PDA

View Full Version : Are Monks underpowered, balanced, or broken?



Pages : [1] 2

triforcel
2007-09-30, 09:01 PM
Since it was discussed in another thread that this issue should be given a thread of it's own instead of being a point of debate in topics about how to fix said monks, I decided I might as well make the thread to at least avoid more arguments about where the issue is being discussed.

I don't like the idea of starting the topic off slanted one way or another, but I will try to summarize what I've seen from all three sides of the argument.

For the underpowered side, the main argument appears to be that the monk class doesn't do anything that couldn't be replicated or done better through a combination of spells, fighter builds, and magic items.

For the broken side, the only real argument I've seen is that some believe it to be ludicrous that anyone could ever deal more damage without a weapon than with.

Finally for the balanced side, the main argument seems to be that the monk is quite adept at what it does and for the most part is merely under appreciated.

Again, I'm not trying to argue any side just yet, but hoping that a brief summary of the points I've seen so far could help people get the discussion going in this new thread.

Zincorium
2007-09-30, 09:08 PM
Alright, might as well start an opening salvo.

Monks have medium BAB and cannot prioritize strength without losing significant benefits in other areas. Their highest damaging weapon won't hold enchantments and is considered a light weapon for many purposes.

Therefore, despite the possibly bonus feats, monks are in a worse position than the great majority of fighters and barbarians when it comes to grappling, tripping opponents, and disarming. These are things with which the monk should be superior and is not.

A side effect of having BAB and comparatively lower strength is that they will generally do less damage, less often, then other non-gimped fighter type characters.

Tor the Fallen
2007-09-30, 09:11 PM
They also can't properly put out damage, or overcome most types of damage reduction.

Chronos
2007-09-30, 09:14 PM
For the broken side, the only real argument I've seen is that some believe it to be ludicrous that anyone could ever deal more damage without a weapon than with.And how ludicrous is it that someone could do more damage by thinking hard at something than with a weapon? Spellcasters are all unrealistic; let's get rid of all of them!

Or, accept that it's a fantasy game, and fantastic things can happen in it.

Dullyanna
2007-09-30, 09:16 PM
They do a fair job of surviving, but that doesn't exactly help the party much. Furthermore, they suffer from the fact that, like your average fighter, they can only attack stuff right next to them (Exception: shurikens, but they're nigh useless anyway).

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-30, 09:25 PM
Part of the problem is that they're losing out to Fighters, who are already behind Spellcasters. High Saves/SR dont' help when there's spells like Forcecage which offer neither(WHY?). The 1/day Dimension Door may help there, but if they don't disappear after that, the second Forcecage gets them, then it's goodnight baby.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-30, 09:31 PM
Finally for the balanced side, the main argument seems to be that the monk is quite adept at what it does and for the most part is merely under appreciated.
They are only good at what they do when you don't compare them to the Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, Scout, Bard, Cleric, Druid, or any ToB class of equal level. They struggle at low levels because they can't afford armor or anything that would raise their damage output. If they make it to higher levels, they get to be weaker than any monster they face just like any other fighter-type.

ken-do-nim
2007-09-30, 09:40 PM
In my experience, the most important monk ability is the stun. It gives them a role in combat; tumble and move over to the foe causing the most problems and try to stun them. Problem is, many of the foes they need to stun (gee, like that dragon) have excellent fortitude saves.

One option is to remove the 1 stun/round limitation and 1 stun/level/day limitation. Instead, any hit that hits by 5 more than needed is a stun chance, and every point that it hit beyond that lowers the save by an additional point. This makes a flurry of blows more deadly because each hit has a chance to be a potential stun.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-30, 10:44 PM
Yeah; Stun is what monks do. If they got stuns per encounter and could modify them to have different effects and play off different saves, the class would become useful and have a niche of its own. Unfortunately, this is too close to the Swordsage or Warblade for me to motivate myself into homebrewing up some rules for this.

Emperor Tippy
2007-09-30, 10:49 PM
Monks are so underpowered that they make Bards look good.

Monk's are the weakest core class and have no real use.

TheOOB
2007-09-30, 10:58 PM
Monks are so underpowered that they make Bards look good.

Monk's are the weakest core class and have no real use.

Yup, the bard class skill Use Magic Device is better then anything the monk gets, and thats kinda sad.

0oo0
2007-09-30, 10:58 PM
I personally feel that the purpose of the monk class is Drunken Master PrC, but that's just me :smallsmile:

Funkyodor
2007-10-01, 01:26 AM
The biggest problem that people have is the multiple ability bonuses you need to augment their abilities to usefullness. Otherwise you don't have the AC of the fighter, or the plus to your stunning fist, or plus to your attack/damage, etc...


Therefore, despite the possibly bonus feats, monks are in a worse position than the great majority of fighters and barbarians when it comes to grappling, tripping opponents, and disarming. These are things with which the monk should be superior and is not.

They get Quarterstaff for disarm (Two handed weapon bonus) and Kama for tripping (trip weapon). The only thing keeping them behind is the 3/4 attack bonus, which at lower levels is not so noticable as long as it is a STR priority Monk. This and the standard reach is problematic. Not so much their weapon selection.

With the prevalence of the point buy vs. dice rolling for stat generation, the monk is "teh lose". But if you got three 16+ stats then sure, go monk, the stats won't let ya down.

Karma Guard
2007-10-01, 01:49 AM
My problem with them is that they're wildly all over the place, but they're no good at anything. Jack of all Trades gone all wrong. :(

While all the other classes have specific roles, the Monk's stuck as The Fifth Party Member. Sure, he can follow the rogue or punch things with the fighter or Wholeness of Others (IF he took the variant for it) with the cleric, or...uh. Stand in front of the wizard to protect him, but he doesn't have any real purpose on his own besides 'The Fifth Member' and 'Guy who uses Fists'.

And that's a shame, because I like monks.

Xuincherguixe
2007-10-01, 05:56 AM
Monks are weak, but not unsalvageable. With a fair amount of thought, you could create a useful monk.

martyboy74
2007-10-01, 06:05 AM
They're useful as trapfinders, with all their good saves.

Overlard
2007-10-01, 06:39 AM
They're good at surviving, with high ACs, good saves and a handful of abilities.

Their stunning (if they take it) can be really useful against selected opponents.

They make good flankers for the rogue.

They can deliver potions to fallen comrades extremely quickly.

That's about it.

They're not Jack-Of-All Trades, as they don't really have any trade other than survival. They're not mage-killers, as any intelligent wizard isn't going to be caught out by the monk's abilities unless he's really lucky.

There's nothing that they can do that other classes can't do better. Except maybe jump. They're very good at that.

That said, they're fun to play, and under selected circumstances, can kinda shine.

Quietus
2007-10-01, 06:52 AM
I'd have to say that ONE of the Monk's greatest weaknesses is that these boards have an obscene love affair with TLN's guide to wizards, and assume that every spellcaster you're going to run into has a copy in his back pocket. "Oh, that won't work because the wizard WILL have XYZ" is a pretty poor assumption, because unless you have a group of hardcore powergamers, a DM shouldn't be super-optimizing everything anyway.

Now, that being said, monks shouldn't be relegated to the role of caster-killer, either, because that's a pretty poor place to be sent to. No one wants to be pigeonholed like that - or rather, no class should be. If a player CHOOSES to focus on mage-killing, that's his choice, but the base class shouldn't specifically limit him to that. Monks have good survivability, that's great and all, but they need some good generic abilities that don't just target the "low fort save" opponents. Hell, it's been said before... just give'em flurry as a standard. Suddenly their Flurry class ability synergizes with their fast movement, and they become MUCH more playable in many people's eyes.

Overlard
2007-10-01, 06:56 AM
I'd have to say that ONE of the Monk's greatest weaknesses is that these boards have an obscene love affair with TLN's guide to wizards, and assume that every spellcaster you're going to run into has a copy in his back pocket. "Oh, that won't work because the wizard WILL have XYZ" is a pretty poor assumption, because unless you have a group of hardcore powergamers, a DM shouldn't be super-optimizing everything anyway.
But it's not just that. Monks are gonna get screwed by just about every caster who's not an evoker. A blaster wizard will have trouble with a monk (up until he gets forcecage), but you'd have to try to gimp yourself before your non-evoker wizard is in any serious danger from the monk.

lord_khaine
2007-10-01, 07:36 AM
Monks have medium BAB and cannot prioritize strength without losing significant benefits in other areas. Their highest damaging weapon won't hold enchantments and is considered a light weapon for many purposes.

Therefore, despite the possibly bonus feats, monks are in a worse position than the great majority of fighters and barbarians when it comes to grappling, tripping opponents, and disarming. These are things with which the monk should be superior and is not.


first of all, full BAB is overratet, it gives a +1 bonus to hit for every 4 levels, and at the level where its allowed to grow to more than a +3 bonus casters rule the day anyway.
also monks have been given flurry of blows that does a lot to even out the difference, 1-2 additionel attacks at full BAB is worth the same as a minor bonus to hit.
as for str, monk needs this score as much as any other melee char, so it should be given top priority.
in the case where you use 4d6 for stats this isnt really a problem, you just assign highest roll for str, and end up in a better position than most other fighers or barbarians when it comes to tripping and grappling.
in the case of point buy a monk would be at a minor disadvantage, but the scaling price would mean he still gets more stat for his points.


They are only good at what they do when you don't compare them to the Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, Scout, Bard, Cleric, Druid, or any ToB class of equal level. They struggle at low levels because they can't afford armor or anything that would raise their damage output. If they make it to higher levels, they get to be weaker than any monster they face just like any other fighter-type

actualy if you build your monk properly and shop smart you can hold up against all but the full casters (and i lump ToB chars in under that)


Monks are so underpowered that they make Bards look good.

Monk's are the weakest core class and have no real use.

just becasue you dont know how to build a proper monk does not mean the class is underpowered.


While all the other classes have specific roles, the Monk's stuck as The Fifth Party Member. Sure, he can follow the rogue or punch things with the fighter or Wholeness of Others (IF he took the variant for it) with the cleric, or...uh. Stand in front of the wizard to protect him, but he doesn't have any real purpose on his own besides 'The Fifth Member' and 'Guy who uses Fists'

the monk is able to assume several roles, for a start he makes for a very good scout, with high mobility, and spot, hide and move silent as class skills.
besides that he is good at tactical combat, where he can use a mix of trip, grapple and stunning fist to keep the opponents occupied.


But it's not just that. Monks are gonna get screwed by just about every caster who's not an evoker. A blaster wizard will have trouble with a monk (up until he gets forcecage), but you'd have to try to gimp yourself before your non-evoker wizard is in any serious danger from the monk.

actualy up until the higher lvs you just have to lose initiative, both grapple and stunning fist can ruin the day for most casters at low to medium levels.


They also can't properly put out damage, or overcome most types of damage reduction.

Their highest damaging weapon won't hold enchantments and is considered a light weapon for many purposes.

aarrrrggg! Gauntlets, Gauntlets Gauntlets, how many times does it have to be said before people will actualy remember it?

Stam
2007-10-01, 07:46 AM
Gauntlets are not fists - and although it's not a house rule without reason, it's not legal by the RAW.

The other option, readily available in the Faerun setting, are the Bracers of Striking. CMA/A, about a 900 gp layout for the base bracers, and enhances just like a double weapon (i.e. including special abilities). Affects the Unarmed Strike only, but at a much nicer cost than the prohibitive Amulet of Mighty Fists.

KIDS
2007-10-01, 07:51 AM
If you attack with a gauntlet you're not attacking with an unarmed strike, sorry. Buy amulet of mighty fists though.

Is this a vote...? Anyways, monks are reasonable at low levels, solid on medium, poor at high and completely obsolete at very high levels. Now, I'll be first to admit it's not always like that and you can optimize the $$$$ out of them but compare it to how much optimization a cleric needs? Yeah.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-01, 07:54 AM
Most of it has been said already.

General consensus on character building boards is that monks are underpowered, and if one were to divide the core classes into three tiers, they would be the fourth.

I haven't seen any claims that monks are broken. Yes, they do things that aren't possible in real life, but (1) so do most other classes, and (2) that's not what "broken" means.

Monks are not, however, underappreciated. Many people enjoy playing monks, who are admittedly flavorful. Indeed, most of the arguments that "monks aren't weak" come from people who enjoyed playing a monk, and from the fact that a good DM will not let some people hog the spotlight at the expense of others. But just because the DM will find ways or tweak situations to make a character useful doesn't make its class useful by RAW.

And there's a load of non-arguments, like "Monks can help a rogue flank" (but so can anyone else), "Monks make good scouts" (but rogues, familiars, druids and divination spells make better scouts) and "Monks are spellcaster killers" (which is simply contradicted by the facts).

Damionte
2007-10-01, 08:19 AM
I typed up a bunch of stuff but eventually got bored with it and deleated it all. Some re-hashed we've said it a thousand times comment about Monks being able to survive is only good for running for help.

That's thier defining class role, going to get help. When the rest of the party is dead or nearly dead because they filled a party slot with a monk instead of a character that could actually contribute in some meaninglful way they can at least take comfort in the fact that as long as this danger didn't involve melee combat the monk is probably still alive and can go and get help.

Here's a new something. Are there any good Monk PRC's other than Sacred Fist?

Any decent non spell casting Monk prestige classes out there? The very few half decent prestige classes you could fit a monk into are built for warriors or rouges. I honestly can't think of a prestige class that I'd actually want to play that a monk can or will qualify for on it's own without dipping.

AslanCross
2007-10-01, 08:28 AM
Monk's are the weakest core class and have no real use.

That's the end result of the problems it has. We can tell they wanted it to be a battlefield control character with the abilities they gave it, but due to MAD they can't even do that well. My idea of a monk is someone who can outmaneuver everyone and subdue major combat threats without getting killed.

The Monk does have good-to-great survivability, but just what can he do if his opponent is too large to grapple, too tough to stun, or is just plain out of reach?

lord_khaine
2007-10-01, 08:58 AM
Gauntlets are not fists - and although it's not a house rule without reason, it's not legal by the RAW

If you attack with a gauntlet you're not attacking with an unarmed strike, sorry. Buy amulet of mighty fists though

read the FAQ, gauntlets are RAW.


The Monk does have good-to-great survivability, but just what can he do if his opponent is too large to grapple, too tough to stun, or is just plain out of reach
then he just have to put on his holy gauntlet and hope the bugger is evil.


And there's a load of non-arguments, like "Monks can help a rogue flank" (but so can anyone else), "Monks make good scouts" (but rogues, familiars, druids and divination spells make better scouts) and "Monks are spellcaster killers" (which is simply contradicted by the facts).

some disagrement about the scout part, rogues are some times better and some times worse, you cant use divination spells for everything and familiars are a bit fragile to send into harms way.


That's thier defining class role, going to get help. When the rest of the party is dead or nearly dead because they filled a party slot with a monk instead of a character that could actually contribute in some meaninglful way they can at least take comfort in the fact that as long as this danger didn't involve melee combat the monk is probably still alive and can go and get help
and i have often seen the party take comfort in that they had someone with a good will save who could contribute where a lot of other melee classes would have spend the battle running in fear or paralysed.

Solo
2007-10-01, 09:06 AM
some disagrement about the scout part, rogues are some times better and some times worse, you cant use divination spells for everything and familiars are a bit fragile to send into harms way.


Honestly, if you send a raven to fly ahead and scout, well, what enemy is going to waste time shooting down a bird that's just flying in the air?

Overlard
2007-10-01, 09:14 AM
first of all, full BAB is overratet, it gives a +1 bonus to hit for every 4 levels, and at the level where its allowed to grow to more than a +3 bonus casters rule the day anyway.
also monks have been given flurry of blows that does a lot to even out the difference, 1-2 additionel attacks at full BAB is worth the same as a minor bonus to hit.
But multiple attacks are only useful when you get to full-attack. Full attacking rarely happens with a non-stupid opponent.


as for str, monk needs this score as much as any other melee char, so it should be given top priority.
in the case where you use 4d6 for stats this isnt really a problem, you just assign highest roll for str, and end up in a better position than most other fighers or barbarians when it comes to tripping and grappling.
How? They'll likely have Str as their highest stat, and a higher BAB. If they want to grapple, they can take the feats too - fighters have them to burn. Barbarians just have to switch on the rage, and they only have to have a BAB two higher than yours just to be equal (if you both had the same Str).


in the case of point buy a monk would be at a minor disadvantage, but the scaling price would mean he still gets more stat for his points.
How? He needs more high stats then virtually any other class. He's at a big disadvantage whatever. MAD isn't an advantage by any stretch of the imagination.


actualy if you build your monk properly and shop smart you can hold up against all but the full casters (and i lump ToB chars in under that)
Only if they make their characters poorly and shop stupidly. Monks have to try their hardest just to approach the usefulness of an averagely-created non-monk PC.


just becasue you dont know how to build a proper monk does not mean the class is underpowered.
Just because you like the monk, that doesn't mean it's a good class.


the monk is able to assume several roles, for a start he makes for a very good scout, with high mobility, and spot, hide and move silent as class skills.
besides that he is good at tactical combat, where he can use a mix of trip, grapple and stunning fist to keep the opponents occupied.
His skills are good, but he gets less of them than a rogue or scout, and by higher levels, casters are doing the scout role better than anyone.

In combat, he's still at a disadvantage with combat manoeuvres due to a lower BAB. Tripping is good, but unless you've got a one-handed or better weapon for it, your +4 from Imp Grapple is negated straight away by the fact you're using a light weapon (either fists or a light monk weapon). Grappling is good unless you're up against someone with high dex (escape artist), good fighting skills (likely a higher BAB and Str) or any other way of escaping (Freedom Of Movement is pretty much the end of the grappling character). Plus while you grapple, you're a ripe target for other people to hit you.


actualy up until the higher lvs you just have to lose initiative, both grapple and stunning fist can ruin the day for most casters at low to medium levels.
Stunning fist is the monk's saving grace. You've still got to get there and land it though, which isn't always easy considering you'll have one attempt before retaliation comes.

Runolfr
2007-10-01, 09:19 AM
I just noticed: the SRD doesn't say anything about Flurry of Blows being restricted to Full Attack actions. The monk could presumably get a little mileage out of being able to charge (with extra movement, no less) and put two or three (with Greater Flurry) attacks into a target instead of just one. That could be effective if the target's AC isn't too high.

Attilargh
2007-10-01, 09:46 AM
...When a monk reaches 5th level, the penalty lessens to -1, and at 9th level it disappears. A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows.
Actually, it does.

Indon
2007-10-01, 09:56 AM
I feel that Monks are in-line with other noncasting classes, in terms of power, save that their heavy multiclassing and gear restrictions make them more difficult to optimize, which on these boards seems considered the single greatest indicator of class power and usefulness.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-01, 10:08 AM
more difficult to optimize, which on these boards seems considered the single greatest indicator of class power and usefulness.

Actually it doesn't.

Power is measured by such things as effectivity in combat (barbarians and rogues are good, monks are not), in social situations (bards are good, monks are not) and miscellaneous skillmonkeyness (rogues are good, monks are not).

lord_khaine
2007-10-01, 10:11 AM
But multiple attacks are only useful when you get to full-attack. Full attacking rarely happens with a non-stupid opponent

and higher BAB's biggest advantage is multiple attacks, and full attacks happens quite often if you play to your advantages like trip and grapple.


How? They'll likely have Str as their highest stat, and a higher BAB. If they want to grapple, they can take the feats too - fighters have them to burn. Barbarians just have to switch on the rage, and they only have to have a BAB two higher than yours just to be equal (if you both had the same Str).


yeah and str is also your highest stat, the grapple feat is in most situations a complete waste for them unless they are actualy build to grapple with any hostile monks the encounter, i think most people would agree thats a complete waste.
and even if their grapple bonus is equal, their grapple skills wouldnt be since monks has 1-2 more grapple attemps at their top bonus, this is a huge advantage that more than compensates for a minor difference in grapple score.
lastly this is usualy not a grapple competition betveen monk and barbarian/figher but monk/hostile encounter.


How? He needs more high stats then virtually any other class. He's at a big disadvantage whatever. MAD isn't an advantage by any stretch of the imagination.

for the same points you buy a 18 and a 8 you could get a 16 and a 14, thats what i meant.


Only if they make their characters poorly and shop stupidly. Monks have to try their hardest just to approach the usefulness of an averagely-created non-monk PC.

no, it is true that there are more pitfalls in the making of a monk than in most other classes, but a well made monk can even out with well made noncasters.


Just because you like the monk, that doesn't mean it's a good class
just becasue you dont like them doesnt mean they are a bad class either.
and i have newer claimed they are a good class, just that they isnt a bad.


His skills are good, but he gets less of them than a rogue or scout, and by higher levels, casters are doing the scout role better than anyone.

In combat, he's still at a disadvantage with combat manoeuvres due to a lower BAB. Tripping is good, but unless you've got a one-handed or better weapon for it, your +4 from Imp Grapple is negated straight away by the fact you're using a light weapon (either fists or a light monk weapon). Grappling is good unless you're up against someone with high dex (escape artist), good fighting skills (likely a higher BAB and Str) or any other way of escaping (Freedom Of Movement is pretty much the end of the grappling character). Plus while you grapple, you're a ripe target for other people to hit you.

ehh get the facts strait, in tripping neither depends on BAB or light weapons, and in most cases it will be monks str+4 vs opponents str.
in the case of grapple and the high dex opponent, escape artist wont help you resist grapple, it just allows you to waste a standart action on your own turn to get out of 1, whereupon you will get grappled again next round.

as for higher BAB thats canceled out by the improved grapple feat until lv 17, and nothing says str is higher, but on those occations it will be evened out by more grapple attempts.

as for freedom of movent, yes there isnt really anything to do here other than pack a spellstoring weapon with a dispel magic in, or wait for an ally to dispel magic.

and while you are grappling your opponent is also a ripe target for your allies, fx the party rogue if there is any.


Stunning fist is the monk's saving grace. You've still got to get there and land it though, which isn't always easy considering you'll have one attempt before retaliation comes

thats only in those cases where the retaliation managet to take you down in a singel round, the monk isnt that fragile.

Indon
2007-10-01, 10:11 AM
Actually it doesn't.

Power is measured by such things as effectivity in combat (barbarians and rogues are good, monks are not), in social situations (bards are good, monks are not) and miscellaneous skillmonkeyness (rogues are good, monks are not).

-Not every Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin is a Power-Attacking 2-hander wielding (or mounted lance-wielding) high-damage character, and not every rogue carries around a ring of blink.

These choices may seem obvious once you've been talking about them long enough, but many, many players don't _actually_ build characters like that. And a monk, similarly built, stacks up against them just fine.

But it's trickier to make the Monk equivalent of the PA Shock Trooper/Mounted Lancer.

lord_khaine
2007-10-01, 10:15 AM
Power is measured by such things as effectivity in combat (barbarians and rogues are good, monks are not), in social situations (bards are good, monks are not) and miscellaneous skillmonkeyness (rogues are good, monks are not).


to avoid this degenerating into a yes/no shouting mach please back your claims up a bit more than "monks are not"

combat effectivity aside, monks have diplomacy and sense motive as class skills, so nothing prevents them from being effective in social situations.

the only thing i can agree to is general skillmonkeyness where the monk can only follow on the stealth skills.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-01, 10:17 AM
-Not every Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin is a Power-Attacking 2-hander wielding (or mounted lance-wielding) high-damage character, and not every rogue carries around a ring of blink.
I'm not sure where those arguments came from since I mentioned none of that. This would appear to be a straw man fallacy.

The point is that, given an equal optimization level (which can be "none at all" or "very high" or anything in between, as long as it's equal), the monk will be a worse combatant than the barbarian (or ranger, or even fighter), worse in social situations than the bard, and worse in skill situations than the rogue. And have worse saving throws than the paladin, for that matter.


(edit)

combat effectivity aside, monks have diplomacy and sense motive as class skills, so nothing prevents them from being effective in social situations.
Yes there is. (1) mediocre charisma, (2) lack of bluff, disguise, gather information and knowledge: local skills, and (3) mediocre intelligence, ergo low skill points.

Dullyanna
2007-10-01, 10:18 AM
The key thing is that it's a hell of a lot easier to make a decent, non-optimized build out of pretty much any other class besides monks.On a side note, survivability isn't that great after a certain extent. Sure, you outlasted the BBEG, but now you have to drag all your buddie's corpses back to a priest:smalltongue: .

