So why is the monk weak?

[Whiplord]

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

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

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

[Closet_Skeleton]

Damage is low. Has lack of variety to hurt creatures with damage reductions other than /Law or /Adamantine. Flurry is inacurate and unusable in conjuction with fast movement. Abilities are too situational and are of little help. Defence is considered a poor option for specialisation.

Mostly it's the dependancy on too many ability scores.

[Spiryt]

You know monk has quit impressive survive abilities and many fine abilities ( His SPEED, slow fall, purity of body ec).

But good look at his abilities shows that he have VERY serious problem with dealing damage.

[Arbitrarity]

It has no useful contribution to a party. It can keep itself alive, that's mostly it. It needs multiple high scores, and needs to make full attacks, while being an agile combatant, to deal so-so damage.

Ki-strike = +1 sure striking adamantine weapon. Except worse. And you can't use magic weapons. Monk weapons do less damage than your fists still.

Timeless body, tongue of sun and moon, and even perfect self are pretty worthless. Perfect self DR is bypassed by everything at that level, and the rest renders you immune to any "person" spell. Ok...

Abundant step is 1/day, and doens't allow getting and staying in some places (i.e. flying). Diamond soul can be bypassed by certain spells.

Quivering palm is 1/week. Yeah, ok....

Empty body is w/e. An cloak of etherealness does a much better job, and it's mostly good for fleeing or sneaking.

Wholeness of body is self only, and at most, 40 hp.

Improved evasion is nice, but doesn't help against smart casters.

Immunity to poison and disease can be gotten by the warforged, or by a few items. Or, you can talk to the cleric. Or, you realize disease means almost nothing anyways when you can talk to the cleric.

Mostly, the issue is MAD, and a bunch of abilities designed to make it appear to be covered in abilities.

Slow fall? Feather fall. See the ring if you want it all the time.

[The_Pyre]

The monk is very hard to kill. Unfortunately, that hardly translates into anything useful in a party when you can't deal decent damage and you can't take attacks meant for someone else.

He's got good mobility, though, but unfortunately low damage means it's not very effective, too. Maybe in D&D Minis it would be very good, but in conventional party play, it's a bit wanting.

[ClericofPhwarrr]

Low mobility later on (i.e. no flight without the wizard), Multiple Attribute Dependency (MAD), medium BAB so he won't be hitting anything (especially with flurry of blows) and an inability to get past Damage Reduction later on all come to mind.

The special abilities are many, but in the monk's case it's quantity over quality; most of them suck.

A monk can survive, and he can run away. And that's about it as the general rule.

[Spiryt]

Monk can be qiute good if your game isn't standart dungeon crawl, but consist some interesting challenges, where defense can useful too.
Even in that case, fights between powerful heroes/ villains/monsters is main part of D&D. And its hard to fight when you can't harm anybody since your damage is low, and you attack bonus is not good too,

[silentknight]

Bleh, say what you will, but a monk character was one of the toughest characters I've ever DM'd. It was difficult for any opponent to hit him, he consistently killed enemies before the fighter/barb could get to them, and he stood in the middle of spells cast by allies, taking no damage.

Sure, in a perfect world, with exactly the right thing at exactly the right time, certain classes may appear "weaker" or "stonger" than others, but in play it all evens out. Play for fun, not for win.

[Turcano]

Immunity to poison and disease can be gotten by the warforged, or by a few items. Or, you can talk to the cleric. Or, you realize disease means almost nothing anyways when you can talk to the cleric.

You can also, you know, play a druid, which has immunity to poison and remove disease, in addition to relatively useful class features.

[Indon]

Monks, with little to no optimization, generally don't do very well offensively. You need to tweak them with a mind of offensive capability to make them anything close to a melee powerhouse. They do have good potential to contribute to a party, though, with a bit of foresight and maybe some sourcebooks.

[Reptilius]

Damage is low. Has lack of variety to hurt creatures with damage reductions other than /Law or /Adamantine. Flurry is inacurate and unusable in conjuction with fast movement. Abilities are too situational and are of little help. Defence is considered a poor option for specialisation.

Mostly it's the dependancy on too many ability scores.

Point 1: Take Improved Natural attack for Unarmed Strike. It's perfectly legal.
Point 2: Monks aren't always warrior damage-dealer types. Against these foes, play the support, skill-user, or distraction role.
Point 3: I agree with you there. I would take the PHBII Decisive Strike replacement.
Point 4: Blasphemy! Teleportation, Tongues, spell resistance, evasion, instant death attacks (stunning fist and Quivering Palm), Etherealness, and lots of useful skills?!? Not counting that you become an otherworldly being at level 20, too. These are not "too situational."
Point 5: I agree with you there, too.
Point 6: Not really. Int goes somewhat unused, and Cha is ignored. Wis, Dex, and Str are necessary, with Con a close second. Most classes need only three or four ability scores to function anyway.

