PDA

View Full Version : Monks: Shall I Compare Thee?



truemane
2007-10-01, 03:31 PM
I love talking about Monks. The whole Over/Under powered conversation has been entertaining me for as long as there have been Monks. Especially as so many people respond so emotionally and get everyone else's back up. And more often than not thew whole thing descends into a big "Monks r teh r0x0r/Monks are teh win" shouting match.

Good times.

So, here's the question I want to ask, before we even talk about Monks: to what Class are we comparing Monks? We can all agree that they are underpowered compared to Primary Spellcasters. But then, almost everything is underpowered compared to Primary spellcasters.

Comparing to Fighters is no good. Fighters suck. Ditto Bards. Then there's the Paladin/Ranger underpowered threads...

Which class is the baseline? Which Class has a value of 1, such that every other class can be compared to it and declared under/over/evenly powered?

Barbarian? Sorceror?

And if there's no baseline, aren't we all just talking out of our collective behinds by comparing purely relative entities?

Crow
2007-10-01, 03:35 PM
And if there's no baseline, aren't we all just talking out of our collective behinds by comparing purely relative entities?

We are. Because like all things related to this game, it depends on the player and the game. In my game, my monk may be quite good, possibly becasue I play him as a clever generalist who uses the abilities he has in creative ways. While in somebody else's game, he may suck, possibly because the player wants to play him as a primary melee character akin to a warblade, which he isn't designed to be.

PlatinumJester
2007-10-01, 03:47 PM
Warblade or Duskblade seem the best bets. Duskblade is basically a spellcaster melee character and Warblades use a system similar to spell casting and are very powerful.

Maybe a swordsage as well since they are bang in the middle of everything. They are not quite tank, not quite skill monkey and have something similar but not as powerful as spellcasting yet they are still very good.

mostlyharmful
2007-10-01, 04:23 PM
Oh Monk, thou art ill designed
The invisible wizard that flys in the night
through the fort save or be blown over storm
has found out your suckily intergrated class features
and his save-or-die spells
does your PC destroy:smallsmile:

Edit: sorry are we supposed to be helpful? Ok, then you've got to look at what the monk class is supposed to do, it's not a frount line melee class, or at least it's not intended to be, it's the support role character that is rewarded by sufficient tactical thought. Making everyone else a bit better and using your environment doesn't get a whole lot of press in quite a lot of groups.:smallmad: The Monks problem is it's tryong to cover too many bases to be easily used so they can fit a variety of roles or none depending on the DM and the group. The Bard or the rogue are his nearest approximates in the Core, but the monk just doesn't fit any kind of mold in the standerd four part party.

Dausuul
2007-10-01, 05:14 PM
I would say the baseline classes should be the more recent non-full-caster classes; the ToB classes, scouts, duskblades, and so on. Warmage is also a good one.

These classes are generally stronger than the core non-casters, but weaker than core casters. A party made up exclusively of these classes is neither pathetic nor ungodly powerful against a level-appropriate challenge.

Moreover, classes in this tier are, in my experience, the most fun to play.

Chronos
2007-10-01, 05:28 PM
Comparing to Fighters is no good. Fighters suck. Ditto Bards. Then there's the Paladin/Ranger underpowered threads...So if you do compare a monk to a fighter anyway, and the monk still loses, what does that tell you?

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-01, 05:30 PM
I love talking about Monks. The whole Over/Under powered conversation has been entertaining me for as long as there have been Monks. Especially as so many people respond so emotionally and get everyone else's back up. And more often than not thew whole thing descends into a big "Monks r teh r0x0r/Monks are teh win" shouting match.

Good times.

So, here's the question I want to ask, before we even talk about Monks: to what Class are we comparing Monks? We can all agree that they are underpowered compared to Primary Spellcasters. But then, almost everything is underpowered compared to Primary spellcasters.

Comparing to Fighters is no good. Fighters suck. Ditto Bards. Then there's the Paladin/Ranger underpowered threads...

Which class is the baseline? Which Class has a value of 1, such that every other class can be compared to it and declared under/over/evenly powered?

Barbarian? Sorceror?

And if there's no baseline, aren't we all just talking out of our collective behinds by comparing purely relative entities?

Why not just compare them to each class, and see how they measure up? It's largely accepted that a monk doesn't measure up to any class.

Dr. Weasel
2007-10-01, 05:46 PM
Why not just compare them to each class, and see how they measure up? It's largely accepted that a monk doesn't measure up to any class.

What about the Samurai?

Eh?
Eh?

Yeah, that's right: Samurai got nuttin' on da Monk.

Neon Knight
2007-10-01, 05:47 PM
Why not just compare them to each class, and see how they measure up? It's largely accepted that a monk doesn't measure up to any class.

The Monk is probably better than the CW Samurai.

EDIT: Ninja'ed. How oddly appropriate.

Hectonkhyres
2007-10-01, 05:55 PM
What about the Samurai?

Eh?
Eh?

Yeah, that's right: Samurai got nuttin' on da Monk.
That is perhaps the saddest thing I have ever heard...

Quietus
2007-10-01, 06:15 PM
Why not just compare them to each class, and see how they measure up? It's largely accepted that a monk doesn't measure up to any class.

Because it's been done. x100. And every time it comes down to a combination of shouting matches and people jerking off TLN's wizard guide, and explaining why forcecage > you.

Orzel
2007-10-01, 06:23 PM
Out of the base core classes, I'd say the baseline is ranger. It does its job very well, has true usable strengths and weaknesses, and doesn't eat up a million party roles easily.

TO_Incognito
2007-10-01, 06:26 PM
We are. Because like all things related to this game, it depends on the player and the game. In my game, my monk may be quite good, possibly becasue I play him as a clever generalist who uses the abilities he has in creative ways.

What clever and legal uses of a monk's abilities make the monk as useful as an equivalently built, middle-of-the-road class, perhaps a barbarian, rogue, or bard? Unless the dungeon master is going out of his way to design tasks and adventures that favor the monk, I'm not aware of any such uses.

Frosty
2007-10-01, 06:32 PM
I'd like to see it too so I can use it in my games :D

Crow
2007-10-01, 06:39 PM
What clever and legal uses of a monk's abilities make the monk as useful as an equivalently built, middle-of-the-road class, perhaps a barbarian, rogue, or bard? Unless the dungeon master is going out of his way to design tasks and adventures that favor the monk, I'm not aware of any such uses.

It's all relative to the specific game, which makes it difficult to get into to due to the many variables involved. A few obvious ones are super long jumps to avoid trapped hallways, or dimension dooring to avoid obstacles or set up flanking. Going ethereal is useful for all sorts of fun. You can tumble up to 40 ft. or springattack from like 90 ft. away...there are all sorts of things you can do with a monk. They have a decent assortment of class skills (which you don't have to max out to be useful).

But like I said, a lot of it is relative to the game and the situations presented. Believe it or not, you can play a fighter "out of the box" too, but most people don't bother to try.

Jerthanis
2007-10-01, 06:57 PM
I agree that a Ranger makes a pretty good baseline in terms of "neither overpowered, nor bottom of the barrel", also good candidates are Rogues, Bards and Barbarians IMHO. I think Crusaders, Warblades and Swordsages are attempts to balance toward the high ends of Wizards and Clerics, rather than balancing towards the middle, which is a good idea from a game mechanics standpoint. In terms of everything taken together, they're still some of the more powerful classes out there, and not the median.

I'm not an unbiased person to make a Ranger to Monk comparison though, because I'm ridiculously affectionate towards the Ranger, as it's my favorite class. I'd say the Ranger's extra skills, full base attack bonus, exceptional fighting options, and decent class skills make it more than a matchup for the Monk, who I can only see getting eaten alive in melee combat, and having no good ranged options to fall back on. Their utility and mobility doesn't change the fact that once they get where they're going, they can't really do much there.

tainsouvra
2007-10-01, 07:03 PM
if there's no baseline, aren't we all just talking out of our collective behinds by comparing purely relative entities? Absolutely not. The very concept of a comparison is a relative thing--you're always comparing something to something else. In the absence of a formal baseline, not only is it permissible to compare to other options, that's the entire point of comparing at all!

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-01, 10:48 PM
Baseline should be ranger and rogue. They are the two classes that are all that they promise to be, without overshadowing other classes. Comparing monk to swordsage is just silly, swordsage was pretty much designed to replace monk.

Draz74
2007-10-01, 11:00 PM
Well, what we really should be comparing with is "CR-appropriate monster encounters, and which party members can contribute meaningfully to such a battle more easily." But that's admittedly hard to measure decisively.

If we need to actually pick a class to compare with ...

If we're talking Core-only, Rogue is best. Though it's slightly weak at higher levels.

If we're talking classes from Core, but with supplements allowed to improve them, then Ranger (using spells from Spell Compendium) becomes slightly better than the rogue and becomes the best comparison.

If you're asking for splatbook base classes that make very good examples of "well-balanced," you could look at Psychic Warrior, Knight, Totemist, Binder, Lurk, Divine Mind, or Dragonfire Adept.

