Are Monks underpowered, balanced, or broken?

[triforcel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Zincorium]

Alright, might as well start an opening salvo.

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

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

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

[Tor the Fallen]

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

[Chronos]

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

And how ludicrous is it that someone could do more damage by thinking hard at something than with a weapon? Spellcasters are all unrealistic; let's get rid of all of them!

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

[Dullyanna]

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

[AtomicKitKat]

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

[Dr. Weasel]

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

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

[ken-do-nim]

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

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

[Dr. Weasel]

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

[Emperor Tippy]

Monks are so underpowered that they make Bards look good.

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

[TheOOB]

Monks are so underpowered that they make Bards look good.

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

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

[0oo0]

I personally feel that the purpose of the monk class is Drunken Master PrC, but that's just me

[Funkyodor]

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

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

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

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

[Karma Guard]

My problem with them is that they're wildly all over the place, but they're no good at anything. Jack of all Trades gone all wrong. :(

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

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

[Xuincherguixe]

Monks are weak, but not unsalvageable. With a fair amount of thought, you could create a useful monk.

[martyboy74]

They're useful as trapfinders, with all their good saves.

[Overlard]

They're good at surviving, with high ACs, good saves and a handful of abilities.

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

They make good flankers for the rogue.

They can deliver potions to fallen comrades extremely quickly.

That's about it.

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

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

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

[Quietus]

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

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

[Overlard]

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

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

[lord_khaine]

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

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

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

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

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

Monks are so underpowered that they make Bards look good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Stam]

Gauntlets are not fists - and although it's not a house rule without reason, it's not legal by the RAW.

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

[KIDS]

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

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

[Kurald Galain]

Most of it has been said already.

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

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

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

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

[Damionte]

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

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

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

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

[AslanCross]

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

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

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

[lord_khaine]

Gauntlets are not fists - and although it's not a house rule without reason, it's not legal by the RAW

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

read the FAQ, gauntlets are RAW.

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

then he just have to put on his holy gauntlet and hope the bugger is evil.

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

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

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

and i have often seen the party take comfort in that they had someone with a good will save who could contribute where a lot of other melee classes would have spend the battle running in fear or paralysed.

[Solo]

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

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

[Overlard]

first of all, full BAB is overratet, it gives a +1 bonus to hit for every 4 levels, and at the level where its allowed to grow to more than a +3 bonus casters rule the day anyway.
also monks have been given flurry of blows that does a lot to even out the difference, 1-2 additionel attacks at full BAB is worth the same as a minor bonus to hit.

But multiple attacks are only useful when you get to full-attack. Full attacking rarely happens with a non-stupid opponent.

as for str, monk needs this score as much as any other melee char, so it should be given top priority.
in the case where you use 4d6 for stats this isnt really a problem, you just assign highest roll for str, and end up in a better position than most other fighers or barbarians when it comes to tripping and grappling.

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

in the case of point buy a monk would be at a minor disadvantage, but the scaling price would mean he still gets more stat for his points.

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

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

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

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

Just because you like the monk, that doesn't mean it's a good class.

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

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

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

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

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

[Runolfr]

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

[Attilargh]

...When a monk reaches 5th level, the penalty lessens to -1, and at 9th level it disappears. A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows.

Actually, it does.