[raistlin807]

My party has decided that the monk exists for no other reason than to kill wizzards. Spell resistance, good saves, speed and all other kinds of badness make it pretty much only useful for slipping past the font line meatsheilds and takiing dowen the caster before he can do much. It's not great but it's something.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Point 1: Take Improved Natural attack for Unarmed Strike. It's perfectly legal.
Point 2: Monks aren't always warrior damage-dealer types. Against these foes, play the support, skill-user, or distraction role.
Point 3: I agree with you there. I would take the PHBII Decisive Strike replacement.
Point 4: Blasphemy! Teleportation, Tongues, spell resistance, evasion, instant death attacks (stunning fist and Quivering Palm), Etherealness, and lots of useful skills?!? Not counting that you become an otherworldly being at level 20, too. These are not "too situational."
Point 5: I agree with you there, too.
Point 6: Not really. Int goes somewhat unused, and Cha is ignored. Wis, Dex, and Str are necessary, with Con a close second. Most classes need only three or four ability scores to function anyway.

I was summerising commonly brought up points in answer to the original poster's question.

I've no experience with monks so I don't know how they work in a game.

I've always wanted to do a Monk duelist though. It works with a Siangham, it's just not powerful unless I could take Kung Fu Genius and get Int to AC twice, which I wouldn't allow as a DM so I won't try it as a player.

[Gavin Sage]

I'm curious with people saying trouble dealing damage... as compared to what? Because compared to mages well yes but that's why mages have limited amounts of spells. Next to a fighter though, with Flurry of Blows you have more attacks at higher percetage of the BAB once things get going, and damage wise are doing 1d10+ from 8th level onward. Okay if the Fighter gets a really good magic item that can change things, but if they don't? And there are magic weapons monks can use too, Ki-focus or the like if memory serves.

Personally I'd say the weakpoint of Monks is they are fifth characters who don't fit into the simple party structure. Not skilled enough to replace the rogue and what not.

I always remember that I soloed Baldur Gate II with a Monk though, so will always have some level of respect from me.

[SurlySeraph]

Monk weapons are actually quite decent - if they've got elemental enchantments on them, and if you use Flurry of Blows. Dual-wielding kamas with Greater Flurry of Blows and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting gets you what, 9 attacks per round at 20th level? (I saw a good build using this, I don't remember specifically). The trick is to get Flaming, Shocking, Icy, Thundering weapons to take advantage of all those attacks - adding a 1d6 to every attack doesn't suck if you have 9 attacks per round. Still, as has been noted, the monk's real power is in avoiding damage. So use him as a tank. If you ignore Strength and just max Wisdom and Dexterity (and take Weapon Finesse to compensate), it isn't hard to get a monk who can't be hit except on natural 20s. Plus, the monk's high saves mean he's the best person to set off traps if you don't have a barbarian handy. The monk still isn't optimal, but a well-optimized monk is definitely useful.

[Indon]

Next to a fighter though, with Flurry of Blows you have more attacks at higher percetage of the BAB once things get going, and damage wise are doing 1d10+ from 8th level onward.

Well, hit-for-hit, a full-BAB power attack reduced by, say, 3 or 4 to be in-line with the Monk, will deal okay dice damage as well (1d10 for some swords, or maybe 1d8, whatever) and then a two-handed weapon gains double power attack benefit, for 6 or 8 flat additional damage. 8 damage is the statistical average of 2d6+1 all by itself.

Of course, monks can pump that up crazy much, with feats such as Improved natural Attack, greater unarmed strike (or whatever it's called), items such as Monk's belts, and effects such as size increases. But if you don't aim for something like that, you may be overshadowed by the guy with the big 2-hander.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I'm curious with people saying trouble dealing damage... as compared to what? Because compared to mages well yes but that's why mages have limited amounts of spells. Next to a fighter though, with Flurry of Blows you have more attacks at higher percetage of the BAB once things get going, and damage wise are doing 1d10+ from 8th level onward. Okay if the Fighter gets a really good magic item that can change things, but if they don't? And there are magic weapons monks can use too, Ki-focus or the like if memory serves.

Monks tend to have low strength and can't get x2 power attack damage. 2d10 just isn't as spiffy as it sounds since it averages as less than a +5 frost longsword.