Indon
2007-10-01, 10:26 AM
I'm not sure where those arguments came from since I mentioned none of that. This would appear to be a straw man fallacy.


I speak from the experience of countless other "monk strength" threads; the baseline to compare against them is a melee class with pretty optimised damage.

The monk is _not_ weaker than a 1-h/shield or TWF Barbarian. The monk is certainly not weaker in combat than a rogue who can't regularly sneak attack. The monk's main attack - the unarmed attack - matches or outstrips those character options, and is still a likely choice for someone not optimizing.

My point is, at "very high" the monk is weaker. But at "Not significantly" and below (which would probably be "none at all" by forum standards), the monk matches up fine.

Funkyodor
2007-10-01, 10:27 AM
In combat, he's still at a disadvantage with combat manoeuvres due to a lower BAB. Tripping is good, but unless you've got a one-handed or better weapon for it, your +4 from Imp Grapple is negated straight away by the fact you're using a light weapon (either fists or a light monk weapon). Grappling is good unless you're up against someone with high dex (escape artist), good fighting skills (likely a higher BAB and Str) or any other way of escaping (Freedom Of Movement is pretty much the end of the grappling character). Plus while you grapple, you're a ripe target for other people to hit you.

Weapon size is not considered for Grappling or Tripping, only character size (Small, Medium, Large). Weapon size is used for disarm, which the quarterstaff works almost as well as a large disarm weapon.


Stunning fist is the monk's saving grace. You've still got to get there and land it though, which isn't always easy considering you'll have one attempt before retaliation comes.

Stunning fist is great if you have team mates that can capitolize on it like full power attacking fighters, sneak attacking rogues, ranged touch attack casting wizards, etc... Or if it is your first attack in your full attack. Otherwise the opponent starts action right before your turn and you see no return other than delay (or increase) of initiative.

EDIT: Argh, victim of the dreaded post ninja!

Indon
2007-10-01, 10:29 AM
Otherwise the opponent starts action right before your turn and you see no return other than delay (or increase) of initiative.


Unless they're holding something (like a weapon) in their hands; stunned characters drop what they're holding.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-10-01, 10:49 AM
Really, no matter how many arguments you bring up, monks are weak at any level that is considered high. A nice way to make them better, in my opinion would be to allow them to use special techniques. For example, somethin' like this at level 16:


Meteor strike (you get this instead of SR +10 or bountiful step, or somethin'):


You make a leap to the heavens. As you come down, the added force of falling is applied to your attack, doing brutal damage. Make an attack roll. If it hits, roll all the damage die appropiate for a full attack, then increase the total by 100%. The damage can only be applied to an enemy who is up to 15' away. A Meteor strike requires a full attack action and a jump and Tumble check (DC 25 both) to execute succesfully.


Maybe it's ToBby, but at least it adds effectiveness to ol' Jackie Chan copycat.

Overlard
2007-10-01, 10:54 AM
and higher BAB's biggest advantage is multiple attacks, and full attacks happens quite often if you play to your advantages like trip and grapple.
Actually higher BAB's biggest advantage is being able to hit more often, or being able to sacrifice more to put towards Power Attack. Relying on a full attack to do your job is a bad idea, as they're so easy to negate. That's why so many builds rely on charging rather than standing there swinging several times.


yeah and str is also your highest stat, the grapple feat is in most situations a complete waste for them unless they are actualy build to grapple with any hostile monks the encounter, i think most people would agree thats a complete waste.
Then how is it a good idea for a monk? A fighter or barbarian built for grapping is better at it than a monk built for grappling.


and even if their grapple bonus is equal, their grapple skills wouldnt be since monks has 1-2 more grapple attemps at their top bonus, this is a huge advantage that more than compensates for a minor difference in grapple score.
See above, re: full attack.


lastly this is usualy not a grapple competition betveen monk and barbarian/figher but monk/hostile encounter.
It's comparing effectiveness at a task. The monk is yet to pull ahead on any point.


for the same points you buy a 18 and a 8 you could get a 16 and a 14, thats what i meant.
So your primary stat is already two below that of the non-MAD character. You've got 4 stats to keep as high as you can, other melee fighters normally have 2, and the others are luxuries.


no, it is true that there are more pitfalls in the making of a monk than in most other classes, but a well made monk can even out with well made noncasters.
I've yet to see one that can. They just don't have the options or tools that other classes do.


just becasue you dont like them doesnt mean they are a bad class either.
and i have newer claimed they are a good class, just that they isnt a bad.
I don't dislike them. I've played them a few times and had fun, but I've never been convinced that they can do their task any better than other classes. They're not the worst class out there, but compared to the other PHB classes, the wander in last.


ehh get the facts strait, in tripping neither depends on BAB or light weapons, and in most cases it will be monks str+4 vs opponents str.
I got it confused with disarming (something else the monks can specialise in and get almost as good as another melee class). And if we're making requests, please get your spelling and grammar right. And as I've said before, the monk can do this, but still isn't as good as most melee classes who'll have a higher Str than the monk and are specialising in grappling.


in the case of grapple and the high dex opponent, escape artist wont help you resist grapple, it just allows you to waste a standart action on your own turn to get out of 1, whereupon you will get grappled again next round.
Well you can escape and move away, meaning that the monk then has to move up to you again and use their single attack to try to grapple. It's an ongoing vicious circle. It's part of why grappling isn't all that great in most cases.


as for higher BAB thats canceled out by the improved grapple feat until lv 17, and nothing says str is higher, but on those occations it will be evened out by more grapple attempts.
You're still discounting the fact that there's nothing stopping other melee characters from taking improved grapple, and getting that +4 on top of their superior BAB and Str. Nothing says the other character's Str is higher, except from the fact that monks are so MAD that the only time they'll generally be the same is if the stats are rolled. On average, a barbarian or fighter will have a higher Str than the monk, and probably a better Con too.


as for freedom of movent, yes there isnt really anything to do here other than pack a spellstoring weapon with a dispel magic in, or wait for an ally to dispel magic.
It's really a "hope someone else does something about it" situation.


and while you are grappling your opponent is also a ripe target for your allies, fx the party rogue if there is any.
And if you're a fighter or barbarian, then the opponent has less chance of getting away, letting the rogue get more hits in.


thats only in those cases where the retaliation managet to take you down in a singel round, the monk isnt that fragile.
No, but they can still be disabled with a single spell, or smacked so hard that they need to spend a round healing, or tripped, or grappled, or trapped. They're resistant, but not that resistant to attacks.

As I said, I don't hate monks, but everything you've put forwards can be done by a fighter with the right feat choices, and done better. Monks can be useful to have around, but most of the time what they do will be done better by another class.

Hyfigh
2007-10-01, 11:09 AM
I've built monks that are plenty powerful.

Core monks don't have much that can boost their power aside from weapon finessing their fists, but loosing strength isn't an incredibly good idea. On the other hand, MAD sucks, so it's almost a lose, lose situation.

Opening additional sources, just as any other class, begins to open more options. Monks are going to require some sly feat combos and quite a bit of PrC dipping to become effective.

Dropping strength in lue of dexterity with weapon finesse improves AC and attack through one stat. You can easily make the damage up through Improved Natural Attack. It's not unheard of to reach well over 4d6 per unarmed strike. While this alone doesn't make or break the monk it's a good start to a high unarmed damage.

With all the dipping the monk does, you end up losing monk levels to unarmed damage. To help with this take the Supreme Unarmed Strike. Kensai can pick up the slack (though it's not entirely recommended, the Kensai is great for a completely self-sufficient monk) for the lack of non-magical weapons. With the right enchantments on there you can really add a lot of oomf. With moderate saves, taking a dip in Templar doesn't hurt as mettle and evasion allow you a slightly higher survivability from spells.

Taking the appropriate PrC's at the right levels can help pick up your slacking HP. While you won't have more than the fighters (usually) you will have enough to survive most encounters without a problem.

Monks that I play usually fill the nitch of paper tank. They can help control the battlefield, deal some hp damage, and take a couple licks when needed.

This isn't to say they're overpowered by any means. I just wanted to help show they aren't completely useless.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-01, 11:22 AM
4d6 isn't as good as it sounds. It averages out to 14 damage.

Wow. 14 damage.

Arakune
2007-10-01, 11:35 AM
... this aren't going anywhere.

Why not this:

Core only (SRD to simplify things, if not stated in SRD but in core, say page and book) rules and general resources. Same lvl of comparation, same starting gold by level, etc. Why core only? Because the argument are mostly 'by RAW, monks suck much more than everyone'.


Generic Grappler Monk Vs Generic Grappler Fighter
Generic Multi-Attack Monk Vs Generic Multi-Attack Fighter/Ranger/Rogue
Generic Heavy Damage Monk Vs Generic Heavy Damage Fighter/Barbarian
Generic Jack of All Trades Monk Vs Generic Jack of All Trades Rogue/Bard

Monk
Lvl;
Stats (stat generation system);
Feats;
BAB/Grapple;
Attack/damage;
Relevant Skills;
Strategy;

Another Class
Lvl;
Stats (stat generation system);
Feats;
BAB/Grapple;
Attack/damage;
Relevant Skills;
Strategy;


Aparently this is not a ideal world where a logical explaining can solve everything, sometimes you must burn your face or put the other people face in a bin of sulphuric acid close an argument (a.k.a empiric prof).

edit:ninja'd, aparently.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-01, 11:35 AM
The monk is _not_ weaker than a 1-h/shield or TWF Barbarian. The monk is certainly not weaker in combat than a rogue who can't regularly sneak attack. The monk's main attack - the unarmed attack - matches or outstrips those character options, and is still a likely choice for someone not optimizing.

Okay. I honestly don't know the answer to that, so I'm writing up a comparison. Please let me know if there are any glaring mistakes in here.

S&B Barbarian vs Monk
(TWF barbarian is as the S&B one, only with one point less AC, and an extra attack)

Level five.
Assuming elite array, the barbarian gets 15+1/13/14/12/10/8. The monk gets 13/14/12/10/15+1/8.
Barbarian has 22+4d12 hp, monk has 13+4d8.
Barbarian has AC 14 (+4 light armor, +1 dex, +1 shield, -2 rage), monk has 16 (+3 wis, +2 dex, +1 monk). Fighter would have 20 (+8 heavy armor, +1 dex, +1 shield).
Barbarian gets one attack at +10 (+5 BAB, +3 strength, +2 rage), for 1d8+5, or power attack for up to five points for +5 / 1d8+10.
Monk, assuming he gets to flurry which is NOT a given, gets two attacks at +3 (+2 BAB, +1 strength) for 1d8+1.
The SAB Barbarian is pretty obviously stronger. The TWF variant is better than this, because he gets -1 AC for not using a shield, and an additional attack for significant damage.
And this is not counting magical items - magical weapons for a fighter/barbarian are easily available at this level, magical weapons for a monk much less so, since they're more expensive. Besides, cherry-picking magical items would be optimizing, and we're not doing that here.

Level ten.
Assuming elite array, the barbarian gets 15+1/13+1/14/12/10/8. The monk gets 13+1/14/12/10/15+1/8.
Barbarian still wins hit points, by a lot. He also has a better fort save.
Barbarian has AC 15 (+4 light armor, +2 dex, +1 shield, -2 rage) AND damage reduction 2, monk has 17 (+3 wis, +2 dex, +2 monk). But the barb should have magic armor by now, and the monk won't.
Barbarian gets two attacks at +15/+10 (+10 BAB, +3 strength, +2 rage), for 1d8+5, or power attack for up to ten points for +5 / 1d8+15.
Monk in flurry gets three attacks at +9/+9/+4 (+7 BAB, +2 strength) for 1d10+2.
Note that I am making several assumptions in the monk's favor here (e.g. they get a full attack, and this is level 10 whereas 11 is a big power boost for the barb, and barb is using a +1 AC shield rather than a second weapon, and simple magical items are going to help the barb more, and I haven't even picked FEATS other than the obvious no-brainer of power attack) and the barb still wins, albeit not by a lot. BUT if the assumptions go the other way (which is equally likely) he wins BIG time.

E.g. amulet of mighty fists +1 costs 6000 gp, equivalent of two +1 weapons, a +1 armor and a +1 shield; the amulet +2 costs 24000 gp, which is as much as a +3 weapon, +1 weapon, and +2 armor. And this isn't optimizing, this is picking the most obvious no-brainers. And let's not forget archery, which the barbarian can obviously do more effectively than the monk, since you can't flurry with a bow.

It would seem that the monk is in fact harder to build than the barbarian, and hence at low or nonexistent levels of optimalization, the barb wins. I'll let someone else do the math for tripping, grappling, and disarming, but with the barb's six-point advantage in attack rolls I have an idea where this is headed.

I concede that a monk is stronger than a rogue-who-never-sneak-attacks, but that is not much of an argument since the whole point of the rogue in combat is to sneak attack (twice, if TWF), and making it so by e.g. flanking isn't all that uncommon.

lord_khaine
2007-10-01, 11:39 AM
Actually higher BAB's biggest advantage is being able to hit more often, or being able to sacrifice more to put towards Power Attack. Relying on a full attack to do your job is a bad idea, as they're so easy to negate. That's why so many builds rely on charging rather than standing there swinging several times

well lucky the monk has so many options for negating those negations of a full attack.


Then how is it a good idea for a monk? A fighter or barbarian built for grapping is better at it than a monk built for grappling.

a figher or barbarian build for grappling will have a sligtly higher grapple bonus, but it will be a complete waste of time for them because the damage they can do in a grapple will be minimal.


See above, re: full attack
firstly have to take your words for that those ways exist, and secondly being in a grapple should negate most of those.


It's comparing effectiveness at a task. The monk is yet to pull ahead on any point.

maybe in your book, in mine he is taking the lead in combat mobility and grappling.


So your primary stat is already two below that of the non-MAD character. You've got 4 stats to keep as high as you can, other melee fighters normally have 2, and the others are luxuries.

for a start this is only a issue in the case where you use point buy, and the monk can make do with good str and wis, and just above average con and dex.


I've yet to see one that can. They just don't have the options or tools that other classes do.
they have a lot more options and tools than most melee classes, and i made several that did, in a party of powergamers.


I don't dislike them. I've played them a few times and had fun, but I've never been convinced that they can do their task any better than other classes. They're not the worst class out there, but compared to the other PHB classes, the wander in last.

and i have newer been convinced they can do their tasks worse than any other classes.


I got it confused with disarming (something else the monks can specialise in and get almost as good as another melee class). And if we're making requests, please get your spelling and grammar right. And as I've said before, the monk can do this, but still isn't as good as most melee classes who'll have a higher Str than the monk and are specialising in grappling.

well pardon me for comming from a skandinavian country, im sure if we continued the discussion in my native tounge my gramma and spelling would improve.
and as i have said before, when rolling stats the monk wont have a lower str score, and there isnt any other classes thats specalised in grappling.


Well you can escape and move away, meaning that the monk then has to move up to you again and use their single attack to try to grapple. It's an ongoing vicious circle. It's part of why grappling isn't all that great in most cases.

what you see as a vicious circle i see as the monk forcing his opponent on the defensive, besides the monk does damage every time he gets a hold, even if his opponent escape artist away he usualy wont get far enough away with a move action to avoid being grappled again next round (for more grapple damage)


You're still discounting the fact that there's nothing stopping other melee characters from taking improved grapple, and getting that +4 on top of their superior BAB and Str. Nothing says the other character's Str is higher, except from the fact that monks are so MAD that the only time they'll generally be the same is if the stats are rolled. On average, a barbarian or fighter will have a higher Str than the monk, and probably a better Con too
and other melee classes taking improved grapple would be important if this was a grapple contest, but i seriously doubt a monk player would encounter more than 1 non-monk with those feats, i have played several monks and yet to face any opponents with them, and in the case where you did find that 1 barbarian/fighter who did take them then its just start tripping instead.


It's really a "hope someone else does something about it" situation
those situations pop up for everyone, even wizards.


And if you're a fighter or barbarian, then the opponent has less chance of getting away, letting the rogue get more hits in

and if you are a barbarian/fighter then you have turned yourself into a inferior monk.


No, but they can still be disabled with a single spell, or smacked so hard that they need to spend a round healing, or tripped, or grappled, or trapped. They're resistant, but not that resistant to attacks.

everyone can get disabled by a singel spell, monks are a lot better at resisting that then most other classes.
if they are still able to act then they are also still able to get another stun in, and if they are tripped then they can either get up again or trip their opponent back.
being grappled doesnt prevent another use of stunning first either.
and in the end monks are still resistant enough that its more likely they still stand up after the retaliation than not.


As I said, I don't hate monks, but everything you've put forwards can be done by a fighter with the right feat choices, and done better. Monks can be useful to have around, but most of the time what they do will be done better by another class.

no, fighters dont make better stunners, trippers or grappler.
in the case of tripping the fighter will have as high a chance of tripping, but he wont be as mobile, a monk is a Lot faster and has tumble as a class skill,

as for grappling yes the fighter could get a higher bonus, but all he would do was to hold his opponent and hope someone else finishes him off, and here mobility is also a big advantage, where the monks higher speed allows him to get very fast in melee range of those who doesnt like to be grappled.

the final advantage of having the monk instead of other classes is that there are much less chance of him suddenly not doing those things a figher could have done, if he didnt fail his will/reflex save.

Runolfr
2007-10-01, 11:45 AM
Actually, it does.

Ah. Wasn't in the obvious place.

Hyfigh
2007-10-01, 11:51 AM
4d6 isn't as good as it sounds. It averages out to 14 damage.

Wow. 14 damage.

4d6 is higher than pretty much any weapon a fighters going to have. Add in the bonuses from dex to damage (through Shadowhand or whatever that feat from ToB is that allows you to add dex to damage) and the magic from Kensai and your wizard enchanting and you're easily on par with any melee character aside from a rogue or some massive damage builds. This isn't to mention that 4d6 is really a very minimal baseline.

KIDS
2007-10-01, 11:56 AM
I still have to be convinced about this whole gauntlet thing, partially RAW and extremely RAI - if you're attacking with a gauntlet you aren't attacking with your unarmed strike (which for a monk does not need to be delivered with fist).

Gauntlet
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets.
( Gauntlet (http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/619207/2/istockphoto_619207_knight_s_gauntlet.jpg) )

If you're attacking with a gauntlet you get its damage, that is 1d3 (which might sometimes even be good for a monk considering it's one of rare ways to burst DR/cold iron or DR/silver). I don't see how you would get your improved unarmed damage (which implies precise strikes you know... martial arts) through a metal curtain. I don't see how it makes sense.

Monks, played poorly or averagely, won't let you down as much as a poorly played fighter would. But as soon as you desire to deal more than 15 or so damage per round you get into stormy waters.

Morty
2007-10-01, 11:57 AM
(through Shadowhand or whatever that feat from ToB is that allows you to add dex to damage)

If you use ToB, why not play Swordsage fighting unarmed? From all I hear, he's a Monk, But Better.

Arakune
2007-10-01, 11:59 AM
4d6 is higher than pretty much any weapon a fighters going to have. Add in the bonuses from dex to damage (through Shadowhand or whatever that feat from ToB is that allows you to add dex to damage) and the magic from Kensai and your wizard enchanting and you're easily on par with any melee character aside from a rogue or some massive damage builds. This isn't to mention that 4d6 is really a very minimal baseline.

I guess bringing ToB doesn't help your argument here since most of the forum acknowledge that most of things from that book are much more powerful than core. I don't own the book, but expect many optimizers giving exemples (if they aren't bored).


I still have to be convinced about this whole gauntlet thing, partially RAW and extremely RAI - if you're attacking with a gauntlet you aren't attacking with your unarmed strike (which for a monk does not need to be delivered with fist).

Gauntlet
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets.
( Gauntlet (http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/619207/2/istockphoto_619207_knight_s_gauntlet.jpg) )

If you're attacking with a gauntlet you get its damage, that is 1d3 (which might sometimes even be good for a monk considering it's one of rare ways to burst DR/cold iron or DR/silver). I don't see how you would get your improved unarmed damage (which implies precise strikes you know... martial arts) through a metal curtain. I don't see how it makes sense.

Monks, played poorly or averagely, won't let you down as much as a poorly played fighter would. But as soon as you desire to deal more than 15 or so damage per round you get into stormy waters.

A attacker gauntlet should have metal parts only on the most significant parts of the hand, so you can still deal your precision based damage. The knight gauntlet you showed are used (if I'm not entirely wrong) to protect the hand of him, instead of a weapon.

lord_khaine
2007-10-01, 12:06 PM
If you're attacking with a gauntlet you get its damage, that is 1d3 (which might sometimes even be good for a monk considering it's one of rare ways to burst DR/cold iron or DR/silver). I don't see how you would get your improved unarmed damage (which implies precise strikes you know... martial arts) through a metal curtain. I don't see how it makes sense

by the FAQ on wizards homepage a monk gets his improved unarmed damage on a gauntlett, and can even use flurry with it.

(ps by most commen sense hitting with a metal gauntlett would hurt more than hitting with a fist, and this is a fantasy RPG, sense doesnt have anything to say :smallsmile: )

kamikasei
2007-10-01, 12:21 PM
I still have to be convinced about this whole gauntlet thing, partially RAW and extremely RAI - if you're attacking with a gauntlet you aren't attacking with your unarmed strike (which for a monk does not need to be delivered with fist).

Isn't it pretty clearly stated in that spoiler below that the gauntlet is modifying, not replacing, an unarmed strike? I mean,

Gauntlet
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets.

I don't really understand your confusion.

ravenkith
2007-10-01, 12:23 PM
I call for a core Fighter 20 vs. Monk 20 battle face off in a plain, featureless arena,, completely circular with a 50 foot radius and a 50 foot ceiling.

FIGHT! (First to hit -10 loses)

Indon
2007-10-01, 12:29 PM
I call for a core Fighter 20 vs. Monk 20 battle face off in a plain, featureless arena,, completely circular with a 50 foot radius and a 50 foot ceiling.

FIGHT! (First to hit -10 loses)

That would turn into an archery contest.

The Monk's best strategy is to simply have some form of flight, then stay out of the Fighter's reach and pick him off. Since the Monk gains his enhancement bonus to any fly speed he gets, the Fighter could not catch him using anything that granted him a fly speed as well (Edit: Because regardless of how fast any given measure is, the Monk can just use it and be faster).

The Fighter could not stay in the center and charge the monk, even if he could get a 30ft flight speed, as the monk can just ready an action while at the edge of the arena to move away if charged, escaping the Fighter's charge range.

So now the Fighter has to be an archer build, too.

Dr. Weasel
2007-10-01, 12:32 PM
Lord_Khaine, if you plan on continuing your method of argument, could you please give credits for your quotes? Right now it's extremely difficult to find context for your comments.

KIDS
2007-10-01, 12:37 PM
Isn't it pretty clearly stated in that spoiler below that the gauntlet is modifying, not replacing, an unarmed strike?

From a rules standpoint, the gauntlet has its own damage listed and it should use that one, else it would have been written as "same as unarmed". Seeing how wizards FAQ disagrees with me I don't have anymore counterarguments and don't intend to quarrel about it.

From a flavor standpoint, or how the class was meant to work - I can assure you that it was not intended to have every monk flurrying with his magical gauntlets. How many martial artists (which the monk is based on) fight while wearing bloody gauntlets?!?!? Seriously....
p.s. since unarmed strike can be done with any part of body, it also adds additional mayhem about what part of the body you are using for each attack. I still hold the game wasn't intended to work that way.

Telonius
2007-10-01, 12:47 PM
I'd say that monks are underpowered.

My reason?

Morris the Mock Monk.
Human Fighter, Strength-focused.
Feats:
1: Improved Unarmed Strike
1(Human): Stunning Fist
1(Fighter): Power Attack
2(Fighter): Improved Grapple
3: Deflect Arrows
4(Fighter): Improved Disarm
6: Combat Reflexes
6(Fighter): Improved Trip
8(Fighter): Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike)
9: Weapon Specialization (Unarmed Strike)
10(Fighter): Greater Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike)
12: Greater Weapon Specialization (Unarmed Strike)

Morris will have exactly the same ability scores as a 20th-level Monk. Morris has all six of the monk's Bonus Feats, while the Monk can only have three of them. Fighter has 6 feats (4 fighter and 2 normal) left over between then and 20th level - the Monk only has 7 feats to begin with (8 if a human), so Morris can most likely take all of the same feats that the Monk does by level 20, minus one. He has an average of 20 more hit points than the monk by 20th level. He has a higher BAB, which means he can hit more often than an equivalent-level Monk. Morris Power Attacks for at least 3 every time; with his Weapon Specialization, this means he's hitting as hard as a 20th-level monk starting at 12th level. (Except his attack bonus is still 2 better than the monk). Morris can wear enchantable armor while fighting, which costs less than the Monk's Bracers; he has an AC almost equalling, if not exceeding, the Monk. He can use his enchanted Gauntlets without using a Feat to gain proficiency.

