D&D 5E How Magical or Non-Magical Should the Monk Be?

GreyICE · Oct 15, 2012

Why are Monks better than fighters at grappling and disarming?

They tend to have lower strength (due to caring about more stats than the fighter) and many less feats to devote to becoming a grapple specialist. And no armor spikes, not that that's a huge deal. And less chance to initiate (not that touch attacks are usually that tough, but Fighter still wins in that category).

What exactly would make the monk your goto for grappling? Admittedly Druids are god tier characters, but even ignoring them you have many better choices.

MoonSong · Oct 15, 2012

GreyICE said:
Why are Monks better than fighters at grappling and disarming?

They tend to have lower strength (due to caring about more stats than the fighter) and many less feats to devote to becoming a grapple specialist. And no armor spikes, not that that's a huge deal. And less chance to initiate (not that touch attacks are usually that tough, but Fighter still wins in that category).

What exactly would make the monk your goto for grappling? Admittedly Druids are god tier characters, but even ignoring them you have many better choices.

Easilly, because a Monk gets to be a good grappler at first level without having to spend a single feat, a 1st level fighter needs to expend all of his (assuming neither is human), also the monk gets to apply 1d6 on all of his grapple damage rolls, the fighter by himself can only apply 1d3. The monk gets other useful feats for grapplers for free (improved trip and combat reflexes) without having to waste slots on Combat expertise, add weapon finesse (since monks are likely to have a better DEX than STR) you get the picture. A sixth level monk can easily know improved Grapple, Improved Trip, Combat Reflexes, Improved Unarmed Strike and still have three slots for Weapon Focus (Unarmed strike) and Weapon Finesse (getting to do with the third as he wishes). A sixth level fighter has seven feats and can easilly have a similar settup by using six of his feats (not likely to use Weapon finesse, but maybe he will have Weapon specialization instead, remember he must have Combat Expertise to pick Improved Trip) and at this point they are matched on grapple damage (and the fighter gets an edge if he uses spikes), but as they gain levels, the monk's grapple damage keeps growing and by the time the fighter gains Greater weapon specialization to add+2 to the damage, the monk's unarmed damage has surpassed him, without using yet more feats. The fighter is better off using those resources to learn power attack, cleave and whilwind attack

Tovec · Oct 15, 2012

Mattachine said:
Third edition monks are VERY effective if you aren't fighting the standard "immune to all their special attacks" monsters.

When monks are pitted against humanoids that are subject to grapple, disarm, and stuns, they are incredibly effective. I played a monk in 3e from levels 1-22, and he was devastating against armed humanoids. By high level, he was the go-to wizard/lich killer because of saves, evasion, immunities, and spell resistance.

No one else ever played a monk like that?

How about the grapple specialist monk? Very, very nasty.

I've certainly had a player like that. It isn't just you. It is a problem, I guess, that GreyICE never had this experience.

But this is exactly what I'm saying. Monks have always been super-effective at being MONKS. They make horrible barbarians, wizards, or liches.

GreyICE said:
@Tovec: Okay, lets compare Rogues to Monks

In combat:
3/4 BAB
Sneak Attack vs. Flurry of Blows
Magic Weapon vs. pseudo-magic weapon
Improved Evasion/Uncanny Dodge vs. Evasion
Opportunist vs. Flurry of Blows
Use Magic Device vs. A bunch of daily or weekly abilities.

Okay, so same BAB, check.
Sneak Attack vs. Flurry. Comparable in many ways.
Magic Weapon vs. Psudo-magic weapons. But the monk has the option of using magic weapons too, AND Boosting his fists. So I gotta give it to the monk.
Improved Evasion (which rogues have to buy) vs. Improved evasion (which monks get FIRST)
Uncanny Dodge vs. wis (and a minor class bonus) to AC. So, don't lose dex, vs. dex+wis(+minor class bonus) to AC.
Opportunist vs. stunning fist that can kill people.
UMD vs. several FREE extra bonus abilities, including self-healing. Thought slightly an apples to oranges comparison. Let's compare UMD to bardic music then?

Out of Combat
8 Skills base and one of the best skill lists in the game vs. 4 skills base and okay skills
The ability to disarm traps easily and safely (including magical traps) versus the ability to step on traps and avoid most conditionals (but take more damage)
The ability to use magical devices vs. the ability to fall down walls without taking damage

8+int vs. 4+int. That is true, rogues win here. But then again, monks get 4+int which is more than the FIGHTERS you keep thinking they are, so I think I still win my point. Not to mention monks have a comparable list of skills to rogue, not fighter.
Disarm traps (easiness is based on DM) vs. avoiding them entirely or avoiding the effects.
UMD again? vs. several free abilities. Apples to oranges, again. If anything, add the skill to the monk's list, what is the problem here?

So what you're saying is the monk is either a really bad fighter in combat with marginally more utility out of combat, or an okay rogue in combat with infinitely, indescribably less utility outside of combat.

What I am saying is that the monk ISN'T a fighter. That any classes attempting to be a fighter are a bad fighter. I'm saying they fill (at best) the rogue slot. And even then they are a good 5th man (much like the bard). Beyond that, being an 'okay rogue' is good enough for me.