Why they have low Str is beyond me since in theory they can dump Dex and rely on Wisdom for armour class. However normally you end up needing both wisdom and dex to make up for lack of armour.

I made a Prc on these boards a while ago for high strength monks (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...ht=brutal+fist) but it's homebrew so isn't really part of the problem.

I tend to find that any class will do fine with a Wizard supporting it but most people expect wizards to be selfish (despite having more than enough spare spell slots when it comes down to it) and it is kind of annoying to have to rely on philantropy from a slice of cheese.

[Spiryt]

Personally i never liked monks too much anyway.
Destroying dragon with powerful magic? Sure. Okay.
Make dragon bleed to death from wounds made by your trust, ancient axe? No problem.
But punch dragon down?!? In some Bruce Li style? Don't think so... It just wont work even in fantasy world.

[Aquillion]

Sure, in a perfect world, with exactly the right thing at exactly the right time, certain classes may appear "weaker" or "stonger" than others, but in play it all evens out. Play for fun, not for win.

I notice that people who argue that underpowered classes aren't underpowered always end this by saying "but you shouldn't care about class balance anyway!"

Monks are a poorly-thought-out class. They have lots of abilities, but few of them help them do the things that they need to be able to do... for instance, they can perform large numbers of attacks, but they need a full-attack action to use this, and get absolutely no support for getting one. Without that critical ability to actually apply those attacks, what use are they? Fighters have the same problem, but fighters can benefit from a wide variety of special weapons, have a reliable first hit, and can at least try and put together a useful, focused build with their feats... Monks fail in all of these. Even when they can make their attacks, they don't have a high to-hit, and without special weapons or effective support feats their damage falls behind rapidly.

Most of their 'special' abilities are flavor. A single save-or-die once a week? Thanks awfully. One dimension door a day isn't bad, but isn't very impressive, either. The rest falls off much, much more sharply, and much of it can be replicated with fairly commonly-used items, or will be provided when necessary by much more effective party members devoted to that specific area. (e.g. the wizard handles save-or-dies better and more than once a week; the cleric/druid handles disease, etc.)

They have survivability, and this actually makes them somewhat useful as high-level NPC opponents (their 1/week and 1/day abilities are also better when they only have to last one encounter.) For a PC, though, the monsters will just kill everyone but the monk first... to be useful, fighter-types have to be able to protect weaker allies, or help kill things fast enough to keep them alive. Monks can do neither; they don't work well in a party.

Of course everyone has anecdotal stories of useful monks... even a commoner can be useful sometimes. But that doesn't change the fact that they are, by and large, a poorly-designed class.

(I personally never understood why they were core in any case; both their flavor and their general design belongs in an Oriental Adventures-style splatbook, not in core. Swordsages are more general-themed, more interesting, and better-designed mechanically... those should probably replace them.)

[Draz74]

What does your DM think a Monk can actually do that's overpowered?

Spring Attack hit-and-run guerrilla tactics, so that he can actually use his high speed to be useful in combat? That is a good tactic for a Monk-on-monster duel, with no other characters around and no time limit on the duel. But normally, it's a very slow way to contribute to a battle and doesn't protect your fellow party members in the meantime.

Quivering Palm? By the time the Monk can do a save-or-die ability 1/WEEK, the spellcasters of his level can be casting Level 7 spells even if they're not optimized. Finger of Death 1/day will overshadow your Quivering Palm 1/week, and then you factor in a couple Baleful Polymorphs per day too ...

Flurry of Blows? Well, people do exaggerate its uselessness, claiming it "never hits," when that's not true -- especially at high levels, when Flurry doesn't actually give your attacks a penalty. But it only works in a full attack. Melee types have a hard enough time even getting full attacks at these levels; that's part of why abilities that give them decent damage on one attack (Power Attack/Leap Attack, or Tome of Battle strikes) are such a blessing to them. Monks can't use Power Attack very well, due to mediocre BAB. Cool-looking unarmed strike damage doesn't make up for that. And they don't really want to make full attacks anyway, because then their mediocre HP are sitting right where the opponent can hit them. They have even more of a problem with this than Rangers, because at least the Ranger can probably afford better Constitution than the Monk. (The Ranger, like the Monk, needs Str, Dex, Con, and Wis; but if he's a melee Ranger, he needs Dex less than the Monk does, because he's got light armor.)

The Monk's amazing AC is a myth, too. Try it out. Unless the Monk has way better ability scores, he won't have as good of AC as the other fighting classes. Armor -- even light armor -- is just such a cheap way to get a few more points of AC.