Monk, on the other hand, gets faster movement, a higher jump check, evasion, +2 vs enchantment, Slow Fall, immunity to diseases, ability to heal 2x monk level hp per day, immunity to poison, Dimension door 1/day, SR monk level + 10, Quivering Palm, no aging penalties, speaks with everything, etherealness (monk level) rounds per day, DR 10/magic, better Reflex and Will saves, one more feat than Morris, 2 more skill points per level (with a much better selection of class skills), and extra attacks from Flurry of Blows.

But several of the Monk's bonuses can be gained by magic items. The Fighter can afford these, since he's paying less for his armor. Ring of Feather Fall, Periapt of Health OR Periapt of Proof against Poison (can't have both on at once), widgets of Etherealness and Dimension Door 1/day.

So, Monk's advantages: Faster movement, a higher jump check, evasion, +2 vs enchantment, immunity to diseases OR poison, ability to heal 2x monk level hp per day, SR monk level + 10, Quivering Palm, no aging penalties, speaks with everything, DR 10/magic, better Reflex and Will saves, one more feat than Morris, 2 more skill points per level (with a much better selection of class skills), and extra attacks from Flurry of Blows.

That's it. Those are the only advantages a real monk has over Morris, who has deliberately left his normal role to do what the Monk is supposed to be able to do. (I'm not going to do the stats, but I suspect that any advantages the extra Flurry attacks would give the Monk are rather small).

Hyfigh
2007-10-01, 12:54 PM
I guess bringing ToB doesn't help your argument here since most of the forum acknowledge that most of things from that book are much more powerful than core. I don't own the book, but expect many optimizers giving exemples (if they aren't bored).

ToB isn't overpowering or overpowered, though. I don't really like melee characters without at least a hint of ToB because of the fact that it brings melee'ers a little higher on the ladder.

Was the purpose of the thread to compare a Core monk? I didn't get that impression so I'm sorry if it was. My statement was that monks in Core aren't very good at all. Even if they didn't suffer MAD they'd be subpar. With a little help from additional sources (just as I said before, like any other class out there) they can become more powerful and actually feel like they contribute.

My statement also wasn't much of an argument. I simply posted to show that Monks, with a little work, can be made into a playable character. Nothing about overpowering, nothing about broken, only about bringing them up to speed with others.

Runolfr
2007-10-01, 01:03 PM
So, Monk's advantages: Faster movement, a higher jump check, evasion, +2 vs enchantment, immunity to diseases OR poison, ability to heal 2x monk level hp per day, SR monk level + 10, Quivering Palm, no aging penalties, speaks with everything, DR 10/magic, better Reflex and Will saves, one more feat than Morris, 2 more skill points per level (with a much better selection of class skills), and extra attacks from Flurry of Blows.

Keeping mind that his odds of success probably aren't that great, what happens if the Monk successfully disarms the fighter?

Suddenly the Monk has DR 10 versus the fighter's unarmed attacks, which have base damage of 1d3 and don't fully benefit from Power Attack (since they're considered light weapons). If the Monk can disarm the Fighter, he's suddenly sitting rather pretty, isn't he? Of is that too simplistic an assessment.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-10-01, 01:24 PM
I'd say that monks are underpowered.
Spoiler for space...

My reason?

Morris the Mock Monk.
Human Fighter, Strength-focused.
Feats:
1: Improved Unarmed Strike
1(Human): Stunning Fist
1(Fighter): Power Attack
2(Fighter): Improved Grapple
3: Deflect Arrows
4(Fighter): Improved Disarm
6: Combat Reflexes
6(Fighter): Improved Trip
8(Fighter): Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike)
9: Weapon Specialization (Unarmed Strike)
10(Fighter): Greater Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike)
12: Greater Weapon Specialization (Unarmed Strike)

Morris will have exactly the same ability scores as a 20th-level Monk. Morris has all six of the monk's Bonus Feats, while the Monk can only have three of them. Fighter has 6 feats (4 fighter and 2 normal) left over between then and 20th level - the Monk only has 7 feats to begin with (8 if a human), so Morris can most likely take all of the same feats that the Monk does by level 20, minus one. He has an average of 20 more hit points than the monk by 20th level. He has a higher BAB, which means he can hit more often than an equivalent-level Monk. Morris Power Attacks for at least 3 every time; with his Weapon Specialization, this means he's hitting as hard as a 20th-level monk starting at 12th level. (Except his attack bonus is still 2 better than the monk). Morris can wear enchantable armor while fighting, which costs less than the Monk's Bracers; he has an AC almost equalling, if not exceeding, the Monk. He can use his enchanted Gauntlets without using a Feat to gain proficiency.

Monk, on the other hand, gets faster movement, a higher jump check, evasion, +2 vs enchantment, Slow Fall, immunity to diseases, ability to heal 2x monk level hp per day, immunity to poison, Dimension door 1/day, SR monk level + 10, Quivering Palm, no aging penalties, speaks with everything, etherealness (monk level) rounds per day, DR 10/magic, better Reflex and Will saves, one more feat than Morris, 2 more skill points per level (with a much better selection of class skills), and extra attacks from Flurry of Blows.

But several of the Monk's bonuses can be gained by magic items. The Fighter can afford these, since he's paying less for his armor. Ring of Feather Fall, Periapt of Health OR Periapt of Proof against Poison (can't have both on at once), widgets of Etherealness and Dimension Door 1/day.

So, Monk's advantages: Faster movement, a higher jump check, evasion, +2 vs enchantment, immunity to diseases OR poison, ability to heal 2x monk level hp per day, SR monk level + 10, Quivering Palm, no aging penalties, speaks with everything, DR 10/magic, better Reflex and Will saves, one more feat than Morris, 2 more skill points per level (with a much better selection of class skills), and extra attacks from Flurry of Blows.

That's it. Those are the only advantages a real monk has over Morris, who has deliberately left his normal role to do what the Monk is supposed to be able to do. (I'm not going to do the stats, but I suspect that any advantages the extra Flurry attacks would give the Monk are rather small).

Add in Superior Unarmed strike, and you have unarmed damage that almost scales as high as a monk's.

Draz74
2007-10-01, 01:30 PM
Yes ... unless the Fighter can Disarm him back and recover his weapon. :smalltongue: And unarmed strikes, in spite of being light, can benefit from Power Attack normally (they just don't count as two-handed weapons).

And I'd also just love to mention that I don't care what the FAQ says, I think allowing a Monk to "enchant his unarmed strikes" by wearing magic gauntlets is the stupidest idea ever, and I would never allow it as a DM. Unless there was some serious re-flavoring going on. ("OK, so this school of martial arts wears these funny wristband things traditionally, and they've learned to enchant them so that they magically enhance unarmed strikes. Now, the game doesn't have rules for how these wristbands work, so let's go ahead and just use the rules for gauntlets." I might be talked into that, just because the Monk really needs the help. But even then it makes my brain hurt with its cheesiness.)

Picturing an ascetic type, a lightly-clad, unarmored martial artist, who gets his power from Zen meditation ... with two ugly lumps of metal covering his hands. Um ...

I guess this is a great example of why I think we should be allowed to make some assumptions on this Forum about what DMs will and won't allow.

SquireJames
2007-10-01, 01:38 PM
I'd probably allow Amulets of Mighty Fists to cost the same as a regular magic weapon, and let them be enchanted with weapon enhancements such as "flaming" or "holy". Monks don't really use the amulet's abilities any more often than a fighter would use his magical greatsword, right? I consider the idea that monks are really using "more than one weapon" nonesense. Besides, it takes up that amulet slot, so the monk probably suffers from not having Wisdom, Constitution, or Natural Armor indead.

Crow
2007-10-01, 01:41 PM
Why is it that I always see "this or that is underpowered", or "ToB is overpowered", but I never see "spellcasters are overpowered" ?

Whenever somebody references power level, they use spellcasters as some sort of baseline, when the spellcasters are the ones who need to be toned down.

In the case of monks, I don't think they are designed to be combat powerhouses like some people think they should be. To me, the monks abilities are more suited to roles outside of combat. When the party is exploring dungeons and exotic locales, his abilities can be used to great effect. The only problem is that those abilities are overshadowed by those of the spellcasters, who overshadow everybody in everything.

Telonius
2007-10-01, 01:46 PM
Keeping mind that his odds of success probably aren't that great, what happens if the Monk successfully disarms the fighter?

Suddenly the Monk has DR 10 versus the fighter's unarmed attacks, which have base damage of 1d3 and don't fully benefit from Power Attack (since they're considered light weapons). If the Monk can disarm the Fighter, he's suddenly sitting rather pretty, isn't he? Of is that too simplistic an assessment.

:smallconfused: Huh, hadn't considered that... nothing in the SRD says that disarming a Gauntlet is impossible (though I find the image a little weird). Spiked gauntlets are impossible to disarm, but they're considered armed attacks. So, if you wanted to go all Wolverine on him, you could use Spiked Gauntlets instead, and switch the feats over. You still have proficiency in them; the only difference is that you wouldn't have the Stunning Fist attack.

Even as is, if the Fighter is disarmed, he can disarm the monk right back (as mentioned before). Or, pull out his spare Warhammer - which the Monk won't be able to use if he disarms - and whack away.

Crow
2007-10-01, 01:50 PM
Also remember that unarmed strikes aren't all the monk has available. He can use that quarterstaff to disarm his opponent with good effect.

Arakune
2007-10-01, 01:51 PM
ToB isn't overpowering or overpowered, though. I don't really like melee characters without at least a hint of ToB because of the fact that it brings melee'ers a little higher on the ladder.

Was the purpose of the thread to compare a Core monk? I didn't get that impression so I'm sorry if it was. My statement was that monks in Core aren't very good at all. Even if they didn't suffer MAD they'd be subpar. With a little help from additional sources (just as I said before, like any other class out there) they can become more powerful and actually feel like they contribute.

My statement also wasn't much of an argument. I simply posted to show that Monks, with a little work, can be made into a playable character. Nothing about overpowering, nothing about broken, only about bringing them up to speed with others.

I didn't said 'powergamer' or 'overpowered' . I said 'powerful compared to the core', two different things. If you get in all splat books that WoC published then you fall on the 'pun-punnizator' area where you can do 10^14 damage with a charge (something about it, if I read it right).

Well, at least I will always assume core only for simplicity and viability, but the general opinion here are 'monks, by RAW, sucks big time'. Maybe someone will make the 'Complete Monk Ownage Book' to completly rewrite then to give then more effectiveness on their chosen field.

It's not like I don't like monks, but the truth is, here, they already proved that other classes normally will outshine the monk in his supposed field. Whatever it is.

edit: now to think more about it, some role a monk would be great: all equipment taken and captured. Kind like of Ayla from Chrono Trigger, but in that game Ayla owed everyone until Chrono got his ultimate weapon...

Zincorium
2007-10-01, 01:54 PM
Why is it that I always see "this or that is underpowered", or "ToB is overpowered", but I never see "spellcasters are overpowered" ?

I...find that hard to believe. Kvetching that spellcasters are way uber powerful is the number 1 hobby on this forum. Because they flatly are.


As far as the optimization thing goes, a barbarian can be a stupidly powerful charging character that does thousands of damage with one hit. The option is there.

Monks have no such level of power to up themselves to.

At the lowest possible level of optimizing, the barbarian will still have a greater damage potential. Given both have a starting strength of 6 and using a weapon they aren't proficient in, the monk is still worse at damage than the barbarian.

Barbarians aren't even the best class, they usually rank disctinctly towards the back.



Optimization, or lack thereof, just shows an issue that's already there.

Crow
2007-10-01, 01:59 PM
Again, almost every discussion around here revolves around combat. This is why people are complaining about 4e being too "combat-centric" (not me, just some people). You asked for it! If you look at the monk, he is just not built for it.

His abilities come in quite useful outside of combat. It's just that spellcasters do it better.

tainsouvra
2007-10-01, 02:00 PM
:smallconfused: Huh, hadn't considered that... nothing in the SRD says that disarming a Gauntlet is impossible Is there anything that says that disarming an unarmed strike is impossible?
What about disarming someone of their spiked armor?
...it can get pretty ridiculous by that logic.

I'm not a big fan of the "nothing says it's impossible" route of justifying a counterintuitive action like that one--nothing says it's impossible to take actions while dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dead), too, but that doesn't mean it's intended to be possible. If something doesn't really make any sense, it's better to assume that it's nonsense unless the rules state that it can happen, not allow it unless the rules say it can't happen.

Zid
2007-10-01, 02:03 PM
Auch. Monk debate, caster debate and ToB debate again. The only thin gmissing is the CoDzilla debate and Sir_Giacamo

Oh, and as a footnote-Monks do need more love. I wish a few of the Burmese Monks had taken levels in the Monk class instead of commoner.

Morty
2007-10-01, 02:05 PM
Again, almost every discussion around here revolves around combat. This is why people are complaining about 4e being too "combat-centric" (not me, just some people). You asked for it! If you look at the monk, he is just not built for it.

His abilities come in quite useful outside of combat. It's just that spellcasters do it better.

What can monk do out of combat that ranger, rogue or bard can't? Also, I was under the impression that monk was designed around unarmed martial artist, which is preety combat-oriented.

Telonius
2007-10-01, 02:08 PM
Is there anything that says that disarming an unarmed strike is impossible?
What about disarming someone of their spiked armor?
...it can get pretty ridiculous by that logic.

I'm not a big fan of the "nothing says it's impossible" route of justifying a counterintuitive action like that one--nothing says it's impossible to take actions while dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dead), too, but that doesn't mean it's intended to be possible. If something doesn't really make any sense, it's better to assume that it's nonsense unless the rules state that it can happen, not allow it unless the rules say it can't happen.

Obviously. But the point of the "mock monk" build is that, even giving the Monk class every advantage, benefit of the doubt, and rule-bending possible, the class can still be outdone - or nearly so - at almost everything he's supposed to be good at, by an equal-level Fighter.


For example ...

Also remember that unarmed strikes aren't all the monk has available. He can use that quarterstaff to disarm his opponent with good effect.

The mock monk also has that option available to him. In fact, he has three other options that the regular Monk does not - the three Bonus Feats that the regular Monk didn't choose.

Fax Celestis
2007-10-01, 02:14 PM
His abilities come in quite useful outside of combat. It's just that spellcasters do it better.

Really? What does a monk do with a trap? A locked door? An important meeting with a ruler? A slightly-less important meeting with a merchant who jacks up his prices? Slavers who want to capture you? Researching a monster's truename? Discovering a foe's weakness? Interpreting a code? Piecing together a puzzle? Reading an ancient map that doesn't correspond exactly with modern locales?

No, out of combat requires having skill points. A monk--with 4+Int and having no class features dependent on Int--is not going to be able to match a ranger, rogue, scout, ninja, spellthief, wizard, beguiler, bard, factotum, wu jen, cloistered cleric, psion, archivist, lurk, psychic rogue, truenamer, swordsage or possibly even swashbuckler and warblade on skills, and as such will not be able to handle out of combat situations as well (or in as many different forms) either.

Crow
2007-10-01, 02:15 PM
The monk is a generalist. His skills can be used for exploring or talking, and he can hold his own (but not excel) in combat. He shares traits with the ranger, rogue, and bard, and has abilities that compliment those.

I'm not saying that he couldn't use a little help, but he is far from unplayable like most people seem to think.

Fax Celestis
2007-10-01, 02:21 PM
The monk is a generalist. His skills can be used for exploring or talking, and he can hold his own (but not excel) in combat. He shares traits with the ranger, rogue, and bard, and has abilities that compliment those.

I'm not saying that he couldn't use a little help, but he is far from unplayable like most people seem to think.

When everyone else is better than you, I think it's probably a good time to try something else. Like logging. Monks make good loggers. They just sit there and punch the tree until it falls over, and can probably do it faster than most commoners or experts could.

Furthermore, about the only thing the monk has going for him skillwise is his access to mobility skills...which the rogue and ranger--and to a lesser extent, the fighter and barbarian--also share. Outclassed again.

tainsouvra
2007-10-01, 03:02 PM
I was under the impression that monk was designed around unarmed martial artist, which is preety combat-oriented. I was under the impression that it was designed as a mish-mash of popular monk-like cultural icons rather than for any particular purpose, which is why it's not ideally suited for one. Basically, that it was built around a theme with its utility as secondary, rather than the other way around.

truemane
2007-10-01, 03:08 PM
I was under the impression that it was designed as a mish-mash of popular monk-like cultural icons rather than for any particular purpose, which is why it's not ideally suited for one. Basically, that it was built around a theme with its utility as secondary, rather than the other way around.

I think that's a fair assumption, and has always been my real problem with the class, despite my irrational and near-obsession-like love for them. They are an iconic character class whose overall effectiveness was less an issue than their flavour.

Xeon
2007-10-01, 03:09 PM
Monks are Balanced. They are a good core class. They help to fill out a balanced party nicely.

tainsouvra
2007-10-01, 03:10 PM
They help to fill out a balanced party nicely. A balanced party shouldn't be missing anything, and thus is already filled-out as-is...that's what makes it a balanced party :smallconfused:

truemane
2007-10-01, 03:14 PM
A balanced party shouldn't be missing anything, and thus is already filled-out as-is...that's what makes it a balanced party :smallconfused:

Well, there are classes that are decent additions to a balanced party. Since nothign is NEEDED, some classes provide support quite nicely. The Bard being the archtypical example, but Beguiler is a wonderful fifth, as is Scout, or Factotum.

But you're right, the only reason a Monk makes a decent fifth is that the big four niches are already occupied by highly trained prfoessionals.

Xeon
2007-10-01, 03:17 PM
A balanced party shouldn't be missing anything, and thus is already filled-out as-is...that's what makes it a balanced party :smallconfused:

A balanced party is made up of individual components. The Monk is a good class to put into a party to make it balanced. Does that help clarify?

truemane
2007-10-01, 03:21 PM
A balanced party is made up of individual components. The Monk is a good class to put into a party to make it balanced. Does that help clarify?

That's been the point the entire time. That a Monk can fill several niches at once, but fills each of them so ineptly that they really are of no use at all. They are a melee support fighter without the BAB or the HP to really contribute to melee. They are a minor skill monkey without the skills to be good enough at a wide enough variety of skills to be useful.

If the party is already a balanced four people, the Monk certainly isn't causing any harm by being a fifth, but if the Monk is the fourth, there are lists of classes better suited to filling that final niche, whatever it is.

That's all.

Tormsskull
2007-10-01, 03:24 PM
In a core-only non-magi-mart or non-magic item on demand catalog type setting I've found monks to be balanced if not a little on the powerful side. Especially as hit and run specialists. Focusing them on grappling checks seems like a good way to limit the potenial threat to them, and allows them to pump out pretty reasonable damage to those caught in their grasps.

Most optimizers won't "waste" a feat on Improved Grapple or Improved Unarmed Strike or Improved Disarm until they are set in a mock fight against a monk, at which point they suddenly have those feats.

Assuming a fighter/barbarian/ranger/melee type person doesn't have those feats, and the monk does (usually a likely situation), the Monk has an average to better than average chance of disarming/grappling his level-equivalent opponent. A high level monk can disarm an opponent of their weapon, and flee taking the weapon with them.

The problem with monks, as far as a problem exists, is that they rely on unconvential tactics to be good. And it is far easier to powerup most other classes as compared to the monk.

Crow
2007-10-01, 03:24 PM
I was under the impression that it was designed as a mish-mash of popular monk-like cultural icons rather than for any particular purpose, which is why it's not ideally suited for one. Basically, that it was built around a theme with its utility as secondary, rather than the other way around.

Agreed. But so few people build characters like that anymore. I always built my characters around a theme first. When a situation came up, I would determine how to best use the abilities I had to resolve it. Most players it seems build a character based around abilities first though, which is why they seem to think every class needs to be a specialist at something.


What does a monk do with a trap?

Avoid it, jump it, or spring it from a safe distance.


A locked door?

Bypass it entirely and unlock it from the inside, or break out an adamantine dagger.


An important meeting with a ruler? A slightly-less important meeting with a merchant who jacks up his prices?

Diplomacy.


Slavers who want to capture you?

Evade them, or fight them with your friends. If you do get captured, you're certainly in a better position than the fighter or maybe the wizard will be (fighter without gear, wizard without material components/foci and spellbook). Plus escape artist is a class skill.


Researching a monster's truename? Discovering a foe's weakness? Interpreting a code? Piecing together a puzzle? Reading an ancient map that doesn't correspond exactly with modern locales?

The monk isn't the only class that will be caught wanting in these situations.


No, out of combat requires having skill points. A monk--with 4+Int and having no class features dependent on Int--is not going to be able to match a ranger, rogue, scout, ninja, spellthief, wizard, beguiler, bard, factotum, wu jen, cloistered cleric, psion, archivist, lurk, psychic rogue, truenamer, swordsage or possibly even swashbuckler and warblade on skills, and as such will not be able to handle out of combat situations as well (or in as many different forms) either.

Well many of those classes are non-core, and when you compare them with core classes, the core classes often come up short. But not all skills need to be maxed out to be useful. The monk can specialize in a few skills that match with a theme, or he can spread them out. It's not perfect, but the monk still isn't unplayable.

edit: The monk is great for people who like to use unconventional tactics.

tainsouvra
2007-10-01, 03:25 PM
Well, there are classes that are decent additions to a balanced party. Since nothign is NEEDED, some classes provide support quite nicely. The Bard being the archtypical example, but Beguiler is a wonderful fifth, as is Scout, or Factotum.

But you're right, the only reason a Monk makes a decent fifth is that the big four niches are already occupied by highly trained prfoessionals. Actually I wasn't getting at something deeper than what I initially said, I was just pointing out that a truly "balanced party" is filled out on its own and therefore can't be filled-out by anything else...otherwise it wasn't a balanced party in the first place. It's true by definition.


A balanced party is made up of individual components. The Monk is a good class to put into a party to make it balanced. Does that help clarify? No, in fact it conflicts with what you said earlier. If you're using the Monk to balance a party, the party was not balanced before the monk was there. This means you aren't adding him to a balanced party, you're adding him to an imbalanced party in an attempt to make it balanced.

ravenkith
2007-10-01, 03:28 PM
Say it with me:
The game, as whole, is totally balanced when looked at as a progression from 1-20.


Fighters and barbarians are great at low levels, and suck at high.

Druids get powerful five levels in, but really reach the height of that power at approxiamately 15.

Clerics get a lot of their power starting at level 12, and stay powerful all the way to 20.

Wizards suck at low levels, and are great at higher levels.

Bards are mediocre from start to finish.

Rogues are great from 5-12

Sorcerors are bad (but not as bad as wizards) at low levels, and powerful (but not as powerful as wizards) at high.

Monks? Monks are just ok from start to finish.

Roderick_BR
2007-10-01, 03:33 PM
Keeping mind that his odds of success probably aren't that great, what happens if the Monk successfully disarms the fighter?

Suddenly the Monk has DR 10 versus the fighter's unarmed attacks, which have base damage of 1d3 and don't fully benefit from Power Attack (since they're considered light weapons). If the Monk can disarm the Fighter, he's suddenly sitting rather pretty, isn't he? Of is that too simplistic an assessment.
It's a Bab vs Bab between the monk and the fighter.
Monk:Bab +15, Str +4 (assuming he has a very good strength, then put the rest on Dex and Wis), and -4 for using a light weapon (unarmed), and +4 from Improved Disarm. Total of +19.
Fighter: Bab +20, Str +9 (assuming a good starting strength, plus points granted by level, and a good magic item), +4 if using a two-handed weapon. Total of +33
There's a fairly good chance that the monk will fail. If the fighter is using a one-handed weapon, and the monk uses Weapon Finesse (changing the +4 from strength to a +9 for dexterity (assuming a good dexterity, bonus by level, and magic item), it'll be +24 vs +29. More likely, but still at the fighter's favor.
Then you disarm him. He'll pick another weapon (an average fighter will have a backup weapon, maybe a +1 shortsword or hammer, or use his bow at close range), or maybe try to grapple the monk (kinda risky), or bullrush him and push him where he can't do much, and then try to recover his weapon. With a bigger BAB and strength, the fighter is likely to win still, even if he doesn't deal direct damage.

truemane
2007-10-01, 03:36 PM
Actually I wasn't getting at something deeper than what I initially said, I was just pointing out that a truly "balanced party" is filled out on its own and therefore can't be filled-out by anything else...otherwise it wasn't a balanced party in the first place. It's true by definition.