Slightly more powerful than the ones I just listed, but still not really game-breaking like well-played full casters, are things like the Bard (if well built, but not abusive like a Diplomancer), Factotum, Warblade, Crusader, Swordsage, and Duskblade.

Jade_Tarem
2007-10-01, 11:38 PM
Ode to the Monk:

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Your members are hot and wear little clothing,
Your class features shine bright, and at first they,
Cause newer players to glare with loathing,

But your time of glory does not last,
With levels six and seven past,
The winter of casters and dragons approaches,
Your radiance covered with dust and roaches,

Does little to boost the party - alas!
The tank multiclasses, the casters kick ass,
Take solace with evasion and 'prot,
The battle's custodian - that is your lot.

So it seems you fall short of a summers day,
The bard gets to have his roll in the hay,
The rogue has his skills, the fighter his shield
The casters all-power, and YOU must yield.

leperkhaun
2007-10-02, 12:07 AM
Dont bash bards, they are the most underrated class.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-02, 03:43 AM
It goes something like this:

First tier: Cleric, druid, wizard, sorcerer, archivist, beguiler, psion
Second tier: Swordsage, warblade, crusader, warmage, duskblade
Third tier: Barbarian, rogue, ranger, bard, warlock, hexblade, dragon shaman, psywar
Fourth tier: Paladin, fighter, swashbuckler, marshall
Fifth tier: Monk, healer, samurai, NPC classes

Third tier is probably best for balance comparisons.

lord_khaine
2007-10-02, 04:44 AM
What clever and legal uses of a monk's abilities make the monk as useful as an equivalently built, middle-of-the-road class, perhaps a barbarian, rogue, or bard? Unless the dungeon master is going out of his way to design tasks and adventures that favor the monk, I'm not aware of any such uses.

they are called trip, grapple and stunning fist, with good saves so you can keep doing it despite having to take a will/ref/fort save.


Well, what we really should be comparing with is "CR-appropriate monster encounters, and which party members can contribute meaningfully to such a battle more easily." But that's admittedly hard to measure decisively
thats proberly the smartest comment in this thread so far...


First tier: Cleric, druid, wizard, sorcerer, archivist, beguiler, psion
Second tier: Swordsage, warblade, crusader, warmage, duskblade
Third tier: Barbarian, rogue, ranger, bard, warlock, hexblade, dragon shaman, psywar
Fourth tier: Paladin, fighter, swashbuckler, marshall
Fifth tier: Monk, healer, samurai, NPC classes


nahh more like
First tier: Cleric, druid, wizard, sorcerer, archivist, beguiler, psion
Second tier: Swordsage, warblade, crusader, warmage, duskblade
Third tier: Barbarian, rogue, ranger, bard, warlock, hexblade, dragon shaman, psywar, monk
Fourth tier: Paladin, fighter, swashbuckler, marshall
Fifth tier: healer, samurai, NPC classes

Kurald Galain
2007-10-02, 05:26 AM
Third tier: Barbarian, rogue, ranger, bard, warlock, hexblade, dragon shaman, psywar, monk
Well, that's your opinion, based on personal preference, a number of misconceptions, uneven builds, and some logical fallacies. If you'd look around this board and the WOTC charop boards, you'd see that consensus considers monk to be a solid Tier Five.

Orzel
2007-10-02, 05:53 AM
According to those tiers:

First tier: Full casters
Second tier: Fake full caster warrior-mage hybrid things
Third tier: Classes that do their job well (classes with a a handful of good features)
Fourth tier: Classes that do their job well if planned by a optimizer (Classes with 1 or 2 decent features)
Fifth tier: Classes that require fudge rolls, high magic, and cheese to do their job (Classes with no few usable role aiding features)

Monks are tier 5 because they require multiple form of unfairness to compete with most weapon users or skill monkeys.

Goff
2007-10-02, 06:00 AM
Well, that's your opinion, based on personal preference, a number of misconceptions, uneven builds, and some logical fallacies. If you'd look around this board and the WOTC charop boards, you'd see that consensus considers monk to be a solid Tier Five.

Do I smell smoke?


Seriously, just because "my friends say so" doesn't make it true. I've been around long enough to see consensus on classes shift and even do an about face in some cases.
Tiers aside, a monk is okay if a DM (as we all should) provides encounters that challenge all characters and give them all a time to shine, everyone can have fun. A monk can be pretty useful if given some situations where it can shine. I don't care much for the monk, but that doesn't mean that one cannot be played well as a useful party member.
Might I add that the assumption that everybody is into dnd to have a powerful character, rather than to have fun is, I would say, a rather strong logical fallacy. Seriously though, that was needlessly aggressive, try and keep a civil tone.

Lycurgus
2007-10-02, 06:17 AM
Psst....I think you guys might be focusing a little too much on combat....but maybe you enjoy the whole computer game scenario.:smallannoyed:

Dhavaer
2007-10-02, 06:34 AM
Psst....I think you guys might be focusing a little too much on combat....but maybe you enjoy the whole computer game scenario.:smallannoyed:

Since the monk isn't really good at much out of combat, some might consider this charitable.

Neon Knight
2007-10-02, 06:36 AM
Psst....I think you guys might be focusing a little too much on combat....but maybe you enjoy the whole computer game scenario.:smallannoyed:

Then, quite frankly, what the heck do you suggest we talk about?

People come here to discuss the mechanics because the mechanics are what they need help with, or because that's what interests them, or because they think they've found a problem in the mechanics, or... the reasons go on and on. What else is there to discuss? Sure, you can ask about certain aspects of roleplay, but unlike mechanics, these are highly relative. Sure, you can swap stories or create hypothetical situations and ask how people would react, but what do these do aside from provide amusement? Come to think of it, I'm willing to bet most of the mechanics twinking that occurs here is for amusement rather than actual play.

I'd say the whole roleplay segment of the game is almost entirely, purely relative. Mechanics, at least, has a common basis, something which is true for all of us. I am, of course, referring to the rules.


Do I smell smoke?


Seriously, just because "my friends say so" doesn't make it true. I've been around long enough to see consensus on classes shift and even do an about face in some cases.
Tiers aside, a monk is okay if a DM (as we all should) provides encounters that challenge all characters and give them all a time to shine, everyone can have fun. A monk can be pretty useful if given some situations where it can shine. I don't care much for the monk, but that doesn't mean that one cannot be played well as a useful party member.
Might I add that the assumption that everybody is into dnd to have a powerful character, rather than to have fun is, I would say, a rather strong logical fallacy. Seriously though, that was needlessly aggressive, try and keep a civil tone.

At one point, science believed in the geo centric model of the solar system. This felt out of favor as new data became available. So to is it with optimization. As new splat books are released, and new combinations are discovered, the relative power of classes rises and falls. That being said, the math backing up the "Monk is sub par " claims is rather solid.

I'd also like to note that rule zero, AKA "The DM should fix it" is no excuse. Quite frankly, I feel the system should be designed so as to run with a minimal amount of rule zero. That's extra work on the DM's lap, and I, as a DM, can say I need no more work. I have quite enough already, thank you. A wizard can, with a little preparation, shine in practically any situation. A Monk cannot.

I also think you indulge in a fallacy when you imply that fun and a "powerful" (perhaps the word you're looking for is mechanically competent?) character are mutually exclusive. To extract fun from the mechanics portion of the game you must be able to exert force over them, and Monks have a hard time doing that effectively.

Goff
2007-10-02, 07:52 AM
Look, kid, I shan't be misrepresented by your rhetoric.
I remember when sorcerers were considered a weak class, before the advent of TLN's proclamation that full arcane casters win. In core they are as powerful as they ever were, only attitudes have changed.

I was saying is that you needn't have the most powerful character in the world to have fun. Monks fill a tertiary role in parties and are rarely essential, but in a campaign where lots of physical tasks need to be done, and the rogue hasn't invested in climb etc. what tier is the monk on then? It is all very relative to not only the kind of campaign the character is being used in, but also what kind of combat the DM chooses to run.
Sure, playing a powerful wizard or what have you can be a barrel of laughs, but that doesn't mean that they are the only class that's fun because they're most powerful (yes powerful is the word I intended, and for the record 'mechanically competent' is not a word rather a term).
I resent that fact that you assume that I am saying that power and fun are mutually exclusive, when at no point did I say that. Now you say I 'indulge' in a fallacy when I do no such thing, point to me any time I say that more mechanically competent characters are no fun and impossible to enjoy. You shan't find it because I have never said it. I believe that any character when played well can be fun, but to exclusively look at the mechanical strengths and weaknesses of a character or class is to overlook the most important portion of dnd, that is the roleplaying.

Now if you're done misrepresenting me, I shall be off.

Xuincherguixe
2007-10-02, 07:59 AM
Maybe they should be compared to cats because both are deadly to mages?