Grappling? You need high BAB to be a really good grappler. (Same goes for disarming.) Yes, a Grappling Monk can be a good anti-caster, but he's a one-trick pony that can't grapple actual warrior foes. And even his ability to grapple casters breaks down at high level when the casters start buying Freedom of Movement Rings in case they get grappled.

What good is the Monk? It's a decent class to dip, for a Psychic Warrior, Cleric (especially Cloistered), or Druid. And even the Monk 2/Psychic Warrior X, although that's a pretty good Core-Only melee build, is overshadowed by the Swordsage, if your game allows the Swordsage. (Or possibly by a straight Psychic Warrior. Hmph.)

[The_Snark]

In a game where the characters aren't optimizing, the monk does fine. He's not as tough a melee combatant as your full-plate paladin or fighter, of course, but he's got better mobility and skills. Remember, the monk is partially a skill monkey, and nobody expects the rogue to be able to match a well-played fighter in melee combat.

So, in a game where you have, say, a sword-and-shield paladin, a rogue, a sorcerer with a focus on evocation, and a cleric (inoffensively played), a monk will do fine. That's not a bad way to play at all. In a game with a frenzied berserker, a TWF rogue/swashbuckler, a Batman-style wizard, and a druid with Natural Spell and good spell/wild shape selection, the monk will fall behind. In any game that involves Tome of Battle, a swordsage will outshine any monk in all its best areas.

Couple points in their defense- First, Flurry of Blows increases your total chance of hitting almost all the time. I have seen the math done on this one; even at level 1, if you can flurry you ought to. Decisive Strike isn't really any better, because you still take attack penalties and it's still a full-round action.

I always remember that I soloed Baldur Gate II with a Monk though, so will always have some level of respect from me.

They're good for solo campaigns, actually, as are warlocks. Classes that deal damage slowly and are good at evading harm can do quite nicely when they don't have to worry about the monster killing all their party members while they whittle it down with Spring Attack.

[ClericofPhwarrr]

My party has decided that the monk exists for no other reason than to kill wizzards. Spell resistance, good saves, speed and all other kinds of badness make it pretty much only useful for slipping past the font line meatsheilds and takiing dowen the caster before he can do much. It's not great but it's something.

Except that all a wizard has to do is cast Fly, or Invisibility, and the monk can't touch him. At later levels, Overland Flight, Greater Invisibility, and Contingencied Dimension Door mean that the monk can't even dream of getting close.

[silentknight]

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

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

Of course, I realize that most of those who compare the classes and uber-builds do so because that is what you like. I'll take my soap box with me.

[EvilElitest]

Question for everybody

If the save or die attack became 1/day and the telport became 3/day

And the flurry of blows were increased to be better

And the Monk's attack increased, would it be balenced with the fighter?
from,
EE

[Zincorium]

My problem with monks is that they presuppose something very specific (schools which teach unarmored, unarmed fighting and channeling the inner strength that is Ki), narrow it even further by giving each monk a very similiar progression in terms of Ki. When you reach 11th level, you resist spells. Bam. They're all the same in that way.

Now it says you have these monks in all published settings, without really giving a reason they're exactly the same in all of them. It took a whole 'nother book, unearthed arcana, to portray different schools of teachings, and that didn't even touch the Ki abilities.


As far as game abilities, I just don't really see the reason they're there, other than to allow people to play a character without obvious armament without dying every five seconds. Problem is, they decided to balance it against fighter and tone it down a little so that they don't outshine fighters at what fighters are good at.

Now, monks are scarcely more capable in combat than a cleric, they have the skill points of a barbarian with a moderately good list, and special abilities that duplicate spells the casters will have gotten access to earlier and then add in a time between uses that makes them impossible to rely on.

Without very high ability scores (at least two 16+'s just for AC) monks don't have an advantage as far as defense goes. They're pathetic while wearing even light armor, so the only option they have in that arena are bracers of armor, which cost significantly more for any given value than worn armor does, everything else (amulets of natural armor) can be purchased about as easily by other classes.

Other defensive options people suggest that work poorly for monks:

Fighting defensively/combat expertise: Oh right, I was supposed to be hitting things when I roll dice? My bad. I guess my poor strength and mediocre BAB just don't hold up when I'm penalizing them further every round.

Mobile attacking (spring attack, etc.): Similiar to above. You can't flurry, you do less damage on a single hit than any decent fighter, and that's assuming you do hit. You might have been there during combat, but you probably didn't help the party much.