So in other words they're the worst class in the PHB, have no unique identity, and replaced their unique identity with a bag of mediocre tricks.

Actually, they are one of the MOST unique classes in the PHB. But I will agree that they are generally a poorly designed class. I can give you suggestions on how to fix them if you like.

I am also saying they have MANY tricks that cannot be easily shoehorned into other classes in order to have that other class replace the uniqueness which is monk.

A ROGUE IS BETTER AT LIVING THAN A MONK!

In what respects?

Improved Uncanny Dodge versus nothing

An 8th level rogue has improved uncanny dodge, which I have rarely seen used in any campaign. It is predicated upon a rogue not getting flanked, but any rogue worth their salt can tumble out of there. So can the monk, at the same level. Also, at 9th level monk has improved evasion, which the rogue doesn't.

Improved Evasion versus baseline Evasion

Sigh, nope. Monk gets improved evasion at 9th, for free. Rogue gets it at 10th by spending a customization point. Which means they aren't getting that opportunist you talked about earlier.

Use Magic Device gives them huge amounts of flexibility for niche situations

So, to fix the monk all we have to do is give them UMD? Cool thanks GreyICE.

A BARBARIAN IS BETTER AT LIVING THAN A MONK

A Wizard is better at living than a barbarian

Improved Uncanny Dodge and Trap Sense versus Evasion

Changable Magic vs. Improved Uncanny Dodge and Trap Sense. Oh, did I mention that wizards(and monks for that matter) don't need to worry about being flanked all the time and they can certainly avoid it.

d12 vs d8 hit dice

d4 vs. d12, I guess the wizard must suck now. Oh wait.

More ability to raise Con versus MAD

Monks are MAD, you have me there. Fix that for next time, WotC.
Barbarians can only up their CON (and STR), wizards can up everything. Therefore barbarians shouldn't exist.
Oh, also, Barbarians can raise their CON and fighters can't, so fighters shouldn't exist.

Damage Reduction!

Not to be too technical, but monks get DR too. But monks aren't getting hit FASTER than barbarians get DR. Also, wizards

Rage!

Are we just yelling abilities now? Abundant Step!

OH YEAH AND THE MONK HAS TO MAKE A STANDARD ACTION TO BE RELIABLY HEALED OR CURED OR AFFECTED BY BUFFS OR ANY POSITIVE SPELL WHILE IN COMBAT

Okay? So a monk takes a standard and is healed. A barbarian can't heal at all.

Also, a barbarian (after rage runs out) loses their HP. Because the barb's HP are actual HP, not temporary.

And? So?

They're friggin terrible. There's no excuse for calling them a serious character class. The best thing you can say about them is that the DM typically leaves them alone because there's bigger threats, and thus they don't take damage very often (which is good, because in-combat healing is risky on them).

Actually, a DM can't just leave monks alone, because even if the monk is doing 1-2damage a round (which they would be doing much more but that is besides the point) the bad guys aren't doing 1-2 damage to the monk every round. So, even if the DM kills everyone else, the monk will remain and (eventually) win. Even if we use your idea that monks do almost no damage per round.

Now yes, it is very true that the best 4 man party of PHB classes is probably 2 Wizards, a Cleric, and a Druid. And the best 5 man party probably adds an extra druid, an extra wizard, or a bard (bards can do some unique things). But this isn't because of necessarily flawed design. It's due to flawed balance.

Right, an monks belong in that 5th man slot too. Bards are terrible. They are really bad characters. Are we going to axe them next?

The Barbarian is legitimately a tough, dangerous combatant who deals the most damage of any martial class. It's just bad balancing that a Druid in Wildshape form and their animal companion can outdo that damage with ease.

So, barbarians can "defeat" monks, therefore monks should go away. Yet, druids can defeat barbarians, therefore barbarians should go away? And druids can defeat almost all other classes, therefore all those other classes should go away. You have convinced me GreyICE. Only druids should be classes.

The Rogue is legitimately capable of doing things that no other class can with their skills and being a great secondary striker in combat alongside the frontline classes. It's just bad balancing that the Wizard gets spells that can replicate most of what the Rogue can do.

Okay, and that monk, which has a similar skill list, can't? And the monk isn't unique in what they can do?

~~I agree on that wizards can replicate other classes thing, let's fix the wizards too.~~ Oh wait, your idea isn't to fix classes it is to cut them. Wizards are too much work so let's just cut them.

It's no exaggeration. Read the Monk entry once, and ask yourself "what did they mean this class to do?" Read it twice, and three times, and ask that question again. You can't answer it. There's no design goals there.

So, all classes need to pass a GreyICE litmus test in order to be a class? I never had a problem seeing what monks did. That is precisely what attracted me to them in the first place. Since playing them I have learned their deficiencies and and worked on correcting them or avoiding those issues when they arising.

We will not be sticking to the 3E vision of the monk because there is no 3E vision of the monk. Just a bunch of bad stereotypes drawn from Kung Fu the Legend Continues.