... Or at least the Monk is supposed to be.

truemane
2007-10-02, 08:12 AM
And this is why a baseline would be useful. Comparing relative quantities to relative quantities is always an excercise in futility. It's like putting pants on a Monkey: entertaining, but ultimately unsatisfying.

Maybe what we need to do is get some volunteers and run an all Monk group through a couple of published adventures. One for low levels, one for mid and one for high.

And then you could do the same for any other class and see how they all stack up.

I guess it would have to be the same players and the same DM, just to keep the number of variables down.

And it bears mentioning, since this always comes up when this debate rages: we're not talking about fun, or role-playing, or anything of the sort. This is a debate about the mechanical utility of the Monk class as it compares to that of other classes. So if you don't want to talk numbers and builds, find another debate.

Emperor Tippy
2007-10-02, 10:20 AM
Anyone who ever considered Sorcerers weak was a fool Goff. More people may have been enlightened to this truth after TLN posted his "guide" but thats a different question.

Tier 1: Artificers, Wizards, Clerics, and Druids
Tier 2: Sorcerers and all other full casters with restrictive spell lists (sorcerers tend to be at the top of this list power wise)
Tier 3: Bards, Rogues, ToB classes, PsiWarrior (classes that fill a party role or that can at least pull their own weight)
Tier 4: Classes that can be useful if you have a bigger than normal party or are played by a good optimizer.
Tier 5: Classes that are less than useful
Tier 6: Monks, CW Samurai

I would prolly go with an optimized Barbarian as the baseline.

psychoticbarber
2007-10-02, 10:33 AM
Tier 1: Artificers, Wizards, Clerics, and Druids
Tier 2: Sorcerers and all other full casters with restrictive spell lists (sorcerers tend to be at the top of this list power wise)
Tier 3: Bards, Rogues, ToB classes, PsiWarrior (classes that fill a party role or that can at least pull their own weight)
Tier 4: Classes that can be useful if you have a bigger than normal party or are played by a good optimizer.
Tier 5: Classes that are less than useful
Tier 6: Monks, CW Samurai

So, Tier 1 is the stuff that most people consider to be broken, right? Not normal, average, unoptimized characters, but Batmen and CoDzillas.

My point is that, personally, the only reason I read through the character optimization threads is so I can learn what's broken and how it gets broken, so I can cut off horrendously broken things at the knees.

I also find it interesting that Barbarian and Ranger aren't in your tier 3, but that's a discussion for another day.

Personally, if I were "balancing" the monk against PC-style characters, I'd probably balance it against the Rogue, Ranger or Bard, as each are varying levels of skill/combat/magical or mystical abilities.

Emperor Tippy
2007-10-02, 11:08 AM
So, Tier 1 is the stuff that most people consider to be broken, right? Not normal, average, unoptimized characters, but Batmen and CoDzillas.
Tier 1 was stuff so horrendously overpowered that you have to actively nerf yourself to be at the baseline power level.


I also find it interesting that Barbarian and Ranger aren't in your tier 3, but that's a discussion for another day.
I didn't place all of the classes. Barbarian and Ranger depend on who's playing them and the build. They are 3 or 4.


Personally, if I were "balancing" the monk against PC-style characters, I'd probably balance it against the Rogue, Ranger or Bard, as each are varying levels of skill/combat/magical or mystical abilities.
I would balance it agaisnt a Swordsage. :smallbiggrin:

psychoticbarber
2007-10-02, 11:23 AM
Tier 1 was stuff so horrendously overpowered that you have to actively nerf yourself to be at the baseline power level.

Baseline is at 3, then? Just making sure I know where your upper tiers go, because not-quite-so-optimized Wizards might go at 2, if 3 is the baseline. Still higher, but not quite as much.



I didn't place all of the classes. Barbarian and Ranger depend on who's playing them and the build. They are 3 or 4.

Works for me. I'd put'em solidly at the bottom of three, as you have it defined.



I would balance it agaisnt a Swordsage. :smallbiggrin:

Also works for me. As long as we're talking about the same basic power level, we're good. Also ideal would be for un-optimized characters to be at a similar power level to other un-optimized characters, as well as having classes have about the same opportunity for optimization, so you don't get an optimized Wizard in a party with an unoptimized monk.

Draz74
2007-10-02, 11:52 AM
A link back to this old thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52991&highlight=tiers) may be pertinent.

My version would have Monk on the same tier as Fighter, Swashbuckler, and Soulknife. Which means they're better than the Healer or Samurai, but worse than even things like the Truenamer or Warlock or Hexblade or Dragon Shaman.

Roland St. Jude
2007-10-02, 07:58 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please treat others with respect in your posts to this board. Any attacking, insulting, or belittling is against the Rules of Posting. Likewise, calling others lies, infants, or otherwise flamebaiting is also prohibited. Please be nice.

Dairun Cates
2007-10-02, 08:15 PM
What clever and legal uses of a monk's abilities make the monk as useful as an equivalently built, middle-of-the-road class, perhaps a barbarian, rogue, or bard? Unless the dungeon master is going out of his way to design tasks and adventures that favor the monk, I'm not aware of any such uses.

Like having trapped doors in a good third of corridors isn't pandering to making the rogue's trap finding specifically useful? There's realistic numbers of traps, and then there's the stupid high numbers some modules put in.

Mounted combat is useless in most dungeon crawls. Is mounted combat a horrible combat tree that should be taken out for its uselessness?

GM's almost always pander to their players by designing bits of adventures that make their players useful. In the case of monks, a lot of GM's just seem to feel obliged to ignore most of the monk's class abilities as gimmicky though.

It's all a matter of perspective and setting.

Edit: This is what's kinda silly about balancing. If you play a setting that makes something weak, then it will continue to be weak. Almost nothing, save wizards, are universally useful in absolutely every setting.

Mr. Moogle
2007-10-02, 08:33 PM
Monks are not as much of a "Non-combat" class as they are a "Specialized combat" class. Take a sorcerer v.s. monk showdown. You may think "LoL Teh S0RC c4sts Teh 0wnzor Spe11z" but i would have to counter with 2 things: 1. A Dictionary, 2. "Monk makes save".

You see, it can be maddeningly hard for a spellcaster to kill a monk because of there perfect saves and the fact that touch spells also are hard because of the fact that all of there AC isnt armor so they still have to roll high.

psychoticbarber
2007-10-02, 09:13 PM
Monks are not as much of a "Non-combat" class as they are a "Specialized combat" class. Take a sorcerer v.s. monk showdown. You may think "LoL Teh S0RC c4sts Teh 0wnzor Spe11z" but i would have to counter with 2 things: 1. A Dictionary, 2. "Monk makes save".

You see, it can be maddeningly hard for a spellcaster to kill a monk because of there perfect saves and the fact that touch spells also are hard because of the fact that all of there AC isnt armor so they still have to roll high.

How many times per campaign does this happen to you, though? Also, if more than 20, the Monk will probably fail at least one of those saves.

ForzaFiori
2007-10-02, 09:45 PM
How many times per campaign does this happen to you, though? Also, if more than 20, the Monk will probably fail at least one of those saves.

with their speed though, they can save once, run up to the sorc, and then get an AoO every time they cast or try to run. You still make most of your saves, and with a caster, you have a pretty good chance of hitting w/ your AoO. Or you could skip all the letting them casts bits and just run up and grapple. U'd have to make 1, maybe 2 saves. perfectly reasonable for a monk.

Kaelik
2007-10-02, 09:57 PM
with their speed though, they can save once, run up to the sorc, and then get an AoO every time they cast or try to run. You still make most of your saves, and with a caster, you have a pretty good chance of hitting w/ your AoO. Or you could skip all the letting them casts bits and just run up and grapple. U'd have to make 1, maybe 2 saves. perfectly reasonable for a monk.

Or the Sorc could cast one of several spells that don't allow saving throws, or he could be flying, or he just five foot step, or he could cast defensively or he could escape your grapple with a dimension door and start it all over again, but lets face it, he's flying so it doesn't matter to begin with.

Damionte
2007-10-02, 10:07 PM
If I were going to give a baseline class to compare monks to and call them weak it would have to be... all of them. The monk is the hands down weakest class in the game. You can compare it to any other class and the monk fails.

The monks lack of a true party roll is what makes it the weakest class. There's not much a monk can do that another class can't do better while still holding down a good secondary roll which they probably also do better than a monk.

LordLocke
2007-10-02, 10:26 PM
What's to say about the Monk? The monk is a combat specialist with cleric BAB and HP. It's two best features (Speed Bonus and Flurry of Blows) can't even be used together. It requires at least three stats (Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom) to be 'ok' as a melee combatant, and probably really needs a fourth (Constitution) to actually survive doing that. Despite getting really good 'unequipped' AC and Damage, the fact is that any other class that can USE those things freely will be outdefending/outdamaging them.

It doesn't get what's generally considered melee combat staples (a way to get additional damage dice when hitting or a weapon with reach- preferably both.) It doesn't get anything that lets it do anything barring combat-specific scenarios- only 4 SP/level, very limited non-combat application of Class Abilities. It is entirely reliant on pocket Wizards or exotic magic equipment to deal with something that can merely FLY, forget enemies with more exotic ways to stay out of reach of the Monk's fists of fury.

