D&D monks and their lameness :)

[Haltherrion]

A thread on how to incorporate monks into a non-eastern setting (here) reminded me of the related issue in D&D-dom: monks tend to be very weak, at least in my experience.

How do folks find monks in the various D&D settings? My players and I find monks colorful but generally under-par as a class, i.e., weak. The epitome of that is a 3.0 campaign that we took through epic levels and ultimately into divine levels.

The monk in that game was noted for "spending a lot of time, rolling a lot of dice and then doing........ nothing" or "Manix colorfully describes his actions, rolls a d20 and... nothing happens." Nothing of note anyway, compared to the other classes such as an uber wizard, fighter, etc. The really charming end to the whole campaign was when as a demi-god the monk actually ended up one-shotting a boss. Basically, after years of doing little of note once he was almost a god, he was finally useful. It's a fun story we revisit often but it is only funny because the monks are so under powered for so long, at least in our experience. Put another way, he had to become a god to be cool.

What are your thoughs on monks? I haven't tried the 4E monks but given that 4E is designed for making all the classes fairly equal, I doubt it is as much of an issue in 4E.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My experience with monks- as DM, player & ally- has generally been positive. There have been some seriously hilarious goof-ups, but only due to bad rolls...something that happens to everyone. Ever see a 10d6 fireball do 18 points of damage...BEFORE the saving throw? I have.

 

[im_robertb]

Monks are much more balanced in 4E, and their mechanics have unique flavor.
That last phrase might sound like a weird statement. What I mean is that monks in 4E have some mechanics that are unlike anything any other class has, and these mechanics help to build the monk's unique flavor.

Really what I'm talking about is Full Discipline powers. Your At-Will and Encounter powers, as a monk, have an attack part that uses your Standard actions, and a move part that uses your Move actions. Each round, you can only use one Full Discipline power (unless you spend an action point), but you can use both the attack and move parts of it.

 

[Iron Sky]

I've seen monks in 2e, 3.0, 3.5, and 4e and I'd say 4e's are definitely the most powerful and useful of the bunch. The main issue in previous additions was, despite a neat array of powers, the relative lack of ability to improve their hands meant they began to quickly fall behind their weapon-armed allies OR they compromised by using a weapon and losing their increased unarmed attack damage.

The only thing I don't like about 4e monks is that there's almost no incentive to use unarmed attacks at all since there are minor incentives to use staves, daggers, and clubs, but no feat-support for unarmed attacks, so it is relegated to their (often lame) melee basic attacks.

That gripe aside, I'm about 75% sure the next character I make is going to be a monk... that or the pyro-wizard I've been wanting to play for a couple months. Is it bad that in 4e I almost want my characters to die so I can play one of the other cool characters I've made?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

A thread on how to incorporate monks into a non-eastern setting (here) reminded me of the related issue in D&D-dom: monks tend to be very weak, at least in my experience.

How do folks find monks in the various D&D settings? My players and I find monks colorful but generally under-par as a class, i.e., weak. The epitome of that is a 3.0 campaign that we took through epic levels and ultimately into divine levels.

That's been my experience.

Too much MAD. Your AC was also pathetic at lower levels.

Not enough choice in abilities. Immunity to poison might be powerful, but that doesn't mean a player wants it. And (according to folklore) powerful martial artists like Pei Mai could be killed by poison. (Or, depending on which story you like, he killed his twin brother with it and then replaced him.)

Low BAB (and this contributes to MAD). For a low BAB class, giving them Flurry of Blows at 1st-level was a ... bad idea.

Poorly-designed magic items. Your Amulet of Mighty Fists, Amulet of Natural Armor and Periapt of Wisdom all take up the same slot. The Amulet of Mighty Fists should have been a belt, IMO. Also, the Amulet of Mighty Fists was too expensive. (It costs triple the usual item cost; it should have been double.)

Very high speed... and the multiple attacks were a disincentive to use it. Or reverse. Again, choice would have been a good idea here. I would have traded out one for something useful.

The damage figures looked high, convincing DMs to fear the class. 2d10 base damage is high