Monks: Shall I Compare Thee?

[truemane]

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]

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]

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]

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

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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I'd like to see it too so I can use it in my games :D

[Crow]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Dont bash bards, they are the most underrated class.

[Kurald Galain]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Psst....I think you guys might be focusing a little too much on combat....but maybe you enjoy the whole computer game scenario.

[Dhavaer]

Psst....I think you guys might be focusing a little too much on combat....but maybe you enjoy the whole computer game scenario.

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

[Neon Knight]

Psst....I think you guys might be focusing a little too much on combat....but maybe you enjoy the whole computer game scenario.

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]

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.