The monk excels at two things- battlefield runner (prime guy to give the Haversack filled with CSW potions) and anti-mage strike squad (rush the mage and grapple/stunning blow/Quivering Palm at levels you should have abandoned monk long ago) And even there, you'll probably find another class that does it as well/better- in addition to other things.

horseboy
2007-10-02, 11:15 PM
Psst....I think you guys might be focusing a little too much on combat....but maybe you enjoy the whole computer game scenario.:smallannoyed:
Well, that is all D&D is good for.

:smallwink:

Randalor
2007-10-02, 11:19 PM
The funny thing about every "Monk sucks" discussion I've read, is that all the anti-monk people say "Whatever the monk can do, X can do better" when they compare an average monk to a character specifically designed to do the activity, almost to the point of shunning everything else X can do originally, while ignoring the monk's "hidden" advantages *and by hidden, I mean they never mention it, and if they do, they brush it off by saying, of course "Well, X can do it better"*

Dr. Weasel
2007-10-02, 11:25 PM
If I were going to give a baseline class to compare monks to and call them weak it would have to be... all of them. The monk is the hands down weakest class in the game. You can compare it to any other class and the monk fails.
Ah! I see you've fallen into the trap of forgetting the Samurai. That class deserves the crap it gets.


The Monk though...

The Monk seems designed as a Mage-Killer, hard to hit with Rays, built to make his saving throws, high Mobility, 1/day DD, Spell Resistance and Save-or-Stuns against the standard Wizard's weak save. His other abilities are generally fluff (Flurry is just there to give an illusion of melee competence. A Monk can not hope to stand up to an equally optimized Barbarian and win).

The Scout is not at all defensive. He can survive a Fireball, but that's about it. He has high mobility and tolerable damage output. He does have massive out-of-combat use and a defined party role.

So the question comes to: Are the Monk's anti-caster abilities enough? The truth is they probably are. A Monk does shine in situations where:
A. There is a single Spellcaster.
B. The Spellcaster has no defences (Flight, Invisibility)
C. The Spellcaster has not attempted to compensate for his weaknesses (namely, Fortitude Saves).
D. The Spellcaster has only one line of defense.

A. C. and D. aren't unreasonable to see every once in a while.
B. is not.
If B. is present, the Monk rules. He gets to just Tumble/Jump his way past whatever defences are around and punch the Spellcaster in the face with a Stunning Fist before letting out a few rounds of Flurry to KO the caster. If B. is present, though, anybody can get that Wizard single-handed, just with a bit more work and a bit more damage.

In any situation where B. is not present, the Monk does not have any in-class means of finding/bashing the spellcaster. He doesn't even have ranged weapon proficiencies, for pity's sake. The Scout does have these abilities with his Skirmish/Blindsight/Usually-Party-Eyes-and-Ears role (that last one can't be expected).

If there is no bad-Fortitude spellcaster in a fight, the Monk loses his offensive abilities. He is not strong enough to fight most Giant Monsters as effectively as a Fighter (Stunning Fist will almost never work and Grappling is usually hopeless once monsters become bigger than the Monk is. The Monk can enlarge themselves to try to keep the Grappling strategy up at higher levels, but then there's spell resistance. They need potions with caster level equal to their own Monk level to even gain a 50% chance to overcome their own SR. A Monk can't lower his SR before drinking a potion because both lowering it and drinking require standard actions and the resistance pops up at the beginning of his next turn.

Diamond Soul means a Monk can't expect direct magical backup past level 13. This is a major disadvantage against any class, especially one that is primarily a fighter-type...


I'm calling it quits on this rambling.

End Result:
Monks are good at fighting one specific foe (the single-class undefended spellcaster) at all levels, they are weak against any other foe at all levels and level 13 spells death for your character.

Answer to the OP: They're comprable to a Scout. I'm just too tired to type coherently.



The funny thing about every "Monk sucks" discussion I've read, is that all the anti-monk people say "Whatever the monk can do, X can do better" when they compare an average monk to a character specifically designed to do the activity, almost to the point of shunning everything else X can do originally, while ignoring the monk's "hidden" advantages *and by hidden, I mean they never mention it, and if they do, they brush it off by saying, of course "Well, X can do it better"*

That's because the monk is just an arbitrary compilation of abilities vaguely focused on shutting down spellcasters. They also are supposed to be just generally superhuman. For any build to equal them in all respects would mean the build is weakening itself in the same manner that the Monk is weak: It has no focus beside punching unprepared single-class wizards in the face.

horseboy
2007-10-02, 11:25 PM
The funny thing about every "Monk sucks" discussion I've read, is that all the anti-monk people say "Whatever the monk can do, X can do better" when they compare an average monk to a character specifically designed to do the activity, almost to the point of shunning everything else X can do originally, while ignoring the monk's "hidden" advantages *and by hidden, I mean they never mention it, and if they do, they brush it off by saying, of course "Well, X can do it better"*
That's because, generally, what they're saying is that if you want a Monk THEMED character, you're actually better off not using the monk class, but X.

Skyserpent
2007-10-02, 11:29 PM
For the record: Monks make fantastic assassins: Being able to kill someone unarmed is useful as no need to use hidden weapons, high speed lets them make good distance and out-pace armored guards, dimension door is a good escape method, and slow fall can get you out of sticky situations on them parapets...

but that's a very specific role that few D&D parties are relegated to, nor is it much of a party mission anyway.

Yahzi
2007-10-03, 01:30 AM
Ode to the Monk:
This is why I read these forums.

:smallsmile:

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-03, 01:38 AM
Tier 4: Classes that can be useful if you have a bigger than normal party or are played by a good optimizer.
Tier 5: Classes that are less than useful. Monk belongs here
Tier 6: CW Samurai
Tier 7: Truenamer
stuff in bold is mine

Just my take on that table. Monk get a bunch of abilities that are only situationally useful. CW samurai gets a bunch of the same ability that is only useful in one kind of situation (dealing with spoos). Truenamer gets a bunch of abilities that are less likely to work the higher level you are.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-10-03, 02:07 AM
It goes something like this:

First tier: Cleric, druid, wizard, sorcerer, archivist, beguiler, psion
Second tier: Swordsage, warblade, crusader, warmage, duskblade
Third tier: Barbarian, rogue, ranger, bard, warlock, hexblade, dragon shaman, psywar
Fourth tier: Paladin, fighter, swashbuckler, marshall
Fifth tier: Monk, healer, samurai, NPC classes

Third tier is probably best for balance comparisons.

Those tiers seem really weird. Dragon Shaman and Hexblade on par with Rogue or Psychic Warrior? For that matter, why is *Duskblade* on a whole new tier from the Psychic Warrior? And hey, don't forget that the CharOp "most powerful classes ever" polls came up with the Bard running high up in the rankings right after the big guns. You know, Wizard, Druid, Cleric, and Artificer (and that one crazy spell erudite).

...Where are you getting these judgments from? :smallconfused:


For the record: Monks make fantastic assassins: Being able to kill someone unarmed is useful as no need to use hidden weapons, high speed lets them make good distance and out-pace armored guards, dimension door is a good escape method, and slow fall can get you out of sticky situations on them parapets...

but that's a very specific role that few D&D parties are relegated to, nor is it much of a party mission anyway.

Incidentally, a Sorceror or Psion would do all that way better. With no equipment, just like you said.

Also, you're talking about having dimension door, so we're talking about an actual *12th level monk* to assassinate... low level guys with NPC classes. When you're 12th level, you're actually supposed to be bloody amazing, able to wrestle a giant hydra to death because he looked at you funny, or call the executioner a panzy when he tries and fails to guillotine your head off. Or kill an elephant with a rusty spoon. Other classes do it. Why don't you?

Kaelik
2007-10-03, 02:54 AM
Those tiers seem really weird. Dragon Shaman and Hexblade on par with Rogue or Psychic Warrior? For that matter, why is *Duskblade* on a whole new tier from the Psychic Warrior? And hey, don't forget that the CharOp "most powerful classes ever" polls came up with the Bard running high up in the rankings right after the big guns. You know, Wizard, Druid, Cleric, and Artificer (and that one crazy spell erudite).

...Where are you getting these judgments from? :smallconfused:

Well I don't see Dragon Shaman or Hexblade up there with Psychic Warrior and Rogue, but the reason Duskblade is a tier above is because it has full BAB, A spell list that is more synergistic with it's role, and it has a couple built in ways to use it's spells in combat (IE "I cast X and attack." instead of "I cast a bunch of buffs and then fight, just like a Cleric only weaker.")

Zincorium
2007-10-03, 07:45 AM
Hm. If I was doing 4th edition, and I'm not, here's a thought.

Are monks mage-killers? It would make sense, given some of their abilities. But, of course, wizards can warp the reality that the monk operates within. Agents vs. Neo sort of thing.

