Fixing the monk
The monk in 3.5 is definitely broken:
- it multiclasses poorly:
- it's simultaneously front-loaded (ridiculously high wis AC bonus at first level), and extremely weak at first level
- they're weak throughout all level I've seen em played, whether STR based or DEX/WIS based
- they completely break the usual balance of power between equipment and character class
- they depend on at least 4 stats pretty heavily, and 5 depending on how you're playing: generally, for a monk to be anything other than a boring, optionless, underpowered fighter, you need some int for a few skills.
Somebody in this thread said the damage dealt (2d10) was overpowering. I'm only really interested in levels 1-10, since the game becomes less interesting (complete chaos and imbalance) afterwards.
Obviously a fighter is more powerful than a monk and I'm not really interested in attempting to fix that. Also I don't like heavy usage of non-core rules; There are essentially an unlimited number, and they often interact with each other in ways that are completely unbalancing. Frankly I'ld rather fix the core monk than hack it with questionably splatbookness...
Looking at levels 1-10, the monk certainly fairs better in the high levels, but it's still hopeless: level 8 is a really nice monk level in which he gains a third attack and the damage goes up by 1 die size. There, a monk will deal around 1d10 +3 damage depending on strength and other things. A non-raged barbarian (which I frequently compare to because it can move at a similar pace) can easily have a flaming greatsword +1 at this level, and with a little luck even a +3 equiv. +1 vicious flaming greatsword... 18-22 strength is pretty normal (roll 16, half-orc, +2 on levelling, +2 magic item), meaning he's doing +9 damage from strength alone, dealing 3d6+10 damage - conservatively, because if he's got the vicious sword it's up to 5d6+10 damage. That's without power attack - but if you wanted a fair comparison of the first hit, you'ld have to take into account that the monk has a +6bab, +3str, +1 arbitrary magic item, +1 weapon focus - maybe? which is a +11 modifier, and our un-raged barbarian has like +8bab,+6str,+1WF,+1weapon, which is +16. those +5 translate to 10 damage if you're power attacking to the same attack bonus.
I know I'm pushing it; but only slightly; and the conclusion still is that the barbarian is going to be dealing 5d6+20 damage (Unraged!!!) when the monk is going to be dealing 1d10+3. As to spells: unless you have time to meticulously prepare a battle, you're not going to be all that buffed generally, and a wise spellcaster knows whose chances he should be maximizing here: The barbarian's. Who should get the enlarge person do you think?
Why this focus on the first hit? because that's often really important. Certainly all other hits thereafter are less relevant as a battle is usually decided early on. So it's fun to have a monk running around, but to maximize your chances, you want lots of damage right away (works veeerry nice with cleave too...). Another problem with flurry of blows is that you need to be next to the player before the full round attack is possible. That's a dangerous place to be, esp. for a character with fewish hit points.
So you have this melee fighter class which has this really neat fast running speed, but can't really use very well it without spring attack (which it won't get fast without many feats), and isn't actually all that fast at normal levels, and actually only really deals damage when it stops running and is a sitting duck, and even then, has a hard time hitting high-AC opponents, and potentially has an even harder time against larger lower-AC opponnents (which will namely smash him to bits). He's resistant to spells, but not actually all that much more resistant on low levels, he might possibly have a high AC, much good that it'll do him because the rest of his party on whom he depends for crucial buffs will long be dead by the time a high-AC monk with correspondingly pitiful damage actually kills any opponents.
Monks, as written, are an extremely specialized flavor class, which can, in some very specific circumstances be unbalancingly powerful, but simply tends to be really weak, and has some nasty front-loading issues.
If I still haven't convinced you the monk is about as useful as a trained duck, compare him to a monk/druid (who can actually turn into a duck):
Let's be honest, can anyone think of a situation in which a monk is a better fit for a party than a monk(1)/Druid(9) that simply shapeshifts and coincidentally has almost complete spellcasting progression? The previous party I played in was reasonably high magic (approx 2-3 times starting gold), and it contained a wild-shaping druid monk that was actually much poorer that the rest of the party (only about 1.5 times starting gold), but completely dominated all the battles, virtually never entering battle below 30AC, and more normally flying around in direbat shape at 40-45 AC(!) casting animal growthed-gargantuan nastyness for fun (besides the fact that a first level monk has improved grapple which is simply really,really nasty in combination with wild shapes like the dire lion).
So compare a normal monk, which needs at least four good stats, and has problems all over the board, with such a druid/monk, who only needs 1 good stat (str,dex,con all being replaced by wild shape), and pretty much has advantages over the pure monk everywhere....