No, in fact it conflicts with what you said earlier. If you're using the Monk to balance a party, the party was not balanced before the monk was there. This means you aren't adding him to a balanced party, you're adding him to an imbalanced party in an attempt to make it balanced.

Depends on how you define the word 'balanced' I suppose. I would say that a 'balanced party' has all the bases adequately covered. Doesn't mean another PC can come along and add extra oomph to any of those bases.

I think what you're talking about would more adequately be described by the word 'Complete Party."

But this is entirely semantic. And aside from the point...

So I concede.

Crow
2007-10-01, 03:38 PM
It's a Bab vs Bab between the monk and the fighter.
Monk:Bab +15, Str +4 (assuming he has a very good strength, then put the rest on Dex and Wis), and -4 for using a light weapon (unarmed), and +4 from Improved Disarm. Total of +19.
Fighter: Bab +20, Str +9 (assuming a good starting strength, plus points granted by level, and a good magic item), +4 if using a two-handed weapon. Total of +33
There's a fairly good chance that the monk will fail. If the fighter is using a one-handed weapon, and the monk uses Weapon Finesse (changing the +4 from strength to a +9 for dexterity (assuming a good dexterity, bonus by level, and magic item), it'll be +24 vs +29. More likely, but still at the fighter's favor.
Then you disarm him. He'll pick another weapon (an average fighter will have a backup weapon, maybe a +1 shortsword or hammer, or use his bow at close range), or maybe try to grapple the monk (kinda risky), or bullrush him and push him where he can't do much, and then try to recover his weapon. With a bigger BAB and strength, the fighter is likely to win still, even if he doesn't deal direct damage.

It will be +28 vs. +29, because the monk can easily use a quarterstaff rather than his hands. People forget that monks aren't restricted from picking up a weapon.

horseboy
2007-10-01, 03:46 PM
Again, almost every discussion around here revolves around combat. This is why people are complaining about 4e being too "combat-centric" (not me, just some people). You asked for it! If you look at the monk, he is just not built for it.

His abilities come in quite useful outside of combat. It's just that spellcasters do it better.

Have you been here for one our our rousing "D&D is built to be a rollplaying and not roleplaying game" threads? There's a reason those get started. :smallwink:


Give Morris a three level dip in paladin to further close the gap.

Yes, pretty much any non-full caster needs some love in this game, monks just need more than others.

Crow
2007-10-01, 03:48 PM
Have you been here for one our our rousing "D&D is built to be a rollplaying and not roleplaying game" threads? There's a reason those get started. :smallwink:

I'll keep my eye out for the next one! Thanks!

Hyfigh
2007-10-01, 03:48 PM
I didn't said 'powergamer' or 'overpowered' . I said 'powerful compared to the core', two different things. If you get in all splat books that WoC published then you fall on the 'pun-punnizator' area where you can do 10^14 damage with a charge (something about it, if I read it right).

Well, at least I will always assume core only for simplicity and viability, but the general opinion here are 'monks, by RAW, sucks big time'. Maybe someone will make the 'Complete Monk Ownage Book' to completly rewrite then to give then more effectiveness on their chosen field.

It's not like I don't like monks, but the truth is, here, they already proved that other classes normally will outshine the monk in his supposed field. Whatever it is.

edit: now to think more about it, some role a monk would be great: all equipment taken and captured. Kind like of Ayla from Chrono Trigger, but in that game Ayla owed everyone until Chrono got his ultimate weapon...

Agreed for the most part. Sorry, I haven't played core only since splats started coming out. I have trouble thinking in a core only mindset when people talk about this sort of stuff. Again, I agree that core monks just don't hold their own at all.

Xeon
2007-10-01, 03:48 PM
That's been the point the entire time. That a Monk can fill several niches at once, but fills each of them so ineptly that they really are of no use at all. They are a melee support fighter without the BAB or the HP to really contribute to melee. They are a minor skill monkey without the skills to be good enough at a wide enough variety of skills to be useful.

If the party is already a balanced four people, the Monk certainly isn't causing any harm by being a fifth, but if the Monk is the fourth, there are lists of classes better suited to filling that final niche, whatever it is.

That's all.

I disagree. First I find that the normal party is five rather than four. I beloive that the monk is a perfect fit into the main party (be it four or five people) and does not need to be added on to a "full" party to be effective.


No, in fact it conflicts with what you said earlier. If you're using the Monk to balance a party, the party was not balanced before the monk was there. This means you aren't adding him to a balanced party, you're adding him to an imbalanced party in an attempt to make it balanced.

I think your just misinterpreting what i am saying be it willful or not.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-01, 03:51 PM
just becasue you dont know how to build a proper monk does not mean the class is underpowered.

Actually, that pretty much is what makes it underpowered, in my eyes. A monk takes a greater amount of optimization compared to the other party members to contribute at an equal level.

Seperate Point:
A monk is not always MAD. The only monk build that I consider to be effective involves the Intuitive Attack feat from BoED. This feat removes the MAD of monks, as they suddenly only care about wisdom. It has the annoying side effect of forcing you to play LG, however. A monk with a maxed out wisdom can match the AC of the heavy armor/shield fighter at level 20. He also has the benefit of having most of his AC being insight, and thus applying to flat-footed touch AC.

The strategy at that point is take the various feats that give you improvements on Stunning Fist from CW. You have a really high save DC due to your really high wisdom.

This build's strong points:
1) High AC (only useful if you can hold aggro)
2) Save or suck abilities. This eventually becomes save or lose via Freezing the Lifeblood.
3) 1/day spellcaster removal
sunschool + abundant step = likely stunned or paralyzed spellcaster
This may result in activating the enemy spellcaster's contigency plan, but then it has been used on you, and not on whatever your party spellcaster had planned. If you do nuetralize the caster, you have acquired aggro (see point 1).

This build still has a few problems, and eventually loses to a straight rogue in terms of raw usefulness, as #2 is his bread&butter, which means he is shut down by the same types of enemies that shut down the party rogue. The rogue, however, is also the skillmonkey. It also requires access to appropriate WBL (which I have yet to experience in a game), and the ability to buy specific items (as opposed to the fighter 'gaining benefit' from a strength boost item, you are 'dependent' on wisdom boosting via equipment).

Next point:
Guantlets are treated as unarmed strikes by RAW.
1) They are listed under unarmed strikes on the weapon table.
2) The text for gauntlet states that they are unarmed strikes
3) THe FAQ states that gauntlets are unarmed strikes (given 1&2, I don't see why a FAQ was necessary, but there you go).

Flavor-wise, gloves or clothwraps would be better for some monk concepts, but gauntlets are the RAW justification (and a good stepping stone for getting a DM to houserule 'magic cloth wraps').

Last Point:

With a few exceptions, crustacean and otherwise, a party of 4-5 level X characters can generally take encounters of CR X, if played intelligently. The only class designed for PCs that I have seen that fails to fit this guideline is the Truenamer. This does not change the fact that the monk is sitting there on the bottom tier with the CW samurai, hexblade, and soulknife, pointing and laughing at the Truenamer they just pushed off the edge.

lord_khaine
2007-10-01, 04:06 PM
Furthermore, about the only thing the monk has going for him skillwise is his access to mobility skills...which the rogue and ranger--and to a lesser extent, the fighter and barbarian--also share. Outclassed again.

ok how can a rogue/ranger/fighter/barbarian even begin to outclass the monk in mobility skills?

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-01, 04:13 PM
The monk has a high movement rate, but this is an advantage that looks better on the character sheet than it does in play. A movement rate of 40 is enough to catch most opponents attempting to escape w/o magical assistance. and a high movement rate doesn't come up all that often in play.

That being said, my favorite character was one with speed burst, whirlwind attack and movement rate that he could get up to 120ft. good ol' Cassius.

He didn't actually have monk levels, come to think of it.

Crow
2007-10-01, 04:17 PM
The monk has a high movement rate, but this is an advantage that looks better on the character sheet than it does in play. A movement rate of 40 is enough to catch most opponents attempting to escape w/o magical assistance. and a high movement rate doesn't come up all that often in play.

That being said, my favorite character was one with speed burst, whirlwind attack and movement rate that he could get up to 120ft. good ol' Cassius.

He didn't actually have monk levels, come to think of it.

I am picturing a monk doing backflips, (tumble check) and repeatedly flashing his package for 40 ft. to stun his opponent. :smallamused:

Indon
2007-10-01, 04:19 PM
Also remember that unarmed strikes aren't all the monk has available. He can use that quarterstaff to disarm his opponent with good effect.

A Large Sai, wielded 2-handed (that's why it's large, to make it a 1-handed weapon) makes for better disarming than a quarterstaff (+4 for 2-handed, +4 Sai bonus, -2 Size penalty for a +6 total vs. the staff's +4).

Neon Knight
2007-10-01, 04:24 PM
8 gold pieces can get you a +10 against disarm checks. Seriously, Disarm is not a really a good choice in combat.

Dausuul
2007-10-01, 04:36 PM
Say it with me:
The game, as whole, is totally balanced when looked at as a progression from 1-20.

First, this is not true; casters are competitive even at the lowest levels, then blow everyone else out of the water at the higher ones.

Second, few campaigns go all the way from 1-20, so balance over the full level range is irrelevant. Players and DMs should not have to commit to a full 20-level campaign in order to have a balanced party; the system should work for one-shots and shorter campaigns as well.

Third, even if the classes were equally powerful over the 20-level range and every campaign did go all the way up, this is a lousy way to balance a game. If it takes 6 (real-world) months of gaming for my character to reach an effective level, that's 6 months that I've spent being ineffectual. Conversely, if my character has just hit the top end of his effective range, I've got nothing to look forward to but ever-increasing irrelevance. Gee, what fun.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-01, 04:37 PM
-Not every Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin is a Power-Attacking 2-hander wielding (or mounted lance-wielding) high-damage character, and not every rogue carries around a ring of blink.

These choices may seem obvious once you've been talking about them long enough, but many, many players don't _actually_ build characters like that. And a monk, similarly built, stacks up against them just fine.

But it's trickier to make the Monk equivalent of the PA Shock Trooper/Mounted Lancer.

No, they don't. I've played in numerous groups of non-powergamers, and monks never stack up "just fine". Due to their armor restrictions, monks need either a) obscenely good stats to not get hit and die or b) sacrifice strength, charisma and intelligence to be able to stay in the front lines with the fighters.

Monks are trash. If they want to do anything on par with any other melee group, they have to focus all their ability on doing that, often sacrificing their own class abilities!

For instance, overcoming DR means you aren't going to be using those big d10 fists of yours.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-01, 04:40 PM
to avoid this degenerating into a yes/no shouting mach please back your claims up a bit more than "monks are not"

combat effectivity aside, monks have diplomacy and sense motive as class skills, so nothing prevents them from being effective in social situations.

the only thing i can agree to is general skillmonkeyness where the monk can only follow on the stealth skills.

What are you playing, 60 point buy? In order for a monk to be as good as a rogue at sneaking, he needs a much higher intelligence, which means lower wisdom and dex (bad ac), lower strength (not going to hit often), and lower con.

A rogue can fight as well or better than a monk AND still have the spare skill points, without coddling int, to sneak, scout, and hide. The monk is faced with a very real trade of between hitting things and not getting hit, or scouting/playing face.

ravenkith
2007-10-01, 04:44 PM
You are wrong: a wizard can be one-shotted at low levels and all the way up through level 12 or so, relatively easily.

The same cannot be said for any other class.

The wizard's achilles heel is his fragility: if it isn't an issue, your DM is coddling you.

And the original scale for leveling was supposed to be every three games or so.

Morty
2007-10-01, 04:46 PM
You are wrong: a wizard can be one-shotted at low levels and all the way up through level 12 or so, relatively easily.

The same cannot be said for any other class.

The wizard's achilles heel is his fragility: if it isn't an issue, your DM is coddling you.

Wizard can be "one-shot" only before 5th level. After that, he's got enough ways to make himself fairly safe. After 10th level, wizard isn't fragile anymore, he's flying around invisible.
Wizard and Sorcerer can be considered weak before 5th level, in 5-10 they're on par with everyone, after that they start to leave most classes behind. Above 15 level they're so overpowered it's not even funny.

ravenkith
2007-10-01, 04:53 PM
Wrong: for how many minutes can the wizard fly and be invisible in a period of 24 hours?

Use the spells, lose the spells, now you're easy meat, mate.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-01, 04:53 PM
Why would anyone ever want to have a monk wear a gauntlet? The -4 to hit is totally not worth it.

Indon
2007-10-01, 04:53 PM
For instance, overcoming DR means you aren't going to be using those big d10 fists of yours.

-How many characters have you actually played that used DR-penetrating weapons, since the inception of 3.x? Because my group does powergame to some degree, and I've done it once (and it wasn't even real alchemical silver, it was just a dust or oil or something, which we ruled could be put on my monk's hands because they counted as an artificial weapon).

-The existence of gauntlets have already been noted. Even nonproficient, you're taking a -4 penalty to get your big fists back. And proficiency isn't hard to get.

-Monks my group plays (and as noted before, we powergame moderately) have stacked up fairly well.

Karma Guard
2007-10-01, 04:58 PM
Agreed. But so few people build characters like that anymore. I always built my characters around a theme first. When a situation came up, I would determine how to best use the abilities I had to resolve it. Most players it seems build a character based around abilities first though, which is why they seem to think every class needs to be a specialist at something.

Well many of those classes are non-core, and when you compare them with core classes, the core classes often come up short. But not all skills need to be maxed out to be useful. The monk can specialize in a few skills that match with a theme, or he can spread them out. It's not perfect, but the monk still isn't unplayable.

edit: The monk is great for people who like to use unconventional tactics.

I build all of my guys around a theme or character first. (Nyss the Githyanki Paladin, for example. Hell, he's a Fighter 1/Pal 2 with 10 wisdom and 20 Con. He's horribly optimized.) Don't say that we don't believe in making characters first and sheets second, because that's just not true. But besides that, specialization is a good thing. Specialization is more efficient and better for the party. I would pick a party full of people who have specific roles and jobs over the pack of those dudes who can do anything but aren't especially good at them.

What kind of unconventional tactics? I have a friend that is king of those kinds of things (There's a story involving a dead Wild Mage who was on fire, for example. :V )

Morty
2007-10-01, 04:58 PM
Wrong: for how many minutes can the wizard fly and be invisible in a period of 24 hours?

Use the spells, lose the spells, now you're easy meat, mate.

On 10th level, wizard can fly for 10 hours using Overland Flight. He can turn invisible in tougher fights; on 10th level he should have few invisibility spells prepared or scrolled. And he's unlikely to go around for longer than 12 hours.
Before that, he can't of course make himself completely untouchable, but can be safe enough to survive while using his offensive spells and won't be one-shotted if he plays intelligently.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-01, 05:00 PM
-How many characters have you actually played that used DR-penetrating weapons, since the inception of 3.x? Because my group does powergame to some degree, and I've done it once (and it wasn't even real alchemical silver, it was just a dust or oil or something, which we ruled could be put on my monk's hands because they counted as an artificial weapon).

When I'm doing 100+ damage/charge, DR doesn't matter. but when suddenly each and every strike I deal loses 15 damage (where 4d6, avg 14, is baseline), I really start to feel it.

Even a reasonably non-optimized fighter doin 30-40 dmg/charge is going to notice the DR far less than the monk.


But I tend to play my fighters as swiss army knives- they usually are carrying a +1 silver and cold iron weapon when they can afford them. With quick draw, they're easy to get out. How fast can your monk change gauntlets?

Combine that with the fact that a ftr will have more str and more BAB and more power attack than a monk, switching to a non-primary weapon will = far more damage than when the monk changes to his cold iron siangham. Also, the likelihood that a monk will have enchanted weapons (other than gauntlets, if your DM lets you do that, and your first level was a class that gave you proficiency, or you were retarded enough to burn a precious feat on proficiency), is quite slim, as every single coin is going to bracers of "please please, I wish I was wearing full plate".

Dausuul
2007-10-01, 05:01 PM
You are wrong: a wizard can be one-shotted at low levels and all the way up through level 12 or so, relatively easily.

Sure, wizards are vulnerable at the lower levels, though you're exaggerating their fragility past level 5 or 6. They make up for this weakness by having spells that can pretty much end a fight in one fell swoop (sleep, color spray, glitterdust, et cetera), plus utility magic. Balance does not require that everyone be identical, only that a weakness in one area be counterbalanced by a strength elsewhere.

A third-level wizard is not more powerful than a third-level fighter, but the two are comparable in terms of effectiveness. That's why the system does not balance over levels 1-20; the wizard starts out roughly even with the fighter, stays that way through the low levels, then pulls way ahead in the mid and high levels.


And the original scale for leveling was supposed to be every three games or so.

Three and a third, to be precise. So, if I play once a week for six months, that's 24 sessions, which is a shade over 7 levels. If I'm in a class that "comes into its own" at level 8, I've spent six months waiting for that day to come.

Mind you, out of the many, many campaigns I've played in, there have been only a handful that made it to the 6-month mark.

And to come back to the original topic... at what level, precisely, do you consider monks to "come into their own?"

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-01, 05:05 PM
On 10th level, wizard can fly for 10 hours using Overland Flight. He can turn invisible in tougher fights; on 10th level he should have few invisibility spells prepared or scrolled. And he's unlikely to go around for longer than 12 hours.
Before that, he can't of course make himself completely untouchable, but can be safe enough to survive while using his offensive spells and won't be one-shotted if he plays intelligently.


Average maneuverability flight in narrow dungeons? Good luck!

Morty
2007-10-01, 05:07 PM
Average maneuverability flight in narrow dungeons? Good luck!

Well, noone said that you have to play in dungeons. And even though narrorw dungeons do limit wizard's maneuverability, it doesn't change the fact that 10th level wizard isn't as easily easily one-shotted as ravenkith claims.

Indon
2007-10-01, 05:07 PM
When I'm doing 100+ damage/charge, DR doesn't matter. but when suddenly each and every strike I deal loses 15 damage (where 4d6, avg 14, is baseline), I really start to feel it.

Even a reasonably non-optimized fighter doin 30-40 dmg/charge is going to notice the DR far less than the monk.


But I tend to play my fighters as swiss army knives- they usually are carrying a +1 silver and cold iron weapon when they can afford them. With quick draw, they're easy to get out. How fast can your monk change gauntlets?

Combine that with the fact that a ftr will have more str and more BAB and more power attack than a monk, switching to a non-primary weapon will = far more damage than when the monk changes to his cold iron siangham. Also, the likelihood that a monk will have enchanted weapons (other than gauntlets, if your DM lets you do that, and your first level was a class that gave you proficiency, or you were retarded enough to burn a precious feat on proficiency), is quite slim, as every single coin is going to bracers of "please please, I wish I was wearing full plate".


Lion Totem Barbarian 1/Monk x is proficient with gauntlets, can Flurry on a charge, and gauntlets at most are a free action that can be subsumed into a move action to equip, just like every other weapon.

But considering you need a strength-oriented, 2-handed power attacker to pull ahead of a monk, which was exactly my point in the first place, to the point where I even cited the exact example of such a power attacker, if you'll go back and read my original post you quoted, I don't see what further point you're making.

Arakune
2007-10-01, 05:10 PM
A balanced party is made up of individual components. The Monk is a good class to put into a party to make it balanced. Does that help clarify?

you was saying 1 (fighter type) + 1 (spell caster) + 1 (skill monkey) + 1 (band aid box) = 4 (balanced), 4 + 0 (monk) = 4 (balanced), right :smalltongue: ?

Xeon
2007-10-01, 05:13 PM
The monk has a high movement rate, but this is an advantage that looks better on the character sheet than it does in play. A movement rate of 40 is enough to catch most opponents attempting to escape w/o magical assistance. and a high movement rate doesn't come up all that often in play.

Two words: Spring Attack


That being said, my favorite character was one with speed burst, whirlwind attack and movement rate that he could get up to 120ft. good ol' Cassius.

He didn't actually have monk levels, come to think of it.

Yes but how often for how long at what cost?

Indon
2007-10-01, 05:16 PM
Two words: Spring Attack


In practice, Spring Attack is not useful for almost any character, for the simple reason that DM's don't think of terrain with which a charge would reasonably (or even by the rules) be blocked.

Fighting in a forest? Charging. Ruined castle full of debris? Charging. Waist-deep snow? You get the picture.

Edit: This makes charging a generally superior option in terms of mobility.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-01, 05:19 PM
Lion Totem Barbarian 1/Monk x is proficient with gauntlets, can Flurry on a charge, and gauntlets at most are a free action that can be subsumed into a move action to equip, just like every other weapon.

But Lion Totem Barb x would be better for damage, and if he spent a few feats, he'd be just as good at grappling as the monk. The only thing he'd lack would be stunning fist, and a bunch of swings that miss. But that's sort of optimizing there, don't you think? It doesn't make much sense to go from he who rages in the wilderness to kung-fu master, anyway. Not that such a discussion would matter to me, but here you are tsk tsking making characters that are competent at fighting.


But considering you need a strength-oriented, 2-handed power attacker to pull ahead of a monk,

Uh, no. It's already been showed where and how monks lose. We've done the math on these forums dozens of times; every time it's shown monks lose.

We go with a sword & board fighter (boooring), and he still hits more often, and still does more damage, and can still get power attack, and can still charge, and now has AC far superior to that of the monk.

Over 20 levels of fighter, the fighter will actually have enough feats to go both sword and board, and charge, and grapple, and maybe even shoot a bow.


which was exactly my point in the first place, to the point where I even cited the exact example of such a power attacker, if you'll go back and read my original post you quoted, I don't see what further point you're making.

You're actually requesting that the BARBARIAN. the guy who rages in the woods, whose sample lvl one char in the PHB took PA at first level, deliberately forgoes it?

So, according to you, if a fighter or barbarian gimps themselves, and the monk makes semi-wise decisions about gear/feats, then, and only then, does the monk pull ahead.

Convincing argument, Indon.

horseboy
2007-10-01, 05:27 PM
That being said, my favorite character was one with speed burst, whirlwind attack and movement rate that he could get up to 120ft. good ol' Cassius.

He didn't actually have monk levels, come to think of it.
My buddy has a char like that, he was a barbarian/scout/dredcommando. He could charge across the freaking map in one turn, tumble completely through an enemy's threat area without picking up the dice then leap attack the mage dead.

Indon
2007-10-01, 05:47 PM
So, according to you, if a fighter or barbarian gimps themselves, and the monk makes semi-wise decisions about gear/feats, then, and only then, does the monk pull ahead.

Convincing argument, Indon.

You're saying that unless a fighter or barbarian:

-Optimizes their stat distribution, and

-Optimizes their feat selection,

they are 'gimping themselves'.

Again, part of my original statement:



These choices may seem obvious once you've been talking about them long enough, but many, many players don't _actually_ build characters like that. And a monk, similarly built, stacks up against them just fine.

So I responded to this some time ago, before you actually said it.

Frosty
2007-10-01, 06:30 PM
Hold on, don't Monks have to be lawful and Barbarians have to be non-lawful? Most DMs I know won't allow that kind of multiclassing unless there is a REALLY good roleplaying reason. In other words, it doesn't happen often in-game.

Crow
2007-10-01, 06:31 PM
I build all of my guys around a theme or character first. (Nyss the Githyanki Paladin, for example. Hell, he's a Fighter 1/Pal 2 with 10 wisdom and 20 Con. He's horribly optimized.) Don't say that we don't believe in making characters first and sheets second, because that's just not true. But besides that, specialization is a good thing. Specialization is more efficient and better for the party. I would pick a party full of people who have specific roles and jobs over the pack of those dudes who can do anything but aren't especially good at them.