Decide on the rock-paper-scissors beforehand: Monk > Wizard > Fighter > Monk. Know who beats whom. And then don't screw it up. It doesn't matter what magic can do, you don't have to make a spell that let's the wizard do that.

nhbdy
2007-10-03, 08:07 AM
I for one see nothing wrong with the monk, it has a great AC if you optimize it, the mobility is incredibly useful (use tumble and no AoOs) and on top of that at later levels, they get to effectively dual weild with no penaltys, what makes it even better is the fact that their fists do insane damage (at later lvls they do better than a greatsword, so you are effectivly dual weilding a weapon that is more powerful than a greatsword). oh, and don't forget, that a monk cant be disarmed and at certain lvls can disarm enemys

Fighter: now i will kill you with my +5 vorpal flaming greatsword
*monk disarms fighter*
Fighter: oh ****

truemane
2007-10-03, 08:14 AM
I for one see nothing wrong with the monk, it has a great AC if you optimize it, the mobility is incredibly useful (use tumble and no AoOs) and on top of that at later levels, they get to effectively dual weild with no penaltys, what makes it even better is the fact that their fists do insane damage (at later lvls they do better than a greatsword, so you are effectivly dual weilding a weapon that is more powerful than a greatsword). oh, and don't forget, that a monk cant be disarmed and at certain lvls can disarm enemys

Fighter: now i will kill you with my +5 vorpal flaming greatsword
*monk disarms fighter*
Fighter: oh ****

Sure, but the AC, even when optimized, is still less than an armoured fighter wearing heavy armour with some magic. Moving fast is nice, but you can't use your Flurry and Move Fast at the same time.

Their fists do good damage, but still less than a magic sword with Power Attack or any number of other damage-optimizing builds.

And they can disarm, but always suffer a -4 for using their fists. And if the fighter were using his sword 2 handed, it would be -8. No good.

The issues are that the rules seem to make it so that the Monk cannot do the things they seem to be supposed to be able to do.

nhbdy
2007-10-03, 08:17 AM
Sure, but the AC, even when optimized, is still less than an armoured fighter wearing heavy armour with some magic. Moving fast is nice, but you can't use your Flurry and Move Fast at the same time.

Their fists do good damage, but still less than a magic sword with Power Attack or any number of other damage-optimizing builds.

And they can disarm, but always suffer a -4 for using their fists. And if the fighter were using his sword 2 handed, it would be -8. No good.

The issues are that the rules seem to make it so that the Monk cannot do the things they seem to be supposed to be able to do.
Hmm... i didn't think about it like that, maybe a houserule would fix that? like not giving them a penalty on disarm? and how can a magic sword do more damage if the monk decided to optimize damage by taking similar feats to the other damage optimizer?

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-03, 08:42 AM
Actually, as was presented to me:
Monk starts at 18 wis, and adds it at every opportunity. Without tomes, they eventually hit +6 bonus, and another +3 from an enhancement item, which means their wisdom bonus alone outmatches the Full Plate they aren't wearing. They can also reasonably get more dex to AC than the full plate would allow, and can get bracers of armor that match or exceed the power of the enhancement bonus. And then there's the static AC bonus, that goes as high as 4...your AC can be pretty untouchable. And with mage armor provided by a wizardly friend, you keep up with the plate-wearer through the earlier levels.

Of course, being able to do anything useful when you've put an 18 in wisdom may be tricky unless you use exalted cheese (though you don't have to buy into dexterity, note).

Zincorium
2007-10-03, 08:47 AM
Hmm... i didn't think about it like that, maybe a houserule would fix that? like not giving them a penalty on disarm? and how can a magic sword do more damage if the monk decided to optimize damage by taking similar feats to the other damage optimizer?

The feats simply don't apply equally, monks get a 1 for 1 return with power attack (the big one) while using their fists; the only way to get the 2 for 1 that the fighter is getting with his standard issue greatsword or spiked chain is to pull out a quarterstaff and use it as a two handed weapon.

Which still ends up doing less, as it cuts out the increased unarmed monk damage and does less base damage, leaving out the lower BAB and strength that monks generally have.

Also, the dice look big, sure, but they average out to a lot lower numbers than the max. Even 4d8, which is a high level monk with improved natural attack, averages out to 18 damage per successful hit plus strength, whereas a greatsword averages out to 7. Being focused on damage, the fighter and barbarian could easily make that 11 points up and go over.

horseboy
2007-10-03, 09:26 AM
Actually, as was presented to me:
Monk starts at 18 wis, and adds it at every opportunity. Without tomes, they eventually hit +6 bonus, and another +3 from an enhancement item, which means their wisdom bonus alone outmatches the Full Plate they aren't wearing. They can also reasonably get more dex to AC than the full plate would allow, and can get bracers of armor that match or exceed the power of the enhancement bonus. And then there's the static AC bonus, that goes as high as 4...your AC can be pretty untouchable. And with mage armor provided by a wizardly friend, you keep up with the plate-wearer through the earlier levels.

Of course, being able to do anything useful when you've put an 18 in wisdom may be tricky unless you use exalted cheese (though you don't have to buy into dexterity, note).
A plus +6 bonus would require level 24, wouldn't it or am I just missing something? So at level 24, with a 27 wisdom that gives you a +8 mod. That's the equal of Full Plate.

Making said full plate out of mithral will let you have a +3 stat mod, the monk isn't likely to be getting anything higher, without excessive luck or loaded dice. :smalltongue:

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-03, 09:33 AM
An 18 gives you a +4. 5 stat-bumps takes that to 23 and a +6.

There exist +8 bracers. Just saying...

Don't forget about the level based part of the AC bonus, which hits +4 at level 20.

The monk can also buy goves of dex, even if he couldn't afford a decent base dex score. That's not a point in favor of the fighter at least, though it may well not win the monk anything either.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-03, 09:38 AM
Mounted combat is useless in most dungeon crawls. Is mounted combat a horrible combat tree that should be taken out for its uselessness?
It's not useless if you're a small character. But yeah, it's one of the less effective feat chains. Unless you're a death knight :smallbiggrin:


with their speed though, they can save once, run up to the sorc, and then get an AoO every time they cast or try to run.
Except that (1) the sorc could have started with a spell that prevents running even on a succesful save (e.g. any fog, web, or tentacle spell), (2) the sorc could be invis and/or flying, and (3) there's a bunch of low-level instantaneous spells in the PHB2, such as Dimension Hop, a 2nd-level short-range dimdoor that is a swift action.


The funny thing about every "Monk sucks" discussion I've read, is that all the anti-monk people say "Whatever the monk can do, X can do better" when they compare an average monk to a character specifically designed to do the activity,
Actually this is the other way around; the pro-monk people tend to assume the monk has high stats in any score he needs them for (40-point build?) and is specifically build to be a grappler/tripper/whatever, and it is being compared to an all-rounder barbarian, or rogue, or even caster, and the monk tends to lose even then. A barb doesn't need to be "specifically designed" anything to hit hard with power attack, nor a rogue to hit with sneak attack.


For the record: Monks make fantastic assassins: Being able to kill someone unarmed is useful as no need to use hidden weapons,
True, but this assumes the target and guards to be low-level and/or NPC classes.


their fists do insane damage (at later lvls they do better than a greatsword, so you are effectivly dual weilding a weapon that is more powerful than a greatsword).
Except that they don't, because the greatsword-wielding fighter or barb adds 1.5 times his (high!) strength bonus, plus twice the amount he power attacks by. Most damage is not in the dice, but in the modifiers.



Two words: locked gauntlet.

[QUOTE=Ulzgoroth;3285293]their wisdom bonus alone outmatches the Full Plate they aren't wearing.
Except that full plate is affordable from level two, and this high wisdom bonus you mention requires at least level 10 or so. At which point the fighter may well have magical plate armor.

Captain van der Decken
2007-10-03, 09:41 AM
I'd be surprised if many weapon using monsters or enemies had locked gauntlets.

horseboy
2007-10-03, 09:47 AM
There exist +8 bracers. Just saying...True, but for that price I can have a +3 mithral full plate and a +5 animated mithral tower shield and still have plenty of beer money left over. :smalltongue:


The monk can also buy goves of dex, even if he couldn't afford a decent base dex score. That's not a point in favor of the fighter at least, though it may well not win the monk anything either.
Why is it not a point in favor of the fighter? My AoO trip monkey fighter has gloves of dex +2. It's how he got his dex to 16.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-03, 09:58 AM
I'd be surprised if many weapon using monsters or enemies had locked gauntlets.

Well, most monsters have natural weapons, so you can't disarm them period.

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-03, 02:00 PM
True, but for that price I can have a +3 mithral full plate and a +5 animated mithral tower shield and still have plenty of beer money left over. :smalltongue:
Yes, but the bracers are only needed to make up for the enhancement bonus on the heavy armor. The ability to buy +6 to +8 bracers when armor is capped at +5 is gravy. You're replacing the AC from the plate itself with your AC bonus class feature.