Small size: Less damage? Woohoo. I was having trouble with that already. 2d6 damage at 19th level is not impressive. Maybe that +1 to hit will help me out with that other problem though...


And of course, the consequences of being hit:

You have a smaller hit die than any other class which is intended to 'tank'.
Unless it's a very high powered game, you don't have the rolls to give yourself an excellent constitution score.
By the time you get DR as a class feature, you will probably never, ever use it.

[Ardantis]

I have things to add to both sides here-

1. Monks are ill-conceived for a European fantasy world, which DnD unquestionably is. I find them to be very silly, punching dragons and the like. Or to paraphrase the way Belkar put it in Rich Burlew's prequel comic, while they're busy "training" in their "dojos," the rest of us just put on heavy armor and picked up a large metal stick to get essentially the same abilities, so we could go out and talk to girls in our spare time. They also can't keep up with well made characters of other classes while still contributing to a team.

2. MAN, though, are Monks great for two things- splashing for Wis to AC and some other abilities, and GESTALT. Insane Gestalt characters need two things from their base classes- spellcasting and class abilities. A monk gets lots of fun class abilities and AC bonuses with NO NEED FOR ARMOR- meaning they gestalt with arcane casting classes better than anybody.

For what it's worth, they can blend into a party pretty well IF the universe allows for significant Oriental flavor from outside the area, OR they're the party guide in a group of strangers in a strange land.

[Raum]

1. Monks are ill-conceived for a European fantasy world, which DnD unquestionably is.

Huh? Only if you're playing on a historical earth. They've been incorporated into the TSR and WotC published worlds from close to the beginning. And many of the published worlds have very little in common with "European fantasy." Eberron for a current example.

[Daniel A. Torre]

I have allways enjoyed playing a Monk, since way back in the first edition. And know they are not the damage dealers a good Fighter is, or that a Ranger can be with chosen enemies.
Or any spell caster at higher levels.

But they are the fastest characters, and have the best saves. They hold there own best in low magic campaigns. Or with a few tweeks gained from selective alternate classes and Prestige classes.

It's a ROLEPLAYING game after all. And all the classes have there good points and not so good points. Except for the strait up Fighter who has the best combat options in the game. ( 19 feats by level 20! )

Everyone has to protect the Cleric so he can buff the party. And the Wizard/Sorceror for offensive spells.

So if you want the best damage dealers? Then run a party of Fighters. Until after slaughtering that Orc village. You get some healing before the raiding Party of Orc Warriors comes home. Or a Thief if you need someone to find a way around that trap that impaled the Fighter with the 20 strength! Or perhaps when that Horde of Trolls has chased you to the edge of a cliff and you don't have a Wizard to cast a feather fall.

Each class working in co-operation helps the party to be more effective, than working independently.

My favorite tweek for the Monk is in the book of Exalted Deeds. Specificaly the Vow of Poverty! With it you don't need no stinkin Magic!

The DM at the time didn't read through it when he allowed me to use it. And since he runs a Magic light game all the other player's were not happy.
And when he allowed me to become a Saint it was way broken!

[Ardantis]

Thanks for the semantic catch, what I meant to say is that much of modern DnD is DERIVED from European fantasy, in which Monks don't seem to really fit in. They are definately "outsiders" and should be treated culturally as such.

Eberron, being developed in Denver, I think, has likely benefitted from the cultural influence of Asia much more so than previous settings (Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Ravenloft etc.) However, from what I understand, it's still pretty Eurocentric, to the point where Monks are still sort of a cultural crowbar into a universe derived mainly from a European outlook (dress, combat technique, magic, etc.)

Oh, and Monks would get cold! If the story parts of the universe are temperate, like Europe, Monks represented in the books are dressed in a ridiculous fashion for winter! Even in Forgotten Realms, a large universe with areas that might fit Monks culturally or in terms of climate, how many of them would venture into the frozen North to fight beside or do battle with the likes of Drizzt?

So, it's very difficult to get Monks to fit in well, especially if your characters are supposed to have a tight bond. He'd get some weird looks, likely some xenophobia, and probably wouldn't be too good at disguising himself. The fact that they are a core class doesn't sit well with me. They're about as core as a samurai, put 'em in a splatbook.

[greenknight]

And the Monk's attack increased, would it be balenced with the fighter?

I think it's best to leave the BAB alone, but allow the Monk to make a full attack as a standard action while using Monk weapons or unarmed attacks (note: natural attacks such as claw attacks shouldn't qualify). That would allow them to be a very effective skirmisher. Add in something like Air Walk at higher levels, and they could also take on fliers.