I assume by 3e you will allow 3.5?
Monk :: d20srd.org

Also, could we not apply the same (bold) argument to almost all other classes? Wizards are just a bunch of bad stereotypes drawn from the tales of Merlin.

Beyond that, how many classes don't even have a real analogous example to point to? Warlocks, sorcerers, bards, druids, paladins? Just to name a few. Why draw the line at monks?

GreyICE · Oct 15, 2012

Tovec said:
You slightly lose me here, if only because I don't think all classes need to hold their own in combat. They need to excel in their chosen niche, not all classes need to be as good as the fighter/wizard (depending on edition) in combat. Similarly, not all fighter/wizards need to be as competent as rogues out of combat.

My point I guess is that they should FIX that garbage, instead of just tossing out everything about the monk that makes them unique. This is the same objection I would raise about tossing out the paladin, ranger, bard or druid. All of the classes have a specific set of qualities that define them. The abilities themselves can be hit or miss but the qualities remain the same. So they should spend time fixing those qualities instead of trying to invalidate people who like a class. (Invalidating them would include, but not be limited to, the class appearing years later than the 'original' classes.)

Mmm, so lets discuss what makes the 3E monk unique. I'll go feature by feature:

AC Bonus: Designed to scale similar to wearing armor. Not unique.
Flurry of Blows: Extra attack, same as with 2 weapon fighting. Not unique.
Unarmed Strike: Unique! Kinda. It's a weapon.
Fast Movement: Barbarian, Druid, anyone with Haste spell, many magic boots.
Ki Strike: Your fists! They be a magic weapon. Because those are unique.

The "Random Immunity and Healing stuff"
Still Mind/Purity of Body/Diamond Body/Timeless Body: All various immunities. Druid has a bunch of these, and overall spells can do the same thing. They're just not very interesting.
Wholeness of Body: Druid, Cleric, Paladin, Ranger, all get similar. And anyone with a healing potion.
Perfect Self: You stuck with 20 levels of monk! So you're now an outsider rather than a human (some spells affect you, others no longer do). Some mediocre damage resist that doesn't stack with magic items (which you should be dripping in by level 20).

The "Wizard Spell, but worse" List
Slow Fall: You get a 1st level Wizard spell that affects only you! Wait, it only works near walls.
Abundant Step: Can cast Dimension Door once per day, at 1/2 Wizard Caster Level. Only need to be level 12 to do this.
Quivering Palm: Make an attack roll. If you succeed, creature rolls Save vs. Death or dies. Cooldown once per week. Only need to be level 15, which is when Wizards get EIGHTH LEVEL SPELLS.
Diamond Body: You gain spell resistance like the 5th level spell Spell Resist. At least this one is semi-okay and almost level appropriate (wizards are only getting 6th level spells).
Tongue of Sun and Moon: You can speak any language, like the 3rd level wizard spell Tongues. Wizards get access to Shapeshift here btw.
Empty Body: Dear god, you get to actually use a 9th level wizard spell at level 19! Oh wait, it only works on you, not on the party, so 95% of the utility of the spell is gone, and it mostly lets you survive TPKs.

Look at this mess! You say you want to keep the things that make the Monk unique.

There is nothing in here that's unique in any way. They reference the spells they're replicating in the Monk Entry.

A mobile combatant that flies around the battlefield and ties up creatures with a variety of damaging and disabling strikes is a unique concept. "A bunch of random spells and immunities" is not a unique concept.

Also just about zero of these have non-combat utility. Dimension Door can solve puzzles I guess. That's it. The monk is defined by combat in 3E. It's defined to be very bad at it.

Also here's why trap disarm golem monk fails:

Trap Disarm Monk: I walk forward, letting my ninjutsu lead the way. "Fireball trap." I leap backwards, agilely dodging the fireball. Wasn't that cool guys? Wasn't it? Why are you so charred? "Screw you, Monky."
Rogue: "I find and disarm the trap. No fireball."

Also you don't at all understand the problem with the Monk's spell resistance.

It takes a standard action to turn it off.

So if the Wizard or the Bard or the Cleric casts haste, the monk's spell resistance will attempt to cancel that spell.

The only way to stop this is to take a standard action.

So, to reiterate, the Monk's vaunted spell resist

makes other players spells not work on the monk. First time you go on a trip to another plane and the monk remains behind because? Well, you left behind a monk, who would notice?

If this is a team sport, the monk is the guy who grabs the ball out of his teammate's hands so he can be the one to make a shot at the basket... and then misses.

P.S. The Rogue makes it to Tier 4 on the backbone of Use Magic Device, yes. The skill is just that good. Disarming magical traps is also something unique the Rogue does, but usually there's ways around them anyway.

P.P.S. Please, build me a 10th level Monk or something that's in some way effective, and show it to me. You keep telling me about these amazing Monks who do all these cool things, and I keep thinking "yeah, and you can do the same thing with a better class and ALSO be effective in combat." Until then, I say I can build a commoner that is twice as effective at being a monk than the monk class. So there. Monks are worse than commoners.