And, er, your tower shield doesn't quite work. They're not made of metal in the first place. You can use darkwood, but you're still stuck with the +2 dex cap. And the -2 to attack rolls, even though you aren't actually touching it.

Why is it not a point in favor of the fighter? My AoO trip monkey fighter has gloves of dex +2. It's how he got his dex to 16.
...Because it is equally available to both? Gloves +2, +4, or even +6 are certainly worthwhile for at least some fighters. But they certainly give the monk at least as much. Don't they?

Except that full plate is affordable from level two, and this high wisdom bonus you mention requires at least level 10 or so. At which point the fighter may well have magical plate armor.
Level 2 WBL is 900 GP. You can theoretically get a full plate before level 3, but it's more than half your total wealth even at level 3 WBL.

A monk on his own can't match the AC of the tank-type until the level piles up a bit to support magic enhancements and class bonuses. But a monk who can get Mage Armor cast on him can match the performance of full plate from level 1, and should be able to keep up. At 4th level, if the tank gets +1 full plate they'll pull ahead a point. At 5th it tilts back to the monk with the AC bonus increase and a +2 wisdom item against not quite affording +2 plate. +3 plate won't be in the budget until 8th level, when the monk pumps wisdom again and still maintains parity.

Once you can afford an animated shield, that does seem to completely throw things off. Completely...wow. Animated heavy shield for the win.

horseboy
2007-10-03, 02:10 PM
And, er, your tower shield doesn't quite work. They're not made of metal in the first place. You can use darkwood, but you're still stuck with the +2 dex cap. And the -2 to attack rolls, even though you aren't actually touching it.
Heroforge has one listed. Though it doesn't give reference from where. Also, since it came up in two threads I ran the full math, and it's just short of 600gp over that for a +2.


...Because it is equally available to both? Gloves +2, +4, or even +6 are certainly worthwhile for at least some fighters. But they certainly give the monk at least as much. Don't they?Yes, but it was written as if the fighter wouldn't have it available.


Once you can afford an animated shield, that does seem to completely throw things off. Completely...wow. Animated heavy shield for the win.

Yeah, animate shield is bad.

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-03, 02:20 PM
Heroforge has one listed. Though it doesn't give reference from where. Also, since it came up in two threads I ran the full math, and it's just short of 600gp over that for a +2.
The PHB is very clear about the tower shield being wooden...

Er...I have no idea what your last sentence refers to.

Yes, but it was written as if the fighter wouldn't have it available.
I had no intention of suggesting that. If I had intended that, I would have specified that as a clear advantage for the monk rather than as something that "might not win the monk anything.

Shrug.

Though if you have positive dexterity on the fighter in the first place, they will be limited in how much AC they can get off enhancement bonus to dexterity.

Yeah, animate shield is bad.
Agreed. Just made my ban-list.

horseboy
2007-10-03, 02:45 PM
The PHB is very clear about the tower shield being wooden... Yes, that means apparently buried in some spat book somewhere there's apparently one listed someway. I have no idea where, however, so will concede the point as I'm not that worried about it.


Er...I have no idea what your last sentence refers to.

Adding that up, but putting a +2 on the armour instead would cost 530 gold more than Bracers of defense 8.


I had no intention of suggesting that. If I had intended that, I would have specified that as a clear advantage for the monk rather than as something that "might not win the monk anything.

Shrug.

Though if you have positive dexterity on the fighter in the first place, they will be limited in how much AC they can get off enhancement bonus to dexterity.

It's almost mandatory with the AoO generator style fighter. Mithral helps with that.


Agreed. Just made my ban-list.
Cause, you know, every shock trooper should have one. :smallamused:

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-03, 02:56 PM
Of course, being able to do anything useful when you've put an 18 in wisdom may be tricky unless you use exalted cheese (though you don't have to buy into dexterity, note).

Intuitive Attack is not 'exalted cheese'. It just has the misfortune of being in the BoED. Even in the hands of a Druid, the worst offender in terms of being SAD, it is only an 'ok' feat, as wildshape can easily bring your strength up to your wisdom.

Judge feats on there own merit, not on what book they are in.

Unless you are saying Intuitive Attack is broken because it can make monks viable?

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-03, 03:31 PM
The funny thing about every "Monk sucks" discussion I've read, is that all the anti-monk people say "Whatever the monk can do, X can do better" when they compare an average monk to a character specifically designed to do the activity, almost to the point of shunning everything else X can do originally, while ignoring the monk's "hidden" advantages *and by hidden, I mean they never mention it, and if they do, they brush it off by saying, of course "Well, X can do it better"*

That's really not very true. For instance, you could build a fighter, or maybe even a barbarian, that could easily grapple at or above the monk's level, and have plenty of feats left over to do huge amounts of damage. The monk can't really use his class features to reliably do large amounts of damage.


It's all relative to the specific game, which makes it difficult to get into to due to the many variables involved. A few obvious ones are super long jumps to avoid trapped hallways, or dimension dooring to avoid obstacles or set up flanking.

A rogue with a wand or scroll can do the same thing, only better.


Going ethereal is useful for all sorts of fun. You can tumble up to 40 ft. or springattack from like 90 ft. away...there are all sorts of things you can do with a monk. They have a decent assortment of class skills (which you don't have to max out to be useful).

You know, every game I've played in with a monk that uses spring attack just slows combat down. "Oh wow, you punched the monster for 2d6+5 damage? Terrific. Can you let the real melee kill it now that you've ticked it off?"

Seriously, do you know how much time, and subsequently room, is needed to hurt anything when you're moving 90'/round?


Because it's been done. x100. And every time it comes down to a combination of shouting matches and people jerking off TLN's wizard guide, and explaining why forcecage > you.

Soo... a baseline does what, exactly? Oh, that's right, it allows us to compare one class to an intermediary class, so we can indirectly compare classes. Huh. And here I thought directly comparing classes was the easier method.


What about the Samurai?

Eh?
Eh?

Yeah, that's right: Samurai got nuttin' on da Monk.

Swords & armor and THF and charge. Samurai would have more armor, do more damage. You'd have to skip it's free TWF thing, but then, if you wanted your monk to do anything, you'd have to go with charging, too. And in that case, animated shield+plate+d10 HD + full BAB for the win.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-03, 04:33 PM
Except that the monk isn't trying to compete by doing big damage. It is trying to compete by doing weird martial arts strikes (stunning fist/freezing the lifeblood, etc.), or by using its superior movement rate to avoid harm, or by using its superior attacks per round to disarm/trip. *

If a CW samurai goes THF, he is ignoring his class features entirely, and trying to compete with the fighter/barbarian at doing what they do best. If a CW samurai actually tries to focus on his class features, he cripples himself.
The only thing he he really has going for him is the ability to be a heavy armor 2WF, because he can ignore the dex requirement for his 2WF.


*I'm not saying that the monk is succeeding, but he is superior to the CW samurai.

Dr. Weasel
2007-10-03, 04:58 PM
Monks definitely beat the Samurai. Monks at least have... y'know... class features.

nhbdy
2007-10-03, 05:22 PM
got a counter for the fighter beats monk thing, two words: spring attack

lord_khaine
2007-10-03, 05:28 PM
That's really not very true. For instance, you could build a fighter, or maybe even a barbarian, that could easily grapple at or above the monk's level, and have plenty of feats left over to do huge amounts of damage. The monk can't really use his class features to reliably do large amounts of damage
actualy thats not true, you can build a monk to both do decent damage, trip, stun and grapple all at the same time, without 40 points point buy.


A rogue with a wand or scroll can do the same thing, only better
but the rogue expend resources on it, the monk doesnt.
still its a sligtly silly situation anyway that rarely comes up.


You know, every game I've played in with a monk that uses spring attack just slows combat down. "Oh wow, you punched the monster for 2d6+5 damage? Terrific. Can you let the real melee kill it now that you've ticked it off?"

Seriously, do you know how much time, and subsequently room, is needed to hurt anything when you're moving 90'/round?

one of the few things i agree about, spring attack is a waste of time.


Soo... a baseline does what, exactly? Oh, that's right, it allows us to compare one class to an intermediary class, so we can indirectly compare classes. Huh. And here I thought directly comparing classes was the easier method
yes and the funny thing is, if we use full casters as baseline we find out that everyone else is sadly underpowered.


Swords & armor and THF and charge. Samurai would have more armor, do more damage. You'd have to skip it's free TWF thing, but then, if you wanted your monk to do anything, you'd have to go with charging, too. And in that case, animated shield+plate+d10 HD + full BAB for the win
ehh you are not making a lot of sense here, this isnt a arena mach, but even so i would still pick monk any day of the week.

Kaelik
2007-10-03, 05:31 PM
got a counter for the fighter beats monk thing, two words: spring attack

Now the Fighter Beats him even better because the Monk decided to do something useless and counter productive???

