mean an early end. Bracers are a good way of making sure you always have something in that category, and after +4 you would be falling behind by using the mage armor.

That and gauntlets being usable by monks is a sensible if not spelled out interpretation of the rules, amulets of mighty fists were expressly intended to be used by monks instead. That and you have to blow one of your few feats on proficiency or dip for a level in something with proficiency in it

but the bracers are simply to expensive compared to what you get from them, borrow a friendly arcane caster a pearl of power, and you can save 14k compared to the use of bracers of armor. at higher leves you can instead of spending cash on better bracers buy more stat bosters.

as for the gauntlets, though it cost a feat it has been clarified in the FAQ that you can use them, and besides costing 1/3 of the amulet they can also get nice properties like holy or cold iron.


One of the central problems of the monk class is that while they have large amounts of mobility, most of their (limited) offensive ability is tied up to full-attacks, which are hard to get in melee. I addressed this by allowing them to trade one of their FoB extra attacks for the ability to take half of a normal move action during their full-attack (and their second when they get it for a full movement). Suddenly monks are bouncing all around getting the most out of their attacks without having to slog out in melee, like they get Dervish Dance for free. That and a few other tweaks to their limited use abilities, and they become a mobile, infuriating class that serves as good support to other melee characters and an excellent skirmisher.

i usualy just either lure people into charging me or else trip/grapple them when i play a monk


please tell me this guy didn't replied...

okay, this will be fun. The war of the ones that never change their opinions no matter the arguments against the ones that give a lot of inteligent arguments but are unable to give THAT final argument

Let the flaming begin!!!!

yeah its quite annoying, i have given countless good arguments about why monks dont suck if you build them right, but they get mostly ignored or forgotten next time someone desides for a bit of monk bashing:smallfrown:

Yogi
2007-09-30, 06:17 PM
The Monk needs to be in a position where he doesn't have to compete directly with other classes. The problem is that the other classes pretty much have most of the niches covered. I would imagine a class that moves quickly and can quickly disable a group of foes via trips, disarms, and pressure point strikes, someone that can dance around the battlefield throwing the enemies into dissaray while the Fighter is more focused on dealing damage.

Arakune
2007-09-30, 06:37 PM
The whole point is: the monk WAS useful and overpowered, when no one had evasion, the AC didn't went to estratosphere with magic and it was much harder to deal astronomic damage with a charge, the rogue(thief) didn't have sneak attack, wizards had more difficulty to learn 'insta-win' spells and cleric and druids wasn't monsters of optimization.

At least, that's what I can suppose from the changes of 2šed. AD&D to D&D 3.x.

Aquillion
2007-09-30, 07:32 PM
Now what kind of argument is that?
"It's a minority opinion so you should just shut up"?
How do you believe mankind finally came to end up seeing that the earth circulates around the sun and not vice-versa? Sheesh...Btw, read the OP. It was not based on "Let me assume monks are underpowered because of x and y. Now would you then consider..." (in which case, I would never have dreamed about opposing the assumption).Read it again. The OP calls monks "some loser with high saves."

Look, I have nothing against you making unusual arguments. They're entertaining. But please, please, confine them to threads explictly focused on them. When you want to argue your opinion, make a new thread and start there. Outside of those, in normal discussions, virtually everyone else is going to operate with the knowledge that monks are underpowered, and will post from that position; if you insist on getting in their face every single time, and confronting every single person, it will be impossible to discuss monks in any meaningful fashion.

Again, I have nothing against you arguing whether or not monks are underpowered... but please, please, only do it in threads that say, in the title, "Are monks underpowered?" or something similar. Otherwise, we reach the point where we are now, with you leaping like a pit-bull on every thread where monks are mentioned so you can say the exact same things and make the exact same arguments over and over again.

The people who are still interested in arguing with you over the point can do so in threads you set aside for the purpose. No sense in bringing it up over and over again everywhere else.

Sir Giacomo
2007-10-02, 04:09 PM
Read it again. The OP calls monks "some loser with high saves."


Well, in my view this appears to proclaim DD3.5 monk class suckage, or at least a typical bait for a general technical monk discussion. Normally I do not "leap like a pitbull" onto threads like these - and you'll see that by looking at my profile that I posted less and less over the last months due to real life workload :smallsmile:

Tell me what this thread is about in your view, but I had the impression from the majority of posts here that there was an inclination to discuss why the monk "sucks" and what to do about it (with many houserule suggestions). I maintain the monk does not suck and does not need any houserules, but of course that houserule discussions are just fine for any particular monk flavour intended in individual campaigns.

Simply saying this is a "normal" discussion thread (whatever that is supposed to mean), as opposed to other monk discussion threads (and there do seem to be quite a few popping up again simultaneously after longer silence) does not make sense to me.

But I'll follow your advice and start a monk thread some time that could try to collect the typical monk discussers- it's a long-running project of mine, a bit delayed right now. Feel free to read and post there. Ironically, I somehow got drawn into the monk discussions from the overall caster/non-caster balance debate which is more at the heart of what I think is worthwhile discussing.

Personally I think that it is quite startling that due to the - let me call it the logicninja-AntiDD3.5balance-campaign - so many posters here actually believe in the same fallacies over and over again. Although 4th edition is getting nearer, I'd love to argue here over and over again, until newbies and less experienced players no longer are swamped with - in my view - strange notions of inherent faults in the core rules which somehow prevent them to meaningfully play that or that class.

- Giacomo

horseboy
2007-10-02, 06:05 PM
The only thing I know is that the core classes are pretty well balanced.

This made me LOL.