What kind of unconventional tactics? I have a friend that is king of those kinds of things (There's a story involving a dead Wild Mage who was on fire, for example. :V )

I won't go into trying to pick apart your character concept as it will be ultimately fruitless for me to do so. Still, I think the fact that the best description you could give of him was his race, class, and stats makes my point clearly enough.

Specialization is good when the party is there to pick up the portions where you fall short. Unfortunately, in groups like that, when one of those specialists eats it, there is nobody to pick up that role and the group is screwed.

The monk is that guy, kindof like the bard, who can do a few different things OK (With splatbooks though, the bard is great). He can pick up the slack at least well enough to serve until the group can get the specialist raised. Often this requires thinking outside the box, and utilizing unconventional tactics. Neither of which can really be explained outside of the environment of an actual game because such things rely on so many variables.

Indon
2007-10-01, 07:51 PM
Hold on, don't Monks have to be lawful and Barbarians have to be non-lawful? Most DMs I know won't allow that kind of multiclassing unless there is a REALLY good roleplaying reason. In other words, it doesn't happen often in-game.

Yeah, multiclassing is often pretty awkward with the monk, both due to the multiclassing-specific restriction, and the alignment requirement.

Dausuul
2007-10-01, 07:56 PM
The monk is that guy, kindof like the bard, who can do a few different things OK (With splatbooks though, the bard is great). He can pick up the slack at least well enough to serve until the group can get the specialist raised. Often this requires thinking outside the box, and utilizing unconventional tactics. Neither of which can really be explained outside of the environment of an actual game because such things rely on so many variables.

So, monks are not underpowered because they're good in some unconventional role which can't really be explained?

Sorry, not buying it. I will agree that a class's performance on paper and its performance in an actual game are two different things; that's the downfall of the high-level melee fighter, whose full attack looks impressive on paper but is so hard to pull off in practice that it might as well not exist. But you should be able to give examples of situations in which monk is the class to be, and make an argument for why that sort of situation is common enough to make it a valuable class overall. If you need to make reference to actual games, by all means do so.

Damionte
2007-10-01, 09:45 PM
I've built monks that are plenty powerful.

Core monks don't have much that can boost their power aside from weapon finessing their fists, but loosing strength isn't an incredibly good idea. On the other hand, MAD sucks, so it's almost a lose, lose situation.

Opening additional sources, just as any other class, begins to open more options. Monks are going to require some sly feat combos and quite a bit of PrC dipping to become effective.

Dropping strength in lue of dexterity with weapon finesse improves AC and attack through one stat. You can easily make the damage up through Improved Natural Attack. It's not unheard of to reach well over 4d6 per unarmed strike. While this alone doesn't make or break the monk it's a good start to a high unarmed damage.

With all the dipping the monk does, you end up losing monk levels to unarmed damage. To help with this take the Supreme Unarmed Strike. Kensai can pick up the slack (though it's not entirely recommended, the Kensai is great for a completely self-sufficient monk) for the lack of non-magical weapons. With the right enchantments on there you can really add a lot of oomf. With moderate saves, taking a dip in Templar doesn't hurt as mettle and evasion allow you a slightly higher survivability from spells.

Taking the appropriate PrC's at the right levels can help pick up your slacking HP. While you won't have more than the fighters (usually) you will have enough to survive most encounters without a problem.

Monks that I play usually fill the nitch of paper tank. They can help control the battlefield, deal some hp damage, and take a couple licks when needed.

This isn't to say they're overpowered by any means. I just wanted to help show they aren't completely useless.


I love to pick on monks but to be honest I too love monks and have made some very effective monks by dipping into other classes. My key to building a good monk is to use as few levels in the actual monk class as possible. I usually use 4-6 levels of monk as they gain a lot during those early levels. Then I get out of the class and get into my dips classes and prestige classes.

I'll also often play another class for the first two 1-3 levels and call them a monk before getting into the monk class. (Due to the Monk not being able to multi class freelly "Another of it's downsides.")

My current favorite monk build is Cleric/Warlock/Monk/Elderitch Disciple/Sacred Fist - Give me a well rounded 6th man character. He can step in as an off tank, has the Warlockes range and utility as well as the cleric healing. He's not a bad healer eaither due to the dual cleric prestige classes.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-01, 10:44 PM
Yes but how often for how long at what cost?

He had a 90ft. move all the time, and had a +10-+30 movement based on combat rites when needed. Keep in mind, he was a heavily multiclassed AE & D&D mix. (wolf totem warrior, barbarian, ritual warrior, mostly- with fleet of foot). Don't remember all of his bonuses, though.

triforcel
2007-10-02, 01:01 AM
From what I see, the biggest reason that monks are supposedly underpowered is that another class can surpass them in one area when being built specifically for that one thing.

Sure, you could build a fighter who is better at unarmed combat than a monk as was demonstrated, except you belittle that the monk's increased speed and mobility skills will get him into melee range much faster than the fighter you provided could hope for. Furthermore, the monk will have four times the stunning attempts the fighter will have, evasion (which I believe is one of the most useful abilities in the game), the ability to recover the equivalent of two nights rest in hit points as a non-action, immunity to aging affects (which grants an elderly monk an increase to wisdom without a detriment to dex, strength, or con, making the monk actually more effective at venerable ages, something no other class apart from druid can claim), better reflex and will saves (granting them reliable protection from a majority of spells and abilities that could cripple the fighter), spell resistance 10+monk level (approximately 50% chance to resist applicable spells from a caster of equal level), and quivering palm (an instant kill ability that has benefits both in and outside of combat).

So while you've matched, or slightly surpassed, the monk in one aspect, he still has considerable advantages and you've invested a significant portion of your resources to match what the monk gets for free.


The argument that monks can't keep up skillwise is also overblown. Yes, they get less skill points per level than rogues, rangers, and bards, but lets take a closer look at this. Rogues get 8+int, rangers and bards get 6+int, monks get 4+int. Considering that anyone could put int first if they really wanted to let's just look at the base skill points and skills that the classes need to or are expected to invest in.

Rogues are primarily relied on outside of combat for being able to use Search, Open Lock and Disable Device. Furthering their dungeoneering will require Balance and Climb. Use Magic Device and Tumble are always a good choice if it's available. Hide and Move Silently are required for stealth and Spot and Listen are needed for recon. Diplomacy, Bluff, and Gather Information are important for social interactions. So the rogue has 14 class skills right there that are necessary or just a good idea. So depending on the campaign you can flesh out the eight primary ones and then pick up a few more with any int bonus you have.

Rangers of course need Survival and occasionally Search to track. He'll probably want Handle Animal and Knowledge(nature) for campaigns where they're appropriate, especially if the party doesn't have a druid. Of course tracking stealthily will require Move Silently and Hide, and scouting will require Spot and Listen. Finally he might want to pick up some Concentration when he gets spells. So in a typical campaign the ranger will have 9 class skills to consider.

Bards absolutely need Perform, maybe even multiple types. Tumble and Use Magic Device are again, excellent choices for skills. Concentration is important to help spell casting, as well as Spellcraft. Social interaction would need Bluff, Diplomacy, and Gather Information. He also has access to all of the Knowledge skills and may want to invest in one or two. Also he gets Speak Language as a class skill so any extra skill points could buy more languages to keep him in the loop during conversations. There's 9-11 skills for the bard, maybe more if you want more knowledge skills.

Finally we come to the monk. Tumble is a must for the monk. Balance is good. Hide and Move Silently could be useful. For social interaction he has Diplomacy. Finally Spot and Listen would be good to pick up. So the monk has 7 skills to choose from.

So while the monk has less skill points he also has less places where he needs to spend them. Other classes have more skills than the monk does, but nobody is going to play a monk if they just wanted to disarm traps, track wild beasts, or serenade women on the guitar. The monk has adequate skill points to do what he needs to do.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-02, 02:51 AM
Except that a monk really can't afford to prioritize intelligence, whereas a rogue can.

Funkyodor
2007-10-02, 03:02 AM
When it comes to the monks myrad of extra spell like abilities, a complaint I have is that all the benefits can be acquired by anyone if they have the money to afford the magic items. Death Masks for the instant death effect, Boots of Speed for move increase, Monks belt for lvl 5 monk unarmed combat and AC abilites, Uh... Cloak of the montebank for dimention door (I think), The necklace thingy that gives SR, etc... The only thing that can't be acquired in Core is the Native Outsider ability.

So, the monk class saves you money if you want to go the route of Fighter with tons of unarmed combat, grappling, and tripping oriented feats and all the monks side abilities. If you want stunning fist before lvl 8 without a Dex and Wis requirement you got to at least dip a level of monk. Uh, other than that I got nothing.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-02, 04:45 AM
Sure, you could build a fighter who is better at unarmed combat than a monk as was demonstrated, except you belittle that the monk's increased speed and mobility skills will get him into melee range much faster
Likewise, you belittle the fact that the fighter has several other skills and feats as well, and aside from that can wield magical weapons and armor. Also, it doesn't really cost the fighter a significant amount of feats to match the monk in combat.

By the way, Wholeness of Body is not a "non-action" but a standard action. Immunity to aging doesn't come into play in any campaign I've ever heard of, and monk spell resistance is trivial since equal-level casters have easy ways of bypassing it. And, mind you, you're comparing the monk to the fighter, instead of to a class that's actually good.


Considering that anyone could put int first if they really wanted to let's just look at the base skill points and skills that the classes need to or are expected to invest in.
Except that a monk that puts int first is going to be highly ineffective in combat, since he'll need good wis, dex and str for that. Unless you roll straight 16+ on every stat, or similar cheese.



So while the monk has less skill points he also has less places where he needs to spend them.
That is known as "lack of versatility". Of course a rogue isn't going to max every class skill. He has a choice which ones to pick.

lord_khaine
2007-10-02, 04:52 AM
Likewise, you belittle the fact that the fighter has several other skills and feats as well, and aside from that can wield magical weapons and armor. Also, it doesn't really cost the fighter a significant amount of feats to match the monk in combat.

By the way, Wholeness of Body is not a "non-action" but a standard action. Immunity to aging doesn't come into play in any campaign I've ever heard of, and monk spell resistance is trivial since equal-level casters have easy ways of bypassing it. And, mind you, you're comparing the monk to the fighter, instead of to a class that's actually good

well the monk can for a start also use magical weapons, and has skills that compensates for magical armor.
and it might be that equal level casters have easy ways to compensate for spell resistance, but they dont allways pick them.
besides the important question is, will spell resistance help against equal-level encounters? and the answer is yes.


Except that a monk that puts int first is going to be highly ineffective in combat, since he'll need good wis, dex and str for that. Unless you roll straight 16+ on every stat, or similar cheese

just placing a 12 in int and picking human will give you 6 skillpoints per level, you can easely get by with that.

Karma Guard
2007-10-02, 05:01 AM
I won't go into trying to pick apart your character concept as it will be ultimately fruitless for me to do so. Still, I think the fact that the best description you could give of him was his race, class, and stats makes my point clearly enough.

Specialization is good when the party is there to pick up the portions where you fall short. Unfortunately, in groups like that, when one of those specialists eats it, there is nobody to pick up that role and the group is screwed.

The monk is that guy, kind of like the bard, who can do a few different things OK (With splatbooks though, the bard is great). He can pick up the slack at least well enough to serve until the group can get the specialist raised. Often this requires thinking outside the box, and utilizing unconventional tactics. Neither of which can really be explained outside of the environment of an actual game because such things rely on so many variables.

So wait, how am I supposed to describe him? With the IC bio that I wrote for him? Race/Class/Stats is the most concise way to describe a character in D&D. How does that prove your point? Just because I don't spend paragraphs describing my character doesn't mean that oh mother of sweet potatoes I'm doing it all wrong.

The group, however, will get a whole lot farther than the one who isn't specialized. Even if one of them bites it, a good team, a really good one, will have plans for that. Fighter bites it? Homies, fear not, for brother Cleric has the Raise Dead. Cleric bites it? Oh no quick back to the church good thing we pooled our treasure loot together to buy a bag of Holding! Wizard bites it? That scroll we had with the good Raise spell's still good right? (silly fighter! scrolls don't have an expiration date! :D)

The thing is, if you bust out the splatbooks, the Monk becomes even worse. You can't just hand out splatbooks to only one class (In this land of Hypotheticals, anyway. In a real game, sure whatever. :V)

You know, I had a friend of mine use the corpse of a flaming Wild Mage (he somehow burst into flames, and...yeah.) to defeat a whole circle of Orcs. There was a Fighter and he grabbed it and ran through them, lighting them all on fire. But that's another story.

Bards are pretty rockin', yeah. But what does that have to do with the Monk? No, seriously. Bards are jack-of-all-trades done right. They can excel in a specific thing, or be pretty good at lots of things. Monks are Jacks gone wrong. Monks really can't do anything physical better than any other class except fall really far and move really far. And get their extra attacks earlier. v(._.)v it's the truth.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-02, 05:24 AM
well the monk can for a start also use magical weapons, and has skills that compensates for magical armor.
Actually he doesn't. Magical weapons for the monk are an order of magnitude more expensive, and the monk defense skills barely compensate for mundane armor, not magical ones.


besides the important question is, will spell resistance help against equal-level encounters? and the answer is yes.
The answer is "usually not", in fact. Because being able to defend yourself a lot does not make you a worthwhile companion in combat - the bad guys will simply pick off your friends.


just placing a 12 in int and picking human will give you 6 skillpoints per level, you can easely get by with that.
Ah, and how many 12s were you intending on getting? Elite array, for instance, nets you four scores of 12 and up. Arguably, most monk players are going to put these on Wis, Str, Dex, and Con. Depending on a lucky roll for your initial stats is rather cheesy (and also a poor comparison).

Telonius
2007-10-02, 06:58 AM
You're saying that unless a fighter or barbarian:

-Optimizes their stat distribution, and

-Optimizes their feat selection,

they are 'gimping themselves'.

Again, part of my original statement:



These choices may seem obvious once you've been talking about them long enough, but many, many players don't _actually_ build characters like that. And a monk, similarly built, stacks up against them just fine.

So I responded to this some time ago, before you actually said it.

So what's the response to the Mock Monk? The Fighter can take exactly the same statistics distribution as the Monk, buy exactly the same equipment, be an unarmed combatant (or, at worst, a Spiked Gauntlet fighter), take all the same feats as the Monk, and still have more combat options, HP, BAB, and gold available. The advantages that the Monk has over such a fighter are largely jump checks, SR, and saves.

Since I posted the build, I've checked out the Flurry issue using a damage calculator (from this guy (http://http://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4376)- can't vouch for his stats, but for what it's worth). Assuming both characters have 14 Str, and only the Fighter is using a +5 gauntlet and not power attacking at all, the Monk's damage output only exceeds Morris's when the enemy's AC is 19 or less. If both monk and fighter use a gauntlet, the monk never exceeds the fighter's damage. Calculations in the spoiler tag.


Fighter gets 20 BAB, +2 from Weapon Focus, +5 from the gauntlet, and +2 from Strength, for a total of +29 to hit on the first attack.

For damage, he gets an average of 2 from the gauntlets' base damage +5 from the enchantment +4 from Weapon Specialization +2 from Strength, for a total of +13 damage.

For Monk, two scenarios. #1: no gauntlet.
To hit: 15 BAB +2 Str = 17
Damage: average 11 from unarmed +2 str = 13

#2: gauntlet
To hit: 15 BAB +2 str +5 gauntlet enchantment = 22
Damage: average 2 from gauntlet +5 enchantment + 2 Str = 9

Scenario 1
Vs AC 20
Fighter average damage output = 48.458
Monk average damage output = 47.775
Vs AC 19
Fighter = 49.140
Monk = 51.188

Scenario 2
Vs AC 20
Fighter = 48.458
Monk = 40.635
Vs AC 30
Fighter = 31.395
Monk = 21.263
Vs AC 10
Fighter = 51.870
Monk = 44.888


It gets even uglier if the Fighter power attacks at all. So additional attacks do not give the Monk that big of an advantage, and wearing a +5 gauntlet actually makes him less effective (except concerning DR/special metal).

Indon
2007-10-02, 07:18 AM
It gets even uglier if the Fighter power attacks at all. So additional attacks do not give the Monk that big of an advantage, and wearing a +5 gauntlet actually makes him less effective (except concerning DR/special metal).

A monk can take Improved Natural Attack and a Fighter can't?

Also, I don't exactly see how Power Attack gives the Fighter any kind of advantage; the Fighter's unarmed attack is a light weapon if I'm not mistaken for 1-.5 returns, only the Monk gets a 1-1 power attack ratio. (Mind that an unarmed attack is not normally a natural weapon, except in the case of the monk) So how does wearing a +5 gauntlet make the monk less effective when he can just Power Attack for 5 to increase his damage by a total of 10?

Secondly, you created a just fine Fighter, who deals comparable damage than the monk, with less effective HP (Wholeness of Body), lower saves, comparable AC, fewer skills, lower speed, and of course no supernatural abilities but more feats. That's what the Fighter should be able to do, and can, with the Barbarian and Paladin, excepting only Rage and the Paladin's supernatural abilities, respectively. The Fighter is a good class for making characters that fight, and you did that for the most part.

Thirdly, I haven't been arguing that the monk isn't underpowered, except at the more casual levels of play. On the contrary, I've been arguing that due to multiclassing and gear restrictions, monks are harder to optimize, making them weaker. If the Monk could multiclass more casually, he could grab a couple nice feats, and weapon proficiencies, by taking Fighter levels, as well as benefit from other classes mixed in. And if the Monk had fewer gear restrictions, he could, say, pick up a spiked shield and TWF with it for more attacks and higher AC.

Telonius
2007-10-02, 08:37 AM
A monk can take Improved Natural Attack and a Fighter can't?

Also, I don't exactly see how Power Attack gives the Fighter any kind of advantage; the Fighter's unarmed attack is a light weapon if I'm not mistaken for 1-.5 returns, only the Monk gets a 1-1 power attack ratio. (Mind that an unarmed attack is not normally a natural weapon, except in the case of the monk)

Power attack does give one-to-one to all unarmed strikes.


You can’t add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the penalty on attack rolls still applies.



So how does wearing a +5 gauntlet make the monk less effective when he can just Power Attack for 5 to increase his damage by a total of 10?

Two reasons. Number one, I'm pretty sure he only increases his damage by 5 per attack with power attack. It's one to one, not one to two. (Even if he does add 2 to 1, the Fighter also has this option available to him from Improved Unarmed Strike; so the Monk would gain no advantage from that alone). Second, the Fighter has not been power attacking either. He can also power attack +5 to gain more damage. And if the Monk takes both power attack and weapon proficiency with Gauntlet, that brings the feat count either to even (if the monk is human) or tilts the balance to the fighter (if the monk isn't human).


Secondly, you created a just fine Fighter, who deals comparable damage than the monk, with less effective HP (Wholeness of Body), lower saves, comparable AC, fewer skills, lower speed, and of course no supernatural abilities but more feats. That's what the Fighter should be able to do, and can, with the Barbarian and Paladin, excepting only Rage and the Paladin's supernatural abilities, respectively. The Fighter is a good class for making characters that fight, and you did that for the most part.

The monk does have, effectively, 20 more HP than the fighter at level 20. But HP is not as important as killing the monster before it hits you.

The point of the build is that the Fighter can do just about everything the Monk is supposed to do for battlefield control, better. He's better at tripping, grappling, and disarming. He's better at hitting things. His Stunning Fist hits just as hard (though he has fewer available). And that's just the basics. After that, any feat that the Monk can take, the Fighter can take too - so the Monk gains no additional advantages other than the ones I've already mentioned. When another class can almost exactly emulate a class's combat role, and fill that role more effectively, the class is underpowered. I'm trying to show that with the build; I'm glad we agree on the premise.



Thirdly, I haven't been arguing that the monk isn't underpowered, except at the more casual levels of play. On the contrary, I've been arguing that due to multiclassing and gear restrictions, monks are harder to optimize, making them weaker. If the Monk could multiclass more casually, he could grab a couple nice feats, and weapon proficiencies, by taking Fighter levels, as well as benefit from other classes mixed in. And if the Monk had fewer gear restrictions, he could, say, pick up a spiked shield and TWF with it for more attacks and higher AC.

Here's the kicker, and part of what frustrates me too ... the Fighter can already do that.

I like the idea of the Monk. I like the thought of what it's supposed to do, and I would love for the game mechanics to allow it to do that better than anybody else in the game. It needs a niche that it, and only it, can fill. And the more I get into the actual attack and damage comparisons, the more I think that the simple full BAB fix would solve almost all of the Monk's 3.5 niche lack.

Indon
2007-10-02, 08:56 AM
Power attack does give one-to-one to all unarmed strikes.


Ah, I'm thinking 3.0.




The monk does have, effectively, 20 more HP than the fighter at level 20. But HP is not as important as killing the monster before it hits you.

The point of the build is that the Fighter can do just about everything the Monk is supposed to do for battlefield control, better. He's better at tripping, grappling, and disarming. He's better at hitting things. His Stunning Fist hits just as hard (though he has fewer available). And that's just the basics. After that, any feat that the Monk can take, the Fighter can take too - so the Monk gains no additional advantages other than the ones I've already mentioned. When another class can almost exactly emulate a class's combat role, and fill that role more effectively, the class is underpowered. I'm trying to show that with the build; I'm glad we agree on the premise.


But again, you only can emulate the Monk's ability to fight with the Fighter. That makes sense, and the Monk isn't the only class you can do that with.

Heck, a Sneak Attack fighter is already indisputably better than a rogue in combat in every way (HP, to-hit, AC), with much less effort involved. The rogue doesn't even have a higher movement speed for greater tactical versatility.

So what? The fighter can fight. It's good he can fight.





Here's the kicker, and part of what frustrates me too ... the Fighter can already do that.

I like the idea of the Monk. I like the thought of what it's supposed to do, and I would love for the game mechanics to allow it to do that better than anybody else in the game. It needs a niche that it, and only it, can fill. And the more I get into the actual attack and damage comparisons, the more I think that the simple full BAB fix would solve almost all of the Monk's 3.5 niche lack.

The Fighter can optimize towards Fighter features, certainly. But the Monk could optimize with the intent of enhancing its' own abilities. Classes with features that enhance natural weapons, or speed, or flurry of blows, or their other supernatural capabilities, are difficult for monks to access. And their limitations on gear aggravate their MAD, limiting their tactical options so that when they do optimize, they don't have the opportunity to focus.

If you think that every class in the game should be unilaterally more potent than the Fighter, then yes, giving them full Base Attack Bonus pretty much does that for the Monk. I, personally, think it's appropriate that the Fighter is good at fighting.

Telonius
2007-10-02, 09:29 AM
The Fighter build I gave isn't a particularly good (small-f) fighter. It's a good battlefield controller - which is what the Monk is supposed to do. In some ways it's a better battlefield controller than the Monk. And if it does choose to hit things, it hits better than the Monk does.

Giving the Monk full BAB will not make them a better fighter than the Fighter, because their damage still scales poorly. 44hp per round on average is not terribly impressive at level 20. (By way of comparison, a Warlock with a Greater Chasuble does 38.5). I deliberately de-optimized the Fighter for fighting - what Fighter has a STR of 14? - to show that, even given an exactly equal set of stats, Fighter is as good as or better than Monk at what the Monk is supposed to do.

If you give the Monk full BAB, and a player distributes his stats halfway intelligently, the traditional "stab you with a sword" Fighter would outpace the Monk for damage (that is, be better at fighting than the Monk) because the Fighter can optimize for Strength. If the Monk matches his damage output, it'll be because he's neglected other stats, weakening his AC or hit point total. The Monk would still have a bad case of MAD, but it wouldn't be quite as severe as it is now. The Monk would fill its niche, in a much more balanced manner than it does in 3.5.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-02, 09:40 AM
Also, I don't exactly see how Power Attack gives the Fighter any kind of advantage; the Fighter's unarmed attack is a light weapon if I'm not mistaken for 1-.5 returns, only the Monk gets a 1-1 power attack ratio.

Well, here's a thought, the fighter could pick up a sword. The monk can't. Oops. The fighter can also wield many of those nice reach/disarm/trip weapons. The monk can't.

Indon
2007-10-02, 10:11 AM
The Fighter build I gave isn't a particularly good (small-f) fighter. It's a good battlefield controller - which is what the Monk is supposed to do. In some ways it's a better battlefield controller than the Monk. And if it does choose to hit things, it hits better than the Monk does.