All Monk Game (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3287823#post3287823)

Continue this discussion in a fun game, could use a DM and a Monk Hater willing to play around. (I don't think monks are so great, as I demonstrated above, but still, they might be able to take on their CR just fine, when CR makes sense [looking at you TDC])

tainsouvra
2007-10-03, 06:29 PM
got a counter for the fighter beats monk thing, two words: spring attack That lets you do a single melee attack, plus you will be (at most) 40' away from the Fighter during that round. With a 90' movement rate, if you maximize your distance from the Fighter at both the start and end of your movement, 40' at one and 45' at the other is the most you can manage. If you try to have more than that at either the start or the finish, you end up even closer at the other.

In short, with Spring Attack and a 90' movement rate... A fighter with a bow will severely outdamage you, even counting a free deflect each round. he can full-attack, you can't...never a good thing. He can just literally stand there and make a pincushion out of you, winning even without a single archery feat. Charge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#charge) will allow almost all fighters to reach you--they can get 40' even in heavy armor and with no movement bonuses--and their single attack is almost assuredly more damaging than a monk's. A lazy fighter can even simply ready an action to hit you when you approach. His single attack is usually more damaging than yours, remember, so he can win the encounter this way. Spring attack is not the ideal solution to this problem. It's nearly suicide.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-10-03, 06:33 PM
Yep. The best way to empower monks is to allow them to do special attacks, like a meteor strike that does the damage of your full attack, and multiplies it by 100% (sorta like leap attack), and even then, they'd still be weako.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-03, 08:09 PM
Except that the monk isn't trying to compete by doing big damage. It is trying to compete by doing weird martial arts strikes (stunning fist/freezing the lifeblood, etc.), or by using its superior movement rate to avoid harm, or by using its superior attacks per round to disarm/trip. *

If a CW samurai goes THF, he is ignoring his class features entirely, and trying to compete with the fighter/barbarian at doing what they do best. If a CW samurai actually tries to focus on his class features, he cripples himself.
The only thing he he really has going for him is the ability to be a heavy armor 2WF, because he can ignore the dex requirement for his 2WF.


*I'm not saying that the monk is succeeding, but he is superior to the CW samurai.

I'm just saying, the only way either class will be effective will be charging melee with a two-hander and a power attack, forsaking their class abilities. Since the samurai will have more armor, more BAB, more HP, and do more damage, he'll beat the monk.

Of course, then it's closer to two warriors fighting. Ironically, if a samurai used his class abilities, a THF warrior of equal level has a slightly better chance of winning than the samurai.

Dr. Weasel
2007-10-03, 08:46 PM
The Monk isn't designed to kill other melee fighters, it's designed to fight spellcasters.

Hypothetically, it should be great at that (1/level/day Stun attack vs. a Fortitude Save? Evasion? Great Saves? Really high Touch AC? Spell Resistance? Pretty good Grappling? Hell, he can even teleport if the caster throws a Force Wall at him).

The problem is that he really isn't that good at fighting spellcasters. Too many spells let them escape the Monk's grasp by not allowing Saving throws or by not directly affecting their targets.

Overland Flight means every arcane caster past 10th level will be in the air all day and Invisibility/Greater Invisibility mean the Monk won't be able to fing the spellcaster.


I'm just saying, the only way either class will be effective will be charging melee with a two-hander and a power attack, forsaking their class abilities. Since the samurai will have more armor, more BAB, more HP, and do more damage, he'll beat the monk.

Of course, then it's closer to two warriors fighting. Ironically, if a samurai used his class abilities, a THF warrior of equal level has a slightly better chance of winning than the samurai.
Don't try to justify that class. It deserves it's reputation. Monks at least have better armor classes, saving throws, mobility and more easily obtained 'special attacks' than pretty much any other class.
The Samurai has nothing. It's two feats away from a Warrior.

Kaelik
2007-10-03, 09:24 PM
Don't try to justify that class. It deserves it's reputation. Monks at least have better armor classes, saving throws, mobility and more easily obtained 'special attacks' than pretty much any other class.
The Samurai has nothing. It's two feats away from a Warrior.

Not true, at later levels it gets a third, and then a fourth, and by level 20 it is six feats up on a Warrior.

1)EWP (Bastard Sword)
2)TWF
3)ITWF
4)GTWF
5)Kai Shout
6)Greater Kai Shout

horseboy
2007-10-03, 09:36 PM
That lets you do a single melee attack, plus you will be (at most) 40' away from the Fighter during that round. With a 90' movement rate, if you maximize your distance from the Fighter at both the start and end of your movement, 40' at one and 45' at the other is the most you can manage. If you try to have more than that at either the start or the finish, you end up even closer at the other.

In short, with Spring Attack and a 90' movement rate... A fighter with a bow will severely outdamage you, even counting a free deflect each round. he can full-attack, you can't...never a good thing. He can just literally stand there and make a pincushion out of you, winning even without a single archery feat. Charge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#charge) will allow almost all fighters to reach you--they can get 40' even in heavy armor and with no movement bonuses--and their single attack is almost assuredly more damaging than a monk's. A lazy fighter can even simply ready an action to hit you when you approach. His single attack is usually more damaging than yours, remember, so he can win the encounter this way. Spring attack is not the ideal solution to this problem. It's nearly suicide.
And Emperor protect you if he's got hold the line.

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-04, 02:01 AM
So, here's the question I want to ask, before we even talk about Monks: to what Class are we comparing Monks? We can all agree that they are underpowered compared to Primary Spellcasters. But then, almost everything is underpowered compared to Primary spellcasters.

Comparing to Fighters is no good. Fighters suck. Ditto Bards. Then there's the Paladin/Ranger underpowered threads...

Fighters only suck because you have to build them "just so" for them to be worth anything, and then all they can do is dish out a lot of damage and then sit around doing nothing when a lot of damage doesn't need to be dished out. And because they're basically helpless against magic.

Bards only suck if you play them incorrectly. It seems like people are always looking for "a good melee bard build" -- and to me, that's the problem right there. Look, if you want a good melee bard build, you probably don't want a bard at all. You want a rogue or a fighter, or perhaps a warchanter or a dervish.

Bards are good at being bards. They're not so good at being fighters, given they're basically rogues without a sneak attack when thrown kicking and screaming into melee combat.

Monks, now ... even if you do everything just right, monks still generate an inverse pressure gradient. There are people on these forums who can seemingly overpower anything, and I haven't yet seen anyone present a convincing case for an overpowered monk build (that couldn't have been done better with another class).

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-04, 02:44 AM
Monks don't really get to crazy overpowered. I fail to see how that is a failing of the class. I think it would be better if CoDzilla, Batman, and Mr. Leap Attack barbarian didn't get there either.

But really that is what monk comes down to. You can make a monk to be the equal of your party fighter, but you have to be optimizing to a greater degree than the party fighter's player is to do it. If you are playing the monk, odds are you aren't the "optimizer" of the group, and thus odds are you will fall behind, because you have to optimize a monk in order to be effective.

And if your entire group is full of powergamers, you may as well not even try to play a monk, because its potential isn't as high as other classes, in terms of being optimized. You will fall behind playing a monk in a high-power game.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-04, 04:53 AM
actualy thats not true, you can build a monk to both do decent damage, trip, stun and grapple all at the same time, without 40 points point buy.
Show us, then. The build you've posted in the "strongest build" thread has only a single monk level, so that hardly counts as a monk build.



yes and the funny thing is, if we use full casters as baseline we find out that everyone else is sadly underpowered.
But we're not using full casters as a baseline. We're using things like rangers as a baseline, and finding out that full casters are as far above that baseline as the monk is below it.


ehh you are not making a lot of sense here, this isnt a arena mach, but even so i would still pick monk any day of the week.
Yeah, we get the point that you like monks. But whether the class is fun to play (a matter of opinion) has nothing to do with whether it's mechanically strong (a matter of fact that it's not).

OneWinged4ngel
2007-10-04, 09:59 AM
Well I don't see Dragon Shaman or Hexblade up there with Psychic Warrior and Rogue, but the reason Duskblade is a tier above is because it has full BAB, A spell list that is more synergistic with it's role, and it has a couple built in ways to use it's spells in combat (IE "I cast X and attack." instead of "I cast a bunch of buffs and then fight, just like a Cleric only weaker.")

A Duskblade's role is to do damage (and that's really all he can do), and he has a few abilities to help him move up there and connect with that damage. A Psychic Warrior's role is to use buffs, and he has a few abilities to help him move up and connect with those buffs. And the psychic warrior can make up for his lack of full BAB with buffs. In fact, that's the reason he doesn't have full BAB. By contrast, the Duskblade doesn't have cool buffs that, say, let him full attack on a charge; he just has damage spells. The Psychic Warrior's list is quite helpful to his role.

Also, you're also overrating the importance of BAB. Full BAB does not make you good. At all. Really. It doesn't matter as much as you think it does.

(Actually, Mike Mearls was quoted on his ideas to fix the Hexblade to make it not suck horribly, saying something to the general effect of "When we made this, we thought BAB made WAY more of a difference than it actually does in class power. It doesn't actually matter that much at all.")