But that's all it does; combat actions. And it's not even as good at getting to where it can do those actions as the Monk. That's what makes the fighter balanced with the monk; Fighting is all the fighter can do.

A Sneak Attack fighter isn't a particularly optimized fighter either, but it completely obsoletes the rogue in combat. That doesn't need the rogue needs more combat capability, even though he apparently has less than the monk; he already has non-combat capability.

I understand that you are of the opinion that the monk should have a specialization, and that its' specialization should be in combat. That's all well and good, but that's just your vision of the monk, and the reality is the monk has many functions in addition to combat, any of which could be made his 'niche' with little change.

Kurald; my point was actually wrong, if you'd read Telonius' response. I was misremembering the 3.0 version of Power Attack. And Monks can still use weapons, and in fact one of their class-specific weapons gains a +4 to Disarm (yes, it's light, you can get around that by wielding a Large version).

Kurald Galain
2007-10-02, 10:20 AM
the reality is the monk has many functions in addition to combat, any of which could be made his 'niche' with little change.

Such as what? Social? He lacks bluff, gather info, and decent charisma. Trapfinding? He lacks the class ability. Healing? He can't.

The only thing I can think of is scouting. Yes, monks can scout. However, this is not a niche, since bards, rogues, beguilers and rangers can also scout; druids can do it better with shapeshifting; wizards/sorcerers can do it better by sending their familiars ahead; and wizards/clerics/beguilers can do it better through divination.

Indon
2007-10-02, 10:25 AM
Such as what? Social? He lacks bluff, gather info, and decent charisma.

Well, I was thinking 'skills', by buffing skill points.



Trapfinding? He lacks the class ability.

Granting one class feature would qualify as a 'little change', methinks.



Healing? He can't.


Wholeness of Body can be used on others. Another small change. Make high Wisdom increase it in some way and the Monk becomes a cleric-comparable healer.



The only thing I can think of is scouting. Yes, monks can scout. However, this is not a niche, since bards, rogues, beguilers and rangers can also scout; druids can do it better with shapeshifting; wizards/sorcerers can do it better by sending their familiars ahead; and wizards/clerics/beguilers can do it better through divination.

Monks do it better than nonspellcasters, and comparing a spellcaster to a nonspellcaster class in terms of capability is not generally a constructive statement, now is it?

But perhaps I see where you misunderstand. I said, "with little change", as I was talking with Telonius about modifying the monk. You appear to be talking about the monk as-is, under the impression I think the monk is powerful. If I am correct, perhaps you should keep better pace of the discussion?

Kurald Galain
2007-10-02, 10:34 AM
But perhaps I see where you misunderstand. I said, "with little change", as I was talking with Telonius about modifying the monk.
Ah, I missed that. I though you were talking about a "little change" in the build. Reading back it really isn't all that obvious that you're discussing houseruling, though.

As I recall, standard ideas include full BAB, allowing flurry on a standard action, and dropping most of the upper-level abilities in favor of things that are actually useful.

Telonius
2007-10-02, 10:37 AM
I think that every class should have a specialization both in and out of combat. There should be something that it, and only it, can do in combat; and there should be something useful outside of combat that it does really well. Leaving aside the two flavors of Arcane casters, none of the other classes can really do a good job at completely replacing the other in combat (without multiclassing). But the Monk is left out in the cold for its combat niche. There's nothing it does better than everybody else. Yes, it does have some great out-of-combat uses - scouting and jumping. But every other class (with the exception of Fighter - which is also something I'd fix if I were king of D&D:smallbiggrin: ) also has decent out-of-combat strengths.

triforcel
2007-10-02, 11:11 AM
The answer is "usually not", in fact. Because being able to defend yourself a lot does not make you a worthwhile companion in combat - the bad guys will simply pick off your friends.

Or rather try to pick off your friends. A monk isn't going to just sit there, he'll easily close with the enemy and attack him. Nobody is going to focus on someone far away when another person is punching them in the face, they're going to focus on the immediate threat either by attacking them or trying to get away. If they choose to ignore the monk, not only should the DM reconsider how he's having the enemy react, but the monk can use stunning fist, grapple, trip, or disarm to stop the enemy from doing what they're doing.


Likewise, you belittle the fact that the fighter has several other skills and feats as well, and aside from that can wield magical weapons and armor. Also, it doesn't really cost the fighter a significant amount of feats to match the monk in combat.

Firstly, the fighter doesn't have more skills than the monk does without putting a high score into intelligence which you are against doing for a monk so I don't see why you'd do it for a fighter. Additionally, the monk has access to magical weapons and magical sources of armor(bracers of armor, amulet of natural armor, ring of protection, etc) just like the fighter does. Finally, the fighter would need to take eight feats to emulate the monks abilities, more than the number of feats someone without bonus feats gets before level 21. I consider that to be pretty significant especially since the monk still deals more damage with his unarmed strike than the fighter will.

Also, emulating the monks special abilities will require further investment in not only gold, but also precious magic item spaces. So while your fighter could do almost everything the monk could, the monk still isn't wearing anything and can increase his abilities further.

kamikasei
2007-10-02, 11:58 AM
Firstly, the fighter doesn't have more skills than the monk does without putting a high score into intelligence which you are against doing for a monk so I don't see why you'd do it for a fighter.

The monk needs points in Wisdom. The fighter can put those points into Int instead. The monk also needs more points in Dex than an armored fighter who can put those into Strength and Constitution, without needing to give up the Int points.

Telonius
2007-10-02, 12:18 PM
I consider that to be pretty significant especially since the monk still deals more damage with his unarmed strike than the fighter will.

The Monk only deals more damage against things with AC 19 or lower.

Bear in mind that Bracers of Armor cost quite a bit more than enchanted armor. A +5 Mithral Chain Shirt gives you a +8 armor bonus with a max Dex of +4 (which is as high as a Monk's Dex is likely to get). Bracers of Armor +8 cost 64,000 gold, as opposed to 26,100 for the Mithral Shirt. That's a difference of 37,900 - enough for a +4 Adamantine weapon and 2,900 left over.

tainsouvra
2007-10-02, 12:20 PM
My key to building a good monk is to use as few levels in the actual monk class as possible. This is a really funny line, I might have to reference it later. Do you mind?

Indon
2007-10-02, 12:20 PM
I think that every class should have a specialization both in and out of combat. There should be something that it, and only it, can do in combat; and there should be something useful outside of combat that it does really well. Leaving aside the two flavors of Arcane casters, none of the other classes can really do a good job at completely replacing the other in combat (without multiclassing). But the Monk is left out in the cold for its combat niche. There's nothing it does better than everybody else. Yes, it does have some great out-of-combat uses - scouting and jumping. But every other class (with the exception of Fighter - which is also something I'd fix if I were king of D&D:smallbiggrin: ) also has decent out-of-combat strengths.

I personally don't think that classes should be forced to specialize. I think there is a place for generalists in D&D.

And I already pointed out that a Sneak Attack fighter variant completely supplants the rogue in his combat niche; the Rogue only has one role in combat, and if the Fighter gets it while maintaining full Base Attack Bonus, then that's an even clearer improvement than a fake monk can do with a rogue.

I think it's appropriate that some classes be better than others at fighting, so long as some classes are better than others at other things (and so long as you have a diverse class setup like in D&D, I don't think you can have otherwise).

Telonius
2007-10-02, 12:38 PM
Nobody forces the specialization on any class, even now. If a Barbarian really wants to, he can be an archer. You can build hundreds of different kinds of wizards and sorcerers. Clerics can be combat-focused, skill-focused, healing-focused, undead killing-focused, or name your Domain-focused. Rogues can be party faces, or ranged combatants, or melee combatants. With just a few tweaks, Monks could be customizable into really useful scouts and trapfinders, or even frontline melee combatants. And anybody can put skill points into whatever they want, for non-combat stuff. But that doesn't change the fact that Wizards were primarly made to be arcane casters; clerics, to be divine casters and healers; Rogues, to be sneaky skillmonkeys; and so on. The existence of a mechanical specialization doesn't force the choice, it just encourages it. Otherwise D&D might as well just have one generic class with all of the options available. (Not that this would be impossible or even undesirable, but it wouldn't be D&D as we know it).

Dausuul
2007-10-02, 12:38 PM
Or rather try to pick off your friends. A monk isn't going to just sit there, he'll easily close with the enemy and attack him. Nobody is going to focus on someone far away when another person is punching them in the face, they're going to focus on the immediate threat either by attacking them or trying to get away. If they choose to ignore the monk, not only should the DM reconsider how he's having the enemy react, but the monk can use stunning fist, grapple, trip, or disarm to stop the enemy from doing what they're doing.

Stunning fist may work; grapple, trip, and disarm are less likely, especially in the typical player-versus-monster scenario. But it's ridiculous to expect the DM to have his combatants focus on the monk rather than the casters. Any intelligent warrior knows that the guy in robes tossing bolts of death around is the one to take out first. It's just as valid a tactic for NPCs as it is for PCs.

Of course, an unintelligent foe likely will attack the nearest enemy. But in most cases, this makes you a monk in melee against a melee brute. It's almost certainly bigger and stronger than you are, which makes grappling and tripping ineffective; it's probably using natural weapons, so you can't disarm; it has a good Fort save, so it can shrug off your Stunning Fist; and its attack bonus will be quite sufficient to hit your mediocre AC.

Basically, in the situation where a strong defense is actually useful, you don't have a strong defense.

triforcel
2007-10-02, 12:56 PM
The Monk only deals more damage against things with AC 19 or lower.

Bear in mind that Bracers of Armor cost quite a bit more than enchanted armor. A +5 Mithral Chain Shirt gives you a +8 armor bonus with a max Dex of +4 (which is as high as a Monk's Dex is likely to get). Bracers of Armor +8 cost 64,000 gold, as opposed to 26,100 for the Mithral Shirt. That's a difference of 37,900 - enough for a +4 Adamantine weapon and 2,900 left over.

Actually a +5 Mithral Chain Shirt gives you +9 armor bonus and has a max Dex bonus of +6. In addition to that, the monk doesn't need Bracers +8 to outclass your shirt because the sizable addition of his wisdom bonus to AC coupled with the intuitive AC bonus he gets for being a monk more than matches the chain shirts non magical armor bonus, then he adds on a pair of +5 Bracers which cost less than the shirt does and he has a higher AC with no max dex, no armor check penalty, no max move speed, and no spell failure chance.

As for the damage, I was referring to damage per hit, not damage overall and wasn't taking into account things like weapon specialization, power attack, etc.

Arakune
2007-10-02, 01:18 PM
a monk can use armor?

Indon
2007-10-02, 02:28 PM
a monk can use armor?

Technically yes (particularly mithril, which you get little penalty for even if you aren't proficient), but they lose Flurry, which is their most awesomest combat ability, as well as their +wis and class bonus to armor.

Edit: And it only takes Wis 18 for a Monk 20 to outmatch a +5 Chain Shirt, I do believe; +5 Class AC, +4 from Wisdom.

Crow
2007-10-02, 02:31 PM
Hey don't they lose their speed with light armor?

Indon
2007-10-02, 02:32 PM
Hey don't they lose their speed with light armor?

Actually, yes.

So _both_ of their most awesomest combat abilities. Well, 2/3, counting Stunning Fist. You can do that with armor, methinks.

Zincorium
2007-10-02, 03:06 PM
Considering you can simply wear bracers of armor and retain your AC bonuses, flurry, and fast movement, and can get the AC benefit from a dex bonus above +6, wearing armor would not seem to be practical for a monk.

Or, to put it another way, if you are okay with losing flurry, fast movement, and wisdom/class bonus to AC, and really, really want to wear armor...

...Why would you play a monk?

Xeon
2007-10-02, 03:37 PM
In practice, Spring Attack is not useful for almost any character, for the simple reason that DM's don't think of terrain with which a charge would reasonably (or even by the rules) be blocked.

Fighting in a forest? Charging. Ruined castle full of debris? Charging. Waist-deep snow? You get the picture.

Edit: This makes charging a generally superior option in terms of mobility.

You don't need to charge to use spring attack yeah the bonus to hit is handy but it's not nessesary.

triforcel
2007-10-02, 03:41 PM
Not to mention that charging can only be done in a straight line. If there's any obstacle that you'd have to expend move to avoid you can't charge.

Indon
2007-10-02, 03:46 PM
You don't need to charge to use spring attack yeah the bonus to hit is handy but it's not nessesary.

My point was, whenever you Spring Attack a monster, it can just charge you and negate the distance you got on it.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-02, 03:47 PM
You're saying that unless a fighter or barbarian:

-Optimizes their stat distribution, and

-Optimizes their feat selection,

they are 'gimping themselves'.

Again, part of my original statement:



So I responded to this some time ago, before you actually said it.

Oh, I see where you get your high opinion of monks from, then. If the people you play with prioritize charisma and intelligence and make con the dump stat for their gray-elf barbarian, and take the feats endurance and skill focus:rock chucking, then I guess the monk will do better than them.

In that case, I agree with you. Optimized monks DO outperform poorly built meleers!

Frosty
2007-10-02, 03:50 PM
You can just Jump over the obstacles. I mean, who makes a charger without taking Leap Attack anyways?

Xeon
2007-10-02, 03:54 PM
My point was, whenever you Spring Attack a monster, it can just charge you and negate the distance you got on it.

Yeah, I mis read it the first time but even so your point is invalid. Spring attack allows you to move after you hit some one charging doesn't. The Entire point is that the monk with spring attack can move into melle range hit you and then move again to most likely farther than the opponent can move to get to them.

lord_khaine
2007-10-02, 04:00 PM
Actually he doesn't. Magical weapons for the monk are an order of magnitude more expensive, and the monk defense skills barely compensate for mundane armor, not magical ones.

thats a interesting claim, back it up please?
i can get a +1 holy gauntlet for 18k, can you get a +1 holy longsword cheaper without making it yourself?
btw also disagree on the defence thing.


The answer is "usually not", in fact. Because being able to defend yourself a lot does not make you a worthwhile companion in combat - the bad guys will simply pick off your friends.

actualy the answer is usualy, being able to defend yourself means you stay active longer and can contribute more, not to mention the bad guys has to learn their attacks isnt effective first.


Ah, and how many 12s were you intending on getting? Elite array, for instance, nets you four scores of 12 and up. Arguably, most monk players are going to put these on Wis, Str, Dex, and Con. Depending on a lucky roll for your initial stats is rather cheesy (and also a poor comparison).
i just mentioned it as a option, and why on earth is it cheesy to wait with playing a monk until you have the stats for it?

tainsouvra
2007-10-02, 04:02 PM
i just mentioned it as a option, and why on earth is it cheesy to wait with playing a monk until you have the stats for it? Because that means you aren't comparing monks in general to other classes in general, you're comparing monks with high stats to other classes in general.

Indon
2007-10-02, 04:05 PM
Yeah, I mis read it the first time but even so your point is invalid. Spring attack allows you to move after you hit some one charging doesn't. The Entire point is that the monk with spring attack can move into melle range hit you and then move again to most likely farther than the opponent can move to get to them.

The average medium creature can charge 60 feet.

To Spring Attack against that without opening you up for a charge, you would need a single move action of more than 60 feet. For even a monk, that's not possible for many levels. To Spring Attack consecutively against that, you would need much more movement.


Oh, I see where you get your high opinion of monks from, then. If the people you play with prioritize charisma and intelligence and make con the dump stat for their gray-elf barbarian, and take the feats endurance and skill focus:rock chucking, then I guess the monk will do better than them.

In that case, I agree with you. Optimized monks DO outperform poorly built meleers!

My point is that nonoptimized monks perform comparably to nonoptimized meleers at a level which many people play, and that, because you frequent a D&D optimization forum, your optimization standards are such that your baseline is above that level.

That you consider the step immediately below str-oriented power attacker for melee optimization to be "skill focus: rock chucking" (in essence, belittling those who do not optimise to your standard) appears to demonstrate my point well.

Skyserpent
2007-10-02, 04:17 PM
thats a interesting claim, back it up please?
i can get a +1 holy gauntlet for 18k, can you get a +1 holy longsword cheaper without making it yourself?

Monks can't use Gauntlet enhancements... (I know I was disappointed too)

The Gauntlet is otherwise considered an "Unarmed Attack" But it's a separate category of weapon from Unarmed Strike... Plus Gauntlet's are NOT special Monk Weapons and thus can't be used like that. But oddly enough they CAN use Ki Strike with Gauntlets...

there was a big Wizards FAQ on this that I can't quite remember...

Xeon
2007-10-02, 04:25 PM
The average medium creature can charge 60 feet.

To Spring Attack against that without opening you up for a charge, you would need a single move action of more than 60 feet. For even a monk, that's not possible for many levels. To Spring Attack consecutively against that, you would need much more movement.

Monks reach a base move of 60ft at level nine. couple that with boots and spells it is not hard at all for a monk to be able to move 120ft/round. lets say that your opponent can reach you with a charge he still only gets a single attack action and is at a negitive to AC.then the monk needs only move backwards 70ft or so and he cannont be reached. then he need only repeat the process.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-02, 04:26 PM
there was a big Wizards FAQ on this that I can't quite remember...

Indeed. The result of the FAQ was that you can enchant gauntlets as a monk, and you can flurry with them, and you do get your monk unarmed damage progression.

The only downside was that monks aren't proficient with gauntlets. Of course, they aren't technically proficient with unarmed strikes, either.

Not that this really helps with the monk's other problems.

Xeon
2007-10-02, 04:29 PM
Monks can't use Gauntlet enhancements... (I know I was disappointed too)

The Gauntlet is otherwise considered an "Unarmed Attack" But it's a separate category of weapon from Unarmed Strike... Plus Gauntlet's are NOT special Monk Weapons and thus can't be used like that. But oddly enough they CAN use Ki Strike with Gauntlets...

there was a big Wizards FAQ on this that I can't quite remember...

There are things that can grant the same enchantments to and unnarmed strike as you can get on other weapons though, and beyond that there are always gloves of shocking grasp.

Indon
2007-10-02, 04:32 PM
Monks reach a base move of 60ft at level nine. couple that with boots and spells it is not hard at all for a monk to be able to move 120ft/round. lets say that your opponent can reach you with a charge he still only gets a single attack action and is at a negitive to AC.then the monk needs only move backwards 70ft or so and he cannont be reached. then he need only repeat the process.

Monk speed bonus is an Enhancement bonus. What other speed bonuses are there that stack with that?

Kurald Galain
2007-10-03, 08:56 AM
Edit: And it only takes Wis 18 for a Monk 20 to outmatch a +5 Chain Shirt, I do believe; +5 Class AC, +4 from Wisdom.

"Only"?

A +5 chain shirt is, by WBL, available way earlier than level 20.




thats a interesting claim, back it up please?
i can get a +1 holy gauntlet for 18k, can you get a +1 holy longsword cheaper without making it yourself?
Amulet of Mighty Fists +X is way more expensive than a Weapon +X.



actualy the answer is usualy, being able to defend yourself means you stay active longer and can contribute more, not to mention the bad guys has to learn their attacks isnt effective first.
That assumes you're contributing in the first place. Aside from that, any moderately intelligent bad guy is going to focus their attack on the most dangerous opponent, i.e. the casters.



i just mentioned it as a option, and why on earth is it cheesy to wait with playing a monk until you have the stats for it?
Because it implies that, unlike every other class, monks aren't considered playable with normal stats (such as, say, 25-point buy, or the elite array).

Dausuul
2007-10-03, 09:17 AM
Indeed. The result of the FAQ was that you can enchant gauntlets as a monk, and you can flurry with them, and you do get your monk unarmed damage progression.

The only downside was that monks aren't proficient with gauntlets. Of course, they aren't technically proficient with unarmed strikes, either.

Not that this really helps with the monk's other problems.

According to the current FAQ, which I gather has been updated:


Can a monk get her unarmed strike enhanced as a
magic weapon?
No. Even a magic gauntlet or spiked gauntlet isn’t the ideal
answer, since these aren’t listed as special monk weapons (and
therefore aren’t as versatile as unarmed strikes).

So, you can use a magic gauntlet as a monk, and you might get your unarmed damage progression, but you cannot flurry with it (since it's not an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon) and you aren't proficient in it.

Indon
2007-10-03, 09:34 AM
"Only"?

A +5 chain shirt is, by WBL, available way earlier than level 20.


So is Wisdom higher than 18. My example was of a monk who never went to any length to raise their wisdom for a reason, because +5 armor is the highest enhancement bonus you can get, and 18 Wisdom provides Chain Shirt protection at level 1.

Of course, the reality is the monk will be consistently raising their wisdom, so Monk AC bonus at level 20 is more comparable to that of enchanted medium or heavy armor, dependent on priorities of the monk's player.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-03, 10:03 AM
So is Wisdom higher than 18. My example was of a monk who never went to any length to raise their wisdom for a reason, because +5 armor is the highest enhancement bonus you can get
Except that it's not, because armor can have other cool effects as enchantments.


Of course, the reality is the monk will be consistently raising their wisdom, so Monk AC bonus at level 20 is more comparable to that of enchanted medium or heavy armor, dependent on priorities of the monk's player.
As khaine keeps asking, thats a interesting claim, back it up please? +5 plate mail is a +13 bonus. The monk gets +4 from his class, meaning he needs a +9 from wisdom, which means a score of 28. While such values are attainable at level 20, the reality is that the monk also needs to boost his strength, dexterity and constitution to be effective.

But okay, I suppose a monk could spend the effort to have his armor class match that of a different melee combatant. The problem is that it leaves him far behind in actual offensive abilities.

Indon
2007-10-03, 10:08 AM
Except that it's not, because armor can have other cool effects as enchantments.


Which really makes +1 armor with those enchantments more enticing than any actual armor bonus. Your point?



As khaine keeps asking, thats a interesting claim, back it up please? +5 plate mail is a +13 bonus. The monk gets +4 from his class, meaning he needs a +9 from wisdom, which means a score of 28. While such values are attainable at level 20, the reality is that the monk also needs to boost his strength, dexterity and constitution to be effective.


A monk focusing on Wisdom can take Intuitive Attack, which eliminates his need for +strength to hit. From there, Constitution is his secondary stat and Dex is nice to have.



But okay, I suppose a monk could spend the effort to have his armor class match that of a different melee combatant. The problem is that it leaves him far behind in actual offensive abilities.

Such a Monk's offensive capabilities are more along the lines of very high DC Stunning Fists, that are very likely to hit, more than they are about damage.

horseboy
2007-10-03, 10:15 AM
Which really makes +1 armor with those enchantments more enticing than any actual armor bonus. Your point?

SR and elemental DR

Indon
2007-10-03, 10:30 AM
SR and elemental DR

Armor SR has poor returns compared to Wondrous Item SR.

And Protection from Energy comes in ring flavor.

horseboy
2007-10-03, 10:41 AM
Armor SR has poor returns compared to Wondrous Item SR.

And Protection from Energy comes in ring flavor.

Rings? According to the boards the rings are manditory rings of spell storing and freedom of movement. :smallamused:

SpikeFightwicky
2007-10-03, 10:55 AM
According to the current FAQ, which I gather has been updated:


...snip...

So, you can use a magic gauntlet as a monk, and you might get your unarmed damage progression, but you cannot flurry with it (since it's not an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon) and you aren't proficient in it.

Well that kind of throws a wrench into the main 'use a gauntlet instead of an amulet of mighty fist' argument... Also, I keep hearing the 'pro-monk' people talk about how the monk's AC is better than a fighter's at X level... Whenever I play, it's always the opposite. Care to let us in on any secret builds or whatnot?

Dausuul
2007-10-03, 11:22 AM
Except that it's not, because armor can have other cool effects as enchantments.


As khaine keeps asking, thats a interesting claim, back it up please? +5 plate mail is a +13 bonus. The monk gets +4 from his class, meaning he needs a +9 from wisdom, which means a score of 28. While such values are attainable at level 20, the reality is that the monk also needs to boost his strength, dexterity and constitution to be effective.

You're not considering the bracers of armor. Bracers of armor cost the same as an equivalent-level armor enchantment; therefore the enchantment on the armor can be ignored, since the monk and the fighter spend the same amount there. The real question is, can a monk's AC without the bracers match the fighter's AC with nonmagical armor?

Full plate has a +8 armor bonus and allows a maximum of +1 Dex, for a total of +9. To match this, the monk needs a total of +9 from Wisdom, Dexterity, and monk AC modifiers. At 10th level, a Wisdom of 18 (16 plus the bonuses from levels 4 and 8) and a Dexterity of 16 would suffice. You could do it even earlier with a periapt of wisdom and gloves of dexterity, which a monk ought to have anyway.

Of course, as you point out, this does require the monk to invest in Wisdom and Dexterity at the expense of Strength and Constitution. The nice thing about fighters is that they can get a solid AC regardless of stats, freeing them to concentrate on offense. The monk who goes this route is depending heavily on Stunning Fist to be useful.

Sir Giacomo
2007-10-03, 11:26 AM
I keep hearing the 'pro-monk' people talk about how the monk's AC is better than a fighter's at X level... Whenever I play, it's always the opposite. Care to let us in on any secret builds or whatnot?

That's easily fixed. A fighter has the advantage of being able to wear both armour and shield (the latter limiting him to weapon and shield combat styles). The armour enhancement bonus effect a monk can also get via any magical vestment clerical spell effect, so the armour advantage of a fighter is a maximum of 8 (full plate), although this limits his or her DEX bonus for AC to +3 (if having a mithral armour).
Shield bonus (if not using tower shield, which may be highly situational to use) is max +5 (here, only the enhancement, since a monk can get a force shield ring).
All other AC boni (insight, nameless, luck, morale) can apply to both.

This makes it a total of +13 advantage.
The monk gets +4 AC through his AC class ability bonus, +5 with a monk's belt.
Assuming the monk has only +3 DEX bonus (which may not always be the case, for an unarmoured character the score is much higher likely at higher levels), the monk then will need a WIS bonus of +8 to get equal to the fighter in AC terms. Not that improbable at higher level play (when a fighter will have the +5 mithral armour and shield set available) since most monk players focus on WIS.

Of course, the fighter at that point has all the typical disadvantages from even a mithral armour: lower movement and movement skill penalties, plus a lower touch AC.

At lower levels, as soon as a fighter can buy a full plate and shield (level 2), of course he will be ahead of the monk in AC for a while, though not much, and with higher armour penalties.

Glad to help:smallbiggrin:

- Giacomo

EDIT: ah, Dausuul was faster; and I forgot about the bracers...expensive buggers, though

Fax Celestis
2007-10-03, 11:35 AM
That's easily fixed. A fighter has the advantage of being able to wear both armour and shield (the latter limiting him to weapon and shield combat styles).

Not exactly. A fighter has enough feats to spare that he can be a pugilist just as good (if not better) than the monk. Superior Unarmed Strike, for instance, will essentially give him a monk's unarmed damage progression. Further, he has feats to spare on things like Improved Trip, has a higher HD, higher BAB, and can wear heavy armor without issue.

Dausuul
2007-10-03, 11:54 AM
I forgot about the bracers...expensive buggers, though

No more expensive than a similar armor enchantment--in fact, a bit cheaper, since you don't have to shell out 1,650 for the armor itself.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-10-03, 12:06 PM
No more expensive than a similar armor enchantment--in fact, a bit cheaper, since you don't have to shell out 1,650 for the armor itself.

How so? +5 fullplate costs 26500 gold and gives a +13 armor bonus. Braces of armor +8 cost 64000 gold... about 2.5 times more expensive.

horseboy
2007-10-03, 12:11 PM
How so? +5 fullplate costs 26500 gold and gives a +13 armor bonus. Braces of armor +8 cost 64000 gold... about 2.5 times more expensive.

I'm pretty sure he means just buy the +5 for enchant and use stat mods for the armour part.

Indon
2007-10-03, 12:29 PM
Rings? According to the boards the rings are manditory rings of spell storing and freedom of movement. :smallamused:

Spell Storing isn't bad if you're going to tap spell buffing cheese, I guess.

And Freedom of Movement is largely for characters who don't bother with Escape Artist. A character with Escape Artist (or a sufficiently high Grapple check) need only avoid unusual-looking crabs and the like, and save the 40,000-odd gold.

Dausuul
2007-10-03, 12:30 PM
I'm pretty sure he means just buy the +5 for enchant and use stat mods for the armour part.

Correct. If you have +9 from Dexterity/Wisdom/monk bonuses, then +X bracers of armor will give you the same AC and cost the same (minus 1,650 gp) as +X full plate. You could buy all the way up to +8 bracers of armor if you really wanted to, but that would be equivalent to buying +8 full plate.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-10-03, 12:41 PM
It gets a little cost ineficient at higher levels, though. Here's my rundown on the AC situation (note: I've never optimized a monk, so I'm likely missing out on some hidden bonuses):

Level 20 @ 25 point buy:
Human Fighter Stats: 18 14 16 10 10 8 (does not include any item bonuses)
AC: 10 + 5 deflect + 13 armor + 3 dex + 8 shield + 5 natural = 44 AC (43 without shield spec) - cost is 158050 gold

Human Monk Stats: 14 16 12 12 16 8 (does not include any item bonuses)
10 + 5 deflect + 5 monk + 6 dex + 6 wis + 8 armor = 40 AC - Cost is 199000 gold

However, the monk's in a bit of a jam: amulets of natural armor occupy the same slot as the amulet of wisdom, and so does the amulet of mighty fist, and the gloves occupy the same slot as gauntles, for those who want to go the 'magic gauntlet' way. So the monk can get 45 AC from Natural Armor, but it'll cost alot more. The tomes of stat boosting can help the monk some more as well, but he'll eventually have to spend some money to improve his offense if he wants to be viable.

horseboy
2007-10-03, 12:44 PM
Correct. If you have +9 from Dexterity/Wisdom/monk bonuses, then +X bracers of armor will give you the same AC and cost the same (minus 1,650 gp) as +X full plate. You could buy all the way up to +8 bracers of armor if you really wanted to, but that would be equivalent to buying +8 full plate.

In effectivness, the cost is 530 gold away from to +5 animated, mithral tower shield and +2 mithral full plate. :smallbiggrin:

Indon
2007-10-03, 12:47 PM
A +3 Defending Monk weapon (used off-hand with Unarmed Strike) is probably cheaper than the difference between +5 and +8 armor, and Defending isn't exactly a cheap form of AC.

Dausuul
2007-10-03, 02:26 PM
It gets a little cost ineficient at higher levels, though. Here's my rundown on the AC situation (note: I've never optimized a monk, so I'm likely missing out on some hidden bonuses):

Level 20 @ 25 point buy:
Human Fighter Stats: 18 14 16 10 10 8 (does not include any item bonuses)
AC: 10 + 5 deflect + 13 armor + 3 dex + 8 shield + 5 natural = 44 AC (43 without shield spec) - cost is 158050 gold

Human Monk Stats: 14 16 12 12 16 8 (does not include any item bonuses)
10 + 5 deflect + 5 monk + 6 dex + 6 wis + 8 armor = 40 AC - Cost is 199000 gold

However, the monk's in a bit of a jam: amulets of natural armor occupy the same slot as the amulet of wisdom, and so does the amulet of mighty fist, and the gloves occupy the same slot as gauntles, for those who want to go the 'magic gauntlet' way. So the monk can get 45 AC from Natural Armor, but it'll cost alot more. The tomes of stat boosting can help the monk some more as well, but he'll eventually have to spend some money to improve his offense if he wants to be viable.

Thanks to the new bonus stacking rules from the MIC, you can pile natural armor, Wisdom, and mighty fists all onto one little amulet at no extra charge. You can even throw in Constitution if your hit points aren't up to snuff. Gotta love that MIC. :smallbiggrin:

Indon
2007-10-03, 02:29 PM
Thanks to the new bonus stacking rules from the MIC, you can pile natural armor, Wisdom, and mighty fists all onto one little amulet at no extra charge. You can even throw in Constitution if your hit points aren't up to snuff. Gotta love that MIC. :smallbiggrin:

Where are these new magical item creation rules?

Dausuul
2007-10-03, 02:34 PM
Where are these new magical item creation rules?

In the back of the Magic Item Compendium. I forget the exact page number. They're explicit rules, though, not guidelines like the DMG stuff. Basically, they allow you to take certain properties (stat bonuses, AC boosts, energy resistances, a couple other things) and add them to existing items at the base price for that property, without the usual x1.5 for sharing a slot. For instance, you can take your +1 amulet of mighty fists and make it a +1 amulet of mighty fists and +2 periapt of Wisdom for 4,000 gold.

Indon
2007-10-03, 02:39 PM
I thought the magic item compendium was 3.0? Is there a 3.5 version?

Dausuul
2007-10-03, 02:44 PM
I thought the magic item compendium was 3.0? Is there a 3.5 version?

I wasn't aware of there being a 3.0 MIC. The 3.5 MIC came out in March of this year.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-03, 02:44 PM
Magic Item Compendium.

Re: FAQ

Unless that is official errata, it is wrong, regardless of what the Sage thinks. Gauntlets are unarmed strikes:

SRD:

This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.

SRD:

Unarmed Attacks
Gauntlet 2 gp 1d2 1d3 ×2 — 1 lb. Bludgeoning
Unarmed strike — 1d23 1d33 ×2 — — Bludgeoning

It is worth noting that a spiked gauntlet is not an unarmed strike:

SRD:

Light Melee Weapons
Dagger 2 gp 1d3 1d4 19-20/×2 10 ft. 1 lb. Piercing or slashing
Dagger, punching 2 gp 1d3 1d4 ×3 — 1 lb. Piercing
Gauntlet, spiked 5 gp 1d3 1d4 ×2 — 1 lb. Piercing
Mace, light 5 gp 1d4 1d6 ×2 — 4 lb. Bludgeoning
Sickle 6 gp 1d4 1d6 ×2 — 2 lb. Slashing

Gauntlets are also manufactured weapons, and thus eligible to be enchanted. Fists cannot be enchanted, because there is no way to make them masterwork, which is required in order to make a magic weapon.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-03, 02:51 PM
That's easily fixed. A fighter has the advantage of being able to wear both armour and shield (the latter limiting him to weapon and shield combat styles). The armour enhancement bonus effect a monk can also get via any magical vestment clerical spell effect, so the armour advantage of a fighter is a maximum of 8 (full plate), although this limits his or her DEX bonus for AC to +3 (if having a mithral armour).
Shield bonus (if not using tower shield, which may be highly situational to use) is max +5 (here, only the enhancement, since a monk can get a force shield ring).

+1 Dancing Heavy or Tower Shield, then get the cleric to cast magic vestment on it. 3rd level Pearls of Power only cost 9000 gold.

Now you're matching the Monk's AC and trouncing his damage output.


My point is that nonoptimized monks perform comparably to nonoptimized meleers at a level which many people play, and that, because you frequent a D&D optimization forum, your optimization standards are such that your baseline is above that level.

That you consider the step immediately below str-oriented power attacker for melee optimization to be "skill focus: rock chucking" (in essence, belittling those who do not optimise to your standard) appears to demonstrate my point well.

And my point is that in order to get a fighter or barbarian to suck as bad as a monk, you actually have to try to suck.

Your average fighter gets 27 feats. Even from core, it'll be hard to not accidentally optimize, simply because you run out of bad feats to take and may accidentally take a good one. I guess if the fighter decided to dual wield bastard swords, not use armor, and didn't actually use the feats that made him marginally better than his monk friend....

Furthermore, the fact that you have to houserule monks to get them to catch up with fighters pretty much proves my point that monks are the worst class.

Indon
2007-10-03, 04:05 PM
And my point is that in order to get a fighter or barbarian to suck as bad as a monk, you actually have to try to suck.

Your average fighter gets 27 feats. Even from core, it'll be hard to not accidentally optimize, simply because you run out of bad feats to take and may accidentally take a good one. I guess if the fighter decided to dual wield bastard swords, not use armor, and didn't actually use the feats that made him marginally better than his monk friend....


If someone makes a Dex-based fighter with Strength 12, does it matter what feats they take?

You just assume, from long exposure to optimization, that every meleer will have high strength. There's nothing wrong with that, certainly, but that's not neccessarily what people do unless they've actually focused on how to optimize, or soaked up knowledge about it from a forum such as this.



Furthermore, the fact that you have to houserule monks to get them to catch up with fighters pretty much proves my point that monks are the worst class.

I haven't been arguing that monks aren't underpowered. My point was why they were underpowered.

And there are worse classes.

tainsouvra
2007-10-03, 04:08 PM
If someone makes a Dex-based fighter with Strength 12, does it matter what feats they take?
You just assume, from long exposure to optimization, that every meleer will have high strength. Actually, if memory serves, it's directly stated in the Player's Handbook that Strength is a/the prime stat. He isn't so much assuming an exposure to optimization as assuming that the player actually has a vague notion of how the class he intends to play actually works.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-03, 04:15 PM
If someone makes a Dex-based fighter with Strength 12, does it matter what feats they take?

You just assume, from long exposure to optimization, that every meleer will have high strength. There's nothing wrong with that, certainly, but that's not neccessarily what people do unless they've actually focused on how to optimize, or soaked up knowledge about it from a forum such as this.

So that means what, trip, disarm, weapon finesse? It's still going to work better than the monk at combat control, as he'll have more BAB, probably a better weapon, and likely more HP (higher con).

He'll also have the option, due to a whole suite of feats, to switch fighting styles if he realizes his fighting style was a poor choice. The monk will lack that luxury.

Indon
2007-10-03, 04:21 PM
So that means what, trip, disarm, weapon finesse? It's still going to work better than the monk at combat control, as he'll have more BAB, probably a better weapon, and likely more HP (higher con).

Trip and Disarm would require higher intelligence (though I guess you could just take an AoO every time you tried). High Dex gives the Spring Attack and Two-Weapon Fighting lines.



He'll also have the option, due to a whole suite of feats, to switch fighting styles if he realizes his fighting style was a poor choice. The monk will lack that luxury.

Some fighting styles take more feats than others. Though, I guess if the Fighter wanted to switch directions and did not have retraining availible to him in some way (which would render your point largely moot), he could pursue a new feat tree in only a handful of levels.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-03, 04:24 PM
Monk is a weak class, but far from the worst. Samurai, soulknife, and truenamer are generally considered to be worse (although I would argue the point with soulknife). I believe I already posted a breakdown of why samurai and truenamer are worse than monks in this thread, so I'll not repeat myself.

Kaelik
2007-10-03, 05:34 PM
All Monk Game (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3287823#post3287823)

Lets have a but these theories to test against equal CR.

triforcel
2007-10-03, 07:46 PM
+1 Dancing Heavy or Tower Shield, then get the cleric to cast magic vestment on it. 3rd level Pearls of Power only cost 9000 gold.

Purely semantics, but weapons are Dancing, shields are Animated.


And my point is that in order to get a fighter or barbarian to suck as bad as a monk, you actually have to try to suck.

In order to make a monk that sucks you need to have a poor grasp of the rules of the game. The same goes for any of the classes.


Your average fighter gets 27 feats.

27 feats? I only count eighteen, nineteen if you're human. Where are the extra 8/9 coming from?


Even from core, it'll be hard to not accidentally optimize, simply because you run out of bad feats to take and may accidentally take a good one.

Well that's simply untrue. You can try to take weapon focus for every single weapon if you wanted to :smalltongue: .


Furthermore, the fact that you have to houserule monks to get them to catch up with fighters pretty much proves my point that monks are the worst class.

You don't have to house rule the monks at all, for anything. They're fine the way they are.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-03, 08:05 PM
Trip and Disarm would require higher intelligence (though I guess you could just take an AoO every time you tried). High Dex gives the Spring Attack and Two-Weapon Fighting lines.

Combat Expertise only requires a 13 int. I findthe biggest weakness of monks, and what puts them so far behind fighters, is requiring 4 stats: wisdom and dex so as to match the fighter in AC, strength to match damage and hitting, and con to stay up. If Monks had a d10 HD and full BAB, the multistat dependency would be greatly mitigated.

In order to damage, a monk has to stand and fight, which means he needs to be able to survive a round of toe-to-toe combat. 4d6+some odd damage spring attacks just don't work. Though spring attack and dodge as level one free feats would make the level 1 to 5 monk be comparable to the fighter in not getting shredded.

Another big problem, rather counter-intuitively, is how absolutely magic gear dependent the monk is. Most DMs don't have much of a problem with fighter getting full plate, or mithral fullplate, but several I've played with are a little hesitant to be passing out gloves of dex, phylacteries of wisdom, and bracers of armor. But then, I play mostly with DMs who were big 2.0 players, and haven't quite caught up with the times.


Some fighting styles take more feats than others. Though, I guess if the Fighter wanted to switch directions and did not have retraining availible to him in some way (which would render your point largely moot), he could pursue a new feat tree in only a handful of levels.

If the fighter was taking taking the least best feats (excepting choosing all skill focus's), he'd eventually end up with enough feats to at least be on par with a monk who 'optimized', ie, didn't take feats at random (skipped agile for imp initiative, skipped cleave for combat expertise and imp disarm, etc). If the fighter was taking feats only at random, over 20 levels, it'd be extremely likely for him to end up with a higher damage output than the monk.

I'm just saying it's relatively difficult to make a fighter that's as ineffective as a monk, as a fighter tends to have higher armor (unless we're optimizing, then they're about on par, or the monk's a little higher), HP, BAB, and strength, and certainly able to put out damage (two handing, power attack, higher strength, etc).

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-03, 10:22 PM
In order to make a monk that sucks you need to have a poor grasp of the rules of the game.

Actually, in order to not make a monk that sucks, you have to optimize. In order to make a monk that is on par with the rest of a typical party, you have to be more optimized than the people playing other classes.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-04, 04:39 AM
Actually, in order to not make a monk that sucks, you have to optimize. In order to make a monk that is on par with the rest of a typical party, you have to be more optimized than the people playing other classes.

QFT.
Giving a fighter high strength isn't "optimizing" by any stretch of the word, it's a serious no-brainer, not to mention listed right in the player's handbook under "fighter: ability scores".

Slightly tangential: I'm pretty sure everybody agrees that the Samurai class is about as effective as a fighter who spends all his feats on Skill Focus (Basketweaving)... as I recall the Truenamer's problem is that the DC for his prime skill check gets way too high... but what about Soulknifes? I'm unfamiliar with the class, IIRC it's the psionic variant of the Duskblade? What's wrong with them?

Indon
2007-10-04, 07:27 AM
I'm just saying it's relatively difficult to make a fighter that's as ineffective as a monk, as a fighter tends to have higher armor (unless we're optimizing, then they're about on par, or the monk's a little higher), HP, BAB, and strength, and certainly able to put out damage (two handing, power attack, higher strength, etc).

But it isn't. I've already pointed out an example; a Dex-based TWF fighter with 12 strength.

All of your examples except for the HP and BAB are a result of character building. Everything else is planning and tactics; things which you presume to be optimized for character effectiveness in combat to a significant degree.



QFT.
Giving a fighter high strength isn't "optimizing" by any stretch of the word, it's a serious no-brainer, not to mention listed right in the player's handbook under "fighter: ability scores".

I'm sure it seems to be a 'no-brainer' to someone who spends his time thinking about how one should make a D&D character effective in combat. But many D&D players don't, and indeed many have no inclination to do so because the Players' Guide also says that nobody wins or loses D&D (not that many players actually read that, but that's often the feel of the game).

Dausuul
2007-10-04, 08:12 AM
But it isn't. I've already pointed out an example; a Dex-based TWF fighter with 12 strength.

All of your examples except for the HP and BAB are a result of character building. Everything else is planning and tactics; things which you presume to be optimized for character effectiveness in combat to a significant degree.


I'm sure it seems to be a 'no-brainer' to someone who spends his time thinking about how one should make a D&D character effective in combat. But many D&D players don't, and indeed many have no inclination to do so because the Players' Guide also says that nobody wins or loses D&D (not that many players actually read that, but that's often the feel of the game).

Then shall we compare against a monk with a 12 Wisdom?

Seriously--if you're going to make a badly un-optimized fighter, you have to apply an equal amount of un-optimization to the monk for the comparison to make sense.

Indon
2007-10-04, 08:28 AM
Then shall we compare against a monk with a 12 Wisdom?

Seriously--if you're going to make a badly un-optimized fighter, you have to apply an equal amount of un-optimization to the monk for the comparison to make sense.

Where can a monk put his stats that doesn't make him better at a role?

Telonius
2007-10-04, 09:08 AM
Where can a monk put his stats that doesn't make him better at a role?

Not really a fair question. Where can a fighter put his stats that doesn't make him better at a role? Bumping up any stat helps any character do something. You could put the Monk's stats in Charisma, and he'd be able to do some role better - Diplomacy. You could put all the Fighter's stats in Charisma too, and he'd be better at Intimidate. But neither of those really get at the heart of the problem. Yes, you can make a Diplomancer Monk. You can make an Diplomancer Fighter, too, with the right feats.

A better way of putting the question would be, what is the Monk's standard role? And what stats does he need to support that role?


I'm sure it seems to be a 'no-brainer' to someone who spends his time thinking about how one should make a D&D character effective in combat. But many D&D players don't, and indeed many have no inclination to do so because the Players' Guide also says that nobody wins or loses D&D (not that many players actually read that, but that's often the feel of the game).

By that logic, people would play Warriors and Adepts at the same frequency as Fighters and Wizards. They don't. Why don't they?

Indon
2007-10-04, 09:18 AM
Not really a fair question. Where can a fighter put his stats that doesn't make him better at a role? Bumping up any stat helps any character do something. You could put the Monk's stats in Charisma, and he'd be able to do some role better - Diplomacy. You could put all the Fighter's stats in Charisma too, and he'd be better at Intimidate. But neither of those really get at the heart of the problem. Yes, you can make a Diplomancer Monk. You can make an Diplomancer Fighter, too, with the right feats.

A better way of putting the question would be, what is the Monk's standard role? And what stats does he need to support that role?


That's a part of my point; the Monk is a generalist, so is capable of a number of different roles. He's a fair combatant, about at a level with a rogue. He's a decent skillmonkey, somewhere around the Ranger. He's pretty tough, pretty fast, and even comes with the strongest social skill.

And since we're talking about players who aren't optimising their characters, where does the diplomantic Fighter come into this?



By that logic, people would play Warriors and Adepts at the same frequency as Fighters and Wizards. They don't. Why don't they?

They aren't in the chapter of the PHB labeled as "Classes"?

The 'heart of the problem' is that Monks are harder to optimize. They have heavy gear and multiclassing limitations that prevent them from cheesing at the same level as other classes to accentuate their unique abilities.

tainsouvra
2007-10-04, 10:49 AM
I'm sure it seems to be a 'no-brainer' to someone who spends his time thinking about how one should make a D&D character effective in combat. I reiterate, just so this point isn't lost, that it literally requires zero thought about how to make your character effective in combat. It requires skimming through the basic entry in the Player's Handbook, nothing more.

Indon
2007-10-04, 10:50 AM
I reiterate, just so this point isn't lost, that it literally requires zero thought about how to make your character effective in combat. It requires skimming through the basic entry in the Player's Handbook, nothing more.

Do you know anyone who actually has done that?

Telonius
2007-10-04, 11:05 AM
They aren't in the chapter of the PHB labeled as "Classes"?


While the statement is accurate, it is not the reason that nobody plays them. I would guess that 98% of the people on the boards know that the Warrior class exists, and can find it pretty quickly on the SRD.

Practically nobody plays a Warrior because, while Warrior and Fighter share the same primary role, Warrior is mechanically inferior. Warrior is not as good at doing warrior-ish things as Fighter is.

Indon
2007-10-04, 11:11 AM
While the statement is accurate, it is not the reason that nobody plays them. I would guess that 98% of the people on the boards know that the Warrior class exists, and can find it pretty quickly on the SRD.

Practically nobody plays a Warrior because, while Warrior and Fighter share the same primary role, Warrior is mechanically inferior. Warrior is not as good at doing warrior-ish things as Fighter is.

Was I talking about people who frequent these boards?

horseboy
2007-10-04, 11:21 AM
Do you know anyone who actually has done that?

Well, granted I'm an experienced gamer, so I wasn't confused/frightened by "gamerspeak" of "actions", "rounds" and "hit points". But half way through the combat section I decided I needed to be a trip fighter. After browsing through the spells, I decided on a druid, with a constrictor for grappling my enemies. Then my buddies showed me the splatbooks and I found ways to not only fill the holes in the build. This is D&D, not rocket science, hell it's not even bottle rocket science.

Telonius
2007-10-04, 11:22 AM
No, but I'll extend that to all D&D players. I've never encountered a single person who's had more than one campaign's worth of experience, that doesn't know about them.

Regardless of how they find out about them, does anybody want to play them after they've seen the mechanics? There might be one in a hundred thousand that does. Mechanics matter, and standard role matters.

Indon
2007-10-04, 11:27 AM
No, but I'll extend that to all D&D players. I've never encountered a single person who's had more than one campaign's worth of experience, that doesn't know about them.

Regardless of how they find out about them, does anybody want to play them after they've seen the mechanics? There might be one in a hundred thousand that does.

They even say 'NPC classes', implying they weren't intended for PC's anyway.

If they _were_ described as PC classes, you know people would want to play them. For the same reason people want to play the Samurai, and hell, why people on this forum often want to play the Monk.

Hell, there would even be people arguing that the classes were balanced... well, the Adept, at least...


Mechanics matter, and standard role matters.

Was what you said supposed to be a point that classes should be specialized, rather than generalized?

tainsouvra
2007-10-04, 02:13 PM
I reiterate, just so this point isn't lost, that it literally requires zero thought about how to make your character effective in combat. It requires skimming through the basic entry in the Player's Handbook, nothing more. Do you know anyone who actually has done that? Are you seriously asking me if I know anyone who has read a few key sentences out of the Fighter entry in the Player's Handbook during the course of making a Fighter? Umm, yeah. It happens a lot, actually.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-04, 02:29 PM
That's a part of my point; the Monk is a generalist, so is capable of a number of different roles. He's a fair combatant, about at a level with a rogue. He's a decent skillmonkey, somewhere around the Ranger. He's pretty tough, pretty fast, and even comes with the strongest social skill.

And since we're talking about players who aren't optimising their characters, where does the diplomantic Fighter come into this?

Anyone's capable of a number of different roles, but in order to be competent at them, a little focus, or as you call it, optimization, is required. But then, if you want to play a dex based fighter with high charisma and intelligence, and passed the bard class up....

You're right. Poorly played characters won't match up to a well played monk. Except, a diplomancer monk would be, how shall we say, optimized, since it probably put too many ranks into diplomacy. And also got a high charisma (which will make it a poor combatant).


All of your examples except for the HP and BAB are a result of character building. Everything else is planning and tactics; things which you presume to be optimized for character effectiveness in combat to a significant degree.

No; a fighter who randomly selected feats (ie, rolled dice and picked feats based on randomly generated numbers) would eventually end up better than a monk who played generalist, because the fighter would eventually end up with power attack.

Indon
2007-10-04, 02:30 PM
Are you seriously asking me if I know anyone who has read a few key sentences out of the Fighter entry in the Player's Handbook during the course of making a Fighter? Umm, yeah. It happens a lot, actually.

Actually, let me rephrase:

Do you know anyone who takes the PHB's advice to optimize their characters?

Because I don't. The people uninterested in optimization ignore it, and the people that are interested in optimization ask other people who know things about optimization.

Edit: And Tor, as I've already pointed out, albeit not explicitly, PA requires Str 13.

tainsouvra
2007-10-04, 02:34 PM
Actually, let me rephrase:

Do you know anyone who takes the PHB's advice to optimize their characters?

Because I don't. The people uninterested in optimization ignore it, and the people that are interested in optimization ask other people who know things about optimization. In that case, I would agree with you, however that is somewhat different from the original point of contention. The part I was disagreeing with was the implication that it would require hanging out on optimization boards and talking with powergamers to realize that high-strength is one of the best ways to build a Fighter--in reality, all it takes is reading a short part of the Fighter entry in the PhB, and any player who makes a whit of effort to know the more basic information about his character will have already been exposed to that information.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-04, 02:35 PM
However, the 12 strength fighter he was referring to was not a 'nerfed' character, it was only sub-optimal. You can make a fighter who does
2WFing, and you will probably not put a high emphasis on strength if you do so. Just because a rogue or ranger makes a better 2WF than a fighter doesn't mean you can't play a reasonably effective fighter that does 2WF.

And Flurry of blows is better than 2WF.

Of course, 2WF is suboptimal anyway, as you really need to have either bonus damage dice, or carrier effects on your attacks. A monk can get the second one, but stunning fist has limited uses per day, and it takes two feats to be able to make a stunning fist attempt on each (good) attack in a flurry.

A monk with 2WF and flurrying poisoned shuriken with Rapid Shot is reasonably heinous in some situations. Since they eventually become immune to poison, they don't need poison use,and could even put contact poison on the shuriken, making them inflict the poison as long as you hit the target's touch AC.

Indon
2007-10-04, 02:37 PM
In that case, I would agree with you, however that is somewhat different from the original point of contention. The part I was disagreeing with was the implication that it would require hanging out on optimization boards and talking with powergamers to realize that high-strength is one of the best ways to build a Fighter--in reality, all it takes is reading a short part of the Fighter entry in the PhB, and any player who makes a whit of effort to know the more basic information about his character will have already been exposed to that information.

My original point of contention is that people who hang out on optimization boards and such expect that sort of character-building process as a matter of course, and don't consider it optimization, and that furthermore, other people outside of that group often didn't make characters like that, not neccessarily out of ignorance of how to do so.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-04, 02:40 PM
However, the 12 strength fighter he was referring to was not a 'nerfed' character, it was only sub-optimal. You can make a fighter who does
2WFing, and you will probably not put a high emphasis on strength if you do so. Just because a rogue or ranger makes a better 2WF than a fighter doesn't mean you can't play a reasonably effective fighter that does 2WF.

And Flurry of blows is better than 2WF.

Of course, 2WF is suboptimal anyway, as you really need to have either bonus damage dice, or carrier effects on your attacks. A monk can get the second one, but stunning fist has limited uses per day, and it takes two feats to be able to make a stunning fist attempt on each (good) attack in a flurry.

A monk with 2WF and flurrying poisoned shuriken with Rapid Shot is reasonably heinous in some situations. Since they eventually become immune to poison, they don't need poison use,and could even put contact poison on the shuriken, making them inflict the poison as long as you hit the target's touch AC.

Immunity poison isn't the same as poison use; it's still possible to end up using the poison on yourself and losing the dose.
Also note the immense cost of that build. A TWF will most definitely get hit less, since he'll have more resources to put into AC rather than poison, and his BAB will even out the attack penalties from TWF.

Not that BAB is all that important, but in terms of combat, they'd stand up reasonably well. The fighter would also have enough feats around to match the monk in grapples, trips, disarms, etc. Of course, that may be playing the fighter too optimally.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-04, 02:41 PM
My original point of contention is that people who hang out on optimization boards and such expect that sort of character-building process as a matter of course, and don't consider it optimization, and that furthermore, other people outside of that group often didn't make characters like that, not neccessarily out of ignorance of how to do so.

None of the people I play with hang out on char op boards, yet all know enough about the game they're playing to realize that fighters and barbs need strength, and to be semi-reasonable about picking out feats ahead of time.

What sort of people do you play with, and if they're as non-combat oriented as you're making them out to be, why the heck are they playing D&D?

Indon
2007-10-04, 02:49 PM
None of the people I play with hang out on char op boards, yet all know enough about the game they're playing to realize that fighters and barbs need strength, and to be semi-reasonable about picking out feats ahead of time.

What sort of people do you play with, and if they're as non-combat oriented as you're making them out to be, why the heck are they playing D&D?

I play with people who hang out on optimization boards. Our _actual_ optimization levels vary vastly, in practice, from both campaign to campaign and even character to character.

My group routinely sees characters that boards would gasp in shock to see, just because we all like screwing around with wacky character concepts. I personally have been everything from the group's resident Combat Monster, to the secondary-use character who follows around the more combat-viable characters.

And our monks have generally fit in fine, despite our optimization level being higher than average... though my monk in one of our campaigns did horribly, that was largely because natural 1's were house-ruled as critical misses. In one fight, I broke two arms and a leg...

Xeon
2007-10-04, 03:02 PM
Monk speed bonus is an Enhancement bonus. What other speed bonuses are there that stack with that?

Please, there are a myriad of bonuses that stack. Devine, Vile, Exalted, Luck. It's just amatter of makeing a spell or item that provides the bonus that your looking for.
I'm surprised that on such a power gaming forum that you would have to ask this question, I could probably find some one who would argue a dodge bonus to speed if i looked hard enough.:smalltongue:

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-04, 03:07 PM
Please, there are a myriad of bonuses that stack. Devine, Vile, Exalted, Luck. It's just amatter of makeing a spell or item that provides the bonus that your looking for.
I'm surprised that on such a power gaming forum that you would have to ask this question, I could probably find some one who would argue a dodge bonus to speed if i looked hard enough.:smalltongue:

Typically "making a magic item that does x" doesn't count in argument for a class, as it relies too much on DMs, and that the rules for item creation aren't really rules, more like suggestions, and not very good ones at that. Well, they're pretty good, but they require finesse.

Xeon
2007-10-04, 03:10 PM
In order to make a monk that sucks you need to have a poor grasp of the rules of the game. The same goes for any of the classes.



Actually, in order to not make a monk that sucks, you have to optimize. In order to make a monk that is on par with the rest of a typical party, you have to be more optimized than the people playing other classes.

Please see previous comment

Xeon
2007-10-04, 03:15 PM
The 'heart of the problem' is that Monks are harder to optimize. They have heavy gear and multiclassing limitations that prevent them from cheesing at the same level as other classes to accentuate their unique abilities.

I think I agree with this point it seems that people around here have a problem with any character that isn't all powerful.


Typically "making a magic item that does x" doesn't count in argument for a class, as it relies too much on DMs, and that the rules for item creation aren't really rules, more like suggestions, and not very good ones at that. Well, they're pretty good, but they require finesse.

I was mainly trying to point out that there are other ways. I DM frequently as do many of my friends and at least in my circle it is more likely that you will be able to use an item you created useing the DMG rather than any of the numerus items in various extra books that wizards has put out.

Dr. Weasel
2007-10-04, 03:38 PM
I think I agree with this point it seems that people around here have a problem with any character that isn't all powerful.

Nobody has a problem playing the class.

Or perhaps you didn't read either the thread title or the OP?

Dausuul
2007-10-04, 03:51 PM
Please, there are a myriad of bonuses that stack. Devine, Vile, Exalted, Luck. It's just amatter of makeing a spell or item that provides the bonus that your looking for.
I'm surprised that on such a power gaming forum that you would have to ask this question, I could probably find some one who would argue a dodge bonus to speed if i looked hard enough.:smalltongue:

I know of very little in the rules that grants a non-enhancement bonus to speed. Offhand, the only thing I can think of is the barbarian's fast movement. Please give examples.

Of course you can make a custom magic item do anything you can fast-talk your DM into letting it do, but that's irrelevant to a discussion of the monk class as written; custom magic items are by definition homebrew.


I think I agree with this point it seems that people around here have a problem with any character that isn't all powerful.

No, actually. If that were the case, every one of these discussions would swiftly conclude with somebody saying "PUN-PUN PWNZ YOU ALL!" And that would be that, because no character is as powerful as Pun-Pun.

However, people around here do have strong opinions on the relative power levels of the various classes, and are eager for an opportunity to voice those opinions. So if you claim that monks are not the weakest class in Core, be prepared to defend that assertion. That doesn't mean none of us likes monks, and it doesn't mean none of us plays monks; it just means a lot of people here think they're less powerful than, say, rangers. And those of us who believe in class balance think something ought to be done about that; just like we think the wizard, druid, and cleric ought to be beaten with the nerf bat till the cows come home.


I was mainly trying to point out that there are other ways. I DM frequently as do many of my friends and at least in my circle it is more likely that you will be able to use an item you created useing the DMG rather than any of the numerus items in various extra books that wizards has put out.

See previous comment on homebrewing. Moreover, the guidelines in the DMG make no mention of bonuses to speed. I guess you could make an item that gave you expeditious retreat as a continuous effect... except that expeditious retreat grants, guess what, an enhancement bonus.

Xeon
2007-10-04, 05:15 PM
I know of very little in the rules that grants a non-enhancement bonus to speed. Offhand, the only thing I can think of is the barbarian's fast movement. Please give examples.

There are rules that show the cost of changing the type of bonus that something grants. All I'm saying is that there are other types of bonusesthat could grant a speed boost. Obviously some can't (i.e. dodge) but it is reasonable to assume that bonuses like the ones listed can apply to speed.


Of course you can make a custom magic item do anything you can fast-talk your DM into letting it do, but that's irrelevant to a discussion of the monk class as written; custom magic items are by definition homebrew.

I dont think i have ever fast talked my DM into anything I don't play like that and am kind of insulted by people that do. If you want to define any item not in a source book as homebrew than thats fine I don't quite see it that way.


No, actually. If that were the case, every one of these discussions would swiftly conclude with somebody saying "PUN-PUN PWNZ YOU ALL!" And that would be that, because no character is as powerful as Pun-Pun.

However, people around here do have strong opinions on the relative power levels of the various classes, and are eager for an opportunity to voice those opinions. So if you claim that monks are not the weakest class in Core, be prepared to defend that assertion. That doesn't mean none of us likes monks, and it doesn't mean none of us plays monks; it just means a lot of people here think they're less powerful than, say, rangers. And those of us who believe in class balance think something ought to be done about that; just like we think the wizard, druid, and cleric ought to be beaten with the nerf bat till the cows come home.

I'm refering to all of the topics about the obscene power gaming combonations useing obscure prestige classes and magic items.
It seems to me that a majority of the posts that i see are either about how to become godlike in power or why X,Y, or Z is weak because they can't figure out how to minmax the heck out of it.
Like I said before I agree with Triforcel, All of the classes are equaly powerful and that if you see one class as extreemly weak or powerful than your missing something somewhere.




See previous comment on homebrewing. Moreover, the guidelines in the DMG make no mention of bonuses to speed. I guess you could make an item that gave you expeditious retreat as a continuous effect... except that expeditious retreat grants, guess what, an enhancement bonus.

See previous response to homebrewing. There are more expansive guidelines to creating magical items and spells though im not sure where I saw them most of my source material is not at hand at the moment (read: in an unidentified storage facility halfway across the world) but when I do find it I will be sure to let you know. It would be a simple thing to create a spell like Expeditious Retreat that provides say, a Devine or Competance bonus to speed. But I supose once again that would fall into your definition of homebrew and is there for non-admissible.

In closeing after rereading my last few posts I realise that they have come of rather harsh and in some cases insulting I want to apologize for that. It wasn't my intent.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-10-04, 05:25 PM
Please, there are a myriad of bonuses that stack. Devine, Vile, Exalted, Luck. It's just amatter of makeing a spell or item that provides the bonus that your looking for.
I'm surprised that on such a power gaming forum that you would have to ask this question, I could probably find some one who would argue a dodge bonus to speed if i looked hard enough.:smalltongue:

I may not be 100% correct here, but I think that the 'type' of bonus you're looking for instead of vile is 'Profane'. Vile's a type of damage.

Dr. Weasel
2007-10-04, 05:40 PM
It seems to me that a majority of the posts that i see are either about how to become godlike in power or why X,Y, or Z is weak because they can't figure out how to minmax the heck out of it.
Like I said before I agree with Triforcel, All of the classes are equaly powerful and that if you see one class as extreemly weak or powerful than your missing something somewhere.
First, if you click on a thread explicitly discussing class balance, don't be upset to see it.
Second, the game is not balanced. It is built by human beings and human beings make mistakes. It's what we do. You can't assume that just because a product is marketed it is flawless.

TO_Incognito
2007-10-04, 08:59 PM
Indon--

It seems like your basic argument that the Monk isn't weak was expressed in this post from way earlier:


My point is that nonoptimized monks perform comparably to nonoptimized meleers at a level which many people play, and that, because you frequent a D&D optimization forum, your optimization standards are such that your baseline is above that level.

But that argument doesn't make sense to me; it seems that monks fall behind at any level of optimization.

If you take a monk and a barbarian, both with optimized attributes, both with all mechanically effective feat and skill choices, and perhaps both with a little cheese, the barbarian crushes the monk in combat usefulness, and is just as useful (or perhaps marginally less useful) outside of combat.

If you take a monk and a barbarian, both with reasonably standard attribute choices (with perhaps one unusual number for roleplaying sake), both with mostly mechanically effective feat and skill choices (with perhaps a few quirky choices for roleplaying sake), and both with one or two other non-optimized choices, the barbarian still crushes the monk in combat usefulness, and is still just as useful (or perhaps marginally less useful) outside of combat.

If you take a monk and a barbarian, both with highly inefficient (but very interesting and fun) attribute choices, both with only a few mechanically optimized feat and skill choices, and both with a number of other ticks and mechanically-inefficient choices, the barbarian still crushes the monk in combat usefulness, and is still just as useful (or perhaps marginally less useful) outside of combat.

You could say that it doesn't matter much, and mechanical weakness isn't that big of a deal in a roleplaying game, and you'd be right. But that seems to be more of an argument that the monk is weak, but it doesn't matter, than an argument that the monk isn't weak. And what's more, even if the roleplaying value and fun factor of monks is vastly more important than their overall mechanical effectiveness, wouldn't it still be nice if they were mechanically on par with other middle-of-the-road classes and we just didn't have to think about it?

Dr. Weasel
2007-10-04, 09:17 PM
Monks don't even balance with the other classes at low levels of optimization.

Of my first four characters, two were Monks. I started with a Fighter, so I was used to being tolerably useful to a group. Being slaughtered constantly in melee combat and repeatedly failing to execute a Stunning Fist or Grapple did not give me the impression that I was on equal footing with the rest of my thouroughly unoptimized group. Hell, my negative-Constitution Half-Elf Fighter (with, if I recall correctly, Toughness, Quickdraw and Weapon Focus-Greatclub) was able to survive better than the Monk and was actually able to deal some damage.

On the other end of the spectrum, forums like the gleemax boards and these, the monk is widely regarded as one of the worst classes in the game.

I'm fairly certain that unless there is a noticable gap in character-building ability between the Monk's player and the rest of the group, the Monk will fall behind without considerable dice-love.

horseboy
2007-10-04, 09:42 PM
Like I said before I agree with Triforcel, All of the classes are equaly powerful and that if you see one class as extreemly weak or powerful than your missing something somewhere.


Wow, apparently you've yet to play in a well written game system.

Dausuul
2007-10-04, 10:33 PM
I dont think i have ever fast talked my DM into anything I don't play like that and am kind of insulted by people that do. If you want to define any item not in a source book as homebrew than thats fine I don't quite see it that way.

That's... the exact definition of homebrew. Something used in a game that isn't out of the rulebooks.

Please understand, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with homebrewing. Quite the contrary, it's a time-honored practice in D&D and lots of excellent DMs do it extensively. I've been known to homebrew entire character classes to replace the ones I don't like, I hardly ever use the standard D&D races, and I've never in my life used the standard cosmology. But if you're talking about homebrew, then you're not talking about the system as written, you're talking about the system as you've modified it to be. That's a different discussion--potentially a very interesting one--but not the topic of this thread.

And my apologies for the "fast-talk" comment; it was intended mostly humorously. I should have thrown in a smiley.

triforcel
2007-10-05, 01:38 AM
That's... the exact definition of homebrew. Something used in a game that isn't out of the rulebooks.

I think what he is trying to get at is that since the rulebooks include guidelines for creating your own magic items, and I believe guidelines for creating your own spells, then it's not home brewing in the same sense as a new race, class, or feat. That's just my take on it, I could be wrong.



If you take a monk and a barbarian, both with optimized attributes, both with all mechanically effective feat and skill choices, and perhaps both with a little cheese, the barbarian crushes the monk in combat usefulness, and is just as useful (or perhaps marginally less useful) outside of combat.

If you take a monk and a barbarian, both with reasonably standard attribute choices (with perhaps one unusual number for roleplaying sake), both with mostly mechanically effective feat and skill choices (with perhaps a few quirky choices for roleplaying sake), and both with one or two other non-optimized choices, the barbarian still crushes the monk in combat usefulness, and is still just as useful (or perhaps marginally less useful) outside of combat.

Again, I could be wrong, but it seems like your entire basis for combat usefulness is based solely on damage output. Killing everything isn't the only way to successfully complete combat and the monk can kill or subdue with equal efficiency, even if you chose all of his feats and skills at random.

Zincorium
2007-10-05, 02:43 AM
Again, I could be wrong, but it seems like your entire basis for combat usefulness is based solely on damage output. Killing everything isn't the only way to successfully complete combat and the monk can kill or subdue with equal efficiency, even if you chose all of his feats and skills at random.

To kill something, you have to deal enough damage to reduce it below 0 and let it bleed to death.

To subdue, you need to do Nonlethal damage equal and above it's current hit points.

So we're talking the same numbers here, more or less. The difference being, a barbarian or fighter must suck up the -4 or use a merciful weapon, but because the difference in damage is so great, they can still subdue monsters faster if they decide to.

Lastly, combat is the only area that monks do even tolerably well in. If you can't include a rogue or a wizard or some substitute in the party, a monk might be just a tiny bit better than a barbarian or other class that will rock the monk's socks in combat.

To put it mildly, you're hurting the party by replacing a role with monk. They are not good skillmonkeys, they can't cast at all, and all of their powers that are magical apply only to them, they can't even use their lay on hands for other people. If they can't fight as well, either, what point would there be?

Monks need a role that they can't be supplanted from, and D&D hasn't given it to them.

TO_Incognito
2007-10-05, 05:25 AM
Again, I could be wrong, but it seems like your entire basis for combat usefulness is based solely on damage output. Killing everything isn't the only way to successfully complete combat and the monk can kill or subdue with equal efficiency, even if you chose all of his feats and skills at random.

I don't think it is based solely on that. A monk can't offer much more than a barbarian in terms of combat utility; the monk isn't an efficient tripper or disarmer because of his base attack bonus, and many of his other unique abilities just keep him alive (but not, unfortunately, against melee brawler-type enemies). Stunning Fists and a Dimension Door are nice, but a Barbarian with a few mechanically effective feat choices can offer similar utility, put out triple the damage or more, and survive longer against powerful melee monsters.

Indon
2007-10-05, 09:04 AM
If you take a monk and a barbarian, both with highly inefficient (but very interesting and fun) attribute choices, both with only a few mechanically optimized feat and skill choices, and both with a number of other ticks and mechanically-inefficient choices, the barbarian still crushes the monk in combat usefulness, and is still just as useful (or perhaps marginally less useful) outside of combat.


This is the point I simply disagree with. Thus far we have heard one person who in practice has had monk problems at about this optimization level (on this thread, at that), but who else has? I certainly didn't, even before I bothered to do any character optimization (though admittedly, that was back in the days of 3.0, and monks were a bit different then).

I just don't think that monks are weak in practice in many campaigns. Perhaps it is because it's easier to see, and thus capitalize on, their strengths than it is with other classes (I guess this would explain why many people come to such forums as these thinking the monk is the most powerful class). Perhaps it's because it's harder to make a less effective monk (I lean more towards this personally).

And regarding other points:



Monks need a role that they can't be supplanted from, and D&D hasn't given it to them.
I don't agree that specialization is required to make a class 'playable'. There's not much the Bard can do that a Sorceror, Cleric, Rogue, or Marshal can't, but so what? That doesn't make the Bard unplayable, or even weak.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-10-05, 09:16 AM
In my experience, the main problem with the Monk is that its stat block is alot flashier than that of the other classes. All new player's I've played with take one look at the monk and think "Damn! That's alot of abilities, and attacks, and huge damage! I have to be one of these!".

Problem is, they are usually played by these players in a 'Primary Combatant' role, and end up getting smoked, and then complain that the class sucks. Role confusion is the monk's biggest weakness. It's possible for a monk to be built for that, but it's not something a new player will be able to do easily compared to a barb or a fighter.

Personally, I've made a couple of monks, to varying degrees of success, but I never assumed I'd be able to replace a barb or fighter as the 'chunks of damage' dealer, and as such never really had much of a problem. My beef with the class comes from experienced players who play them as if they're the kings of combat and damage, rush into combat ASAP, get KO'd real quick, and then complain.

Sir Giacomo
2007-10-05, 01:41 PM
Excellent comment by SpikeFightwicky.

- Giacomo