Bards only suck if you play them incorrectly. It seems like people are always looking for "a good melee bard build" -- and to me, that's the problem right there. Look, if you want a good melee bard build, you probably don't want a bard at all. You want a rogue or a fighter, or perhaps a warchanter or a dervish. For the record, I've seen some really crazy melee bard builds, including ones that would sing to give +12d6 energy damage to all their allies' attacks as a swift action, and TWF attack for 600 damage a shot with nigh-full BAB.

Thing is, there's "fights better than the fighters" bard builds. And casts better than the sorceror bard builds too. Because the bard gets pretty awesome with his PrCs and such (all of the awesome *core bard* abilities are actually in the first couple levels, though, so there's not a lot of reason to stay in it straight, though a straight bard definitely doesn't suck unless you're playing it badly, as was said).

Frosty
2007-10-04, 10:19 AM
If you are encouraged to PRC out of a base class as soon as you possibly can, does that say something about how bad the core class is?

According to the DMG, it's supposed to be a *tough* decision whether to take a PRC level or not.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-10-04, 10:30 AM
If you are encouraged to PRC out of a base class as soon as you possibly can, does that say something about how bad the core class is? If that logic were even remotely true, that would mean that the Cleric and Wizard were *weak* classes. Which is completely absurd. It just means that their PrCs are even more powerful. =P

The thing is, like the full spellcasters, the Bard can progress all his important abilities while multiclassing or PrCing (for example, Song of the White Raven lets him advance bardic music AND use it as a swift action and get up to 9th level maneuvers through multiclassing).


According to the DMG, it's supposed to be a *tough* decision whether to take a PRC level or not.

Too bad WotC's designers aren't good enough to make intent the same thing as what actually happens.

Kaelik
2007-10-04, 12:50 PM
A Duskblade's role is to do damage (and that's really all he can do), and he has a few abilities to help him move up there and connect with that damage. A Psychic Warrior's role is to use buffs, and he has a few abilities to help him move up and connect with those buffs. And the psychic warrior can make up for his lack of full BAB with buffs. In fact, that's the reason he doesn't have full BAB. By contrast, the Duskblade doesn't have cool buffs that, say, let him full attack on a charge; he just has damage spells. The Psychic Warrior's list is quite helpful to his role.

Also, you're also overrating the importance of BAB. Full BAB does not make you good. At all. Really. It doesn't matter as much as you think it does.

(Actually, Mike Mearls was quoted on his ideas to fix the Hexblade to make it not suck horribly, saying something to the general effect of "When we made this, we thought BAB made WAY more of a difference than it actually does in class power. It doesn't actually matter that much at all.")

Well that's nice, [Scrubbed] Duskblades have a spell list that complements their abilities and role better then the Psychic Warrior list? The BAB is just extra, though it does help with dealing damage.

You are right, the Duskblade just does damamge, and he does it really well. What does a buffed up Psychic Warrior do again? Oh right, damage.

Dr. Weasel
2007-10-04, 12:55 PM
Well that's nice, Maybe you missed the part where I said that Duskblades have a spell list that complements their abilities and role better then the Psychic Warrior list? The BAB is just extra, though it does help with dealing damage.

You are right, the Duskblade just does damamge, and he does it really well. What does a buffed up Psychic Warrior do again? Oh right, damage.

I see no statement that the Psychic Warrior should be up with the Wizard, just that the Duskblade shouldn't.

The two are very balanced against each other and should almost definitely be on the same tier.

BlueWizard
2007-10-04, 01:10 PM
Okay, I had a player PC EPIC monk, who took vow of poverty. Nearly unstoppable!

Dr. Weasel
2007-10-04, 01:30 PM
Okay, I had a player PC EPIC monk, who took vow of poverty. Nearly unstoppable!
Depending on your group's general level of optimizaion, I don't doubt it. This is however, a rather optimization-centric board. If there is a better option, people will mention it. In this case, there are many better options optimization-wise.

This does not mean a Monk is always goint to be the worst or is always going to be shown up, but if somebody feels inclined to beat the Monk at something with a different class it is generally quite doable.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-04, 01:34 PM
Vow of Poverty is also not great for a monk, generally speaking. I should know, I've been asked to play one in a game recently.

Ne0
2007-10-04, 01:38 PM
Fun fact about monk: It's fun to deliver a 360° spin kick in-character. :smallsmile:

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-04, 02:18 PM
If that logic were even remotely true, that would mean that the Cleric and Wizard were *weak* classes. Which is completely absurd. It just means that their PrCs are even more powerful. =P

But no one feels it absolutely necessary to PrC out of Wizard, Cleric, or Druid. How would you feel if your DM didn't let the fighter or barbarian or bard PrC out? Would you still want to play either, if the rest of the party were vanilla CoDzilla and Wizard?

It's really good logic, actually. You're just missing some implicit assumptions.


For the record, I've seen some really crazy melee bard builds, including ones that would sing to give +12d6 energy damage to all their allies' attacks as a swift action, and TWF attack for 600 damage a shot with nigh-full BAB.

Though buffing your allies is more of what makes a bard so lethal, rather than his own combat prowess.

Kaelik
2007-10-04, 05:39 PM
I see no statement that the Psychic Warrior should be up with the Wizard, just that the Duskblade shouldn't.

The two are very balanced against each other and should almost definitely be on the same tier.

I didn't say they should be up their with the Wizard, I was just pointing out that if you look at their tier list in question, the duskblade was comparable (though maybe on the low end) of the tier he was on (Not that the Wizard/CoDzilla was not on that tier) And that the Psychic Warrior was comparable (though maybe on the high end) of the tier he was on.

I do see the Duskblade as being very balanced against a Psychic Warrior relatively speaking for D&D. But I think that the Duskblade being just fine wiithout PrCs, having a more complementary spell list, being slightly better at his job the then Psychic Warrior, and being much better on the lower end of the optimization scale then the Psychic Warrior make him a much better class.

(And yes it matters how much optimization it takes to get to that level, that's what's so great about Cleric/Druid/Wizard, they are broken without trying.)

OneWinged4ngel
2007-10-04, 05:52 PM
But no one feels it absolutely necessary to PrC out of Wizard, Cleric, or Druid. How would you feel if your DM didn't let the fighter or barbarian or bard PrC out? Would you still want to play either, if the rest of the party were vanilla CoDzilla and Wizard?

It's really good logic, actually. You're just missing some implicit assumptions. Did I say it was absolutely necessary to PrC out of bard? Nope, I said he was solid even straightclassed, but that, like the Wizard, Druid, and Cleric, he loses next to nothing for gaining some of the available PrCs or multiclass options. I would feel totally fine if my bard couldn't PrC out. Indeed, he'd still be able to own, because Fascinate/Suggestion, diplomancy, and optimized inspire courage are *totally awesome*, the bard's spells aren't exactly bad, and he's got some nifty skills (including UMD, which expands a class's options a great deal in its own right)

I'm not missing any implicit assumptions. The only one who missed something in a response was you :smalltongue:

OneWinged4ngel
2007-10-04, 05:55 PM
Well that's nice, Maybe you missed the part where I said that Duskblades have a spell list that complements their abilities and role better then the Psychic Warrior list? :smallmad: No. In fact, that's EXACTLY the part I responded to first, saying that, contrary to what you said, the PsyWar's power list complements his role *perfectly.*

I mean, geez, the part where I responded to you saying that the Duskblade have a better complement of spells for their role *takes up most of the text you quoted.*

To reiterate: The Psywar's role is to buff himself, get to an enemy, and attack with those buffs. The duskblade's role is to channel damage spells, move up to an enemy, and attack with those channelled spells. If anything, the Duskblade has a list that complements his class features worse than the Psychic Warrior, because he doesn't have touch spells past low level. Thus, if that was your reasoning, the Duskblade should actually rank lower in that respect.

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-04, 06:37 PM
Did I say it was absolutely necessary to PrC out of bard? Nope, I said he was solid even straightclassed, but that, like the Wizard, Druid, and Cleric, he loses next to nothing for gaining some of the available PrCs or multiclass options.

Well, depending on your plans. That mass suggestion you get later is positively neato ("Watch me turn an encounter with multiple enemies into the acquisition of a crowd of multiple allies in just one round!"), and it's sure as hell better than any of the dorky stuff you can get from, say, virtuoso. On top of which, the DC to save goes up every other level of bard, making pure bard actually optimal for that specific kind of build.

If you want to be a melee bard, though, for sure you need to go elsewhere. And if you want to be a primary spellcaster bard, I guess that seeker of the song class can sort of do that.

Starbuck_II
2007-10-04, 07:26 PM
Not true, at later levels it gets a third, and then a fourth, and by level 20 it is six feats up on a Warrior.

1)EWP (Bastard Sword)
2)TWF
3)ITWF
4)GTWF
5)Kai Shout
6)Greater Kai Shout

The Samurai wishes he had Kai Shout: its better than his.

That was how I knew the Samursa was bad. They made feats in CW that were better his class features. That is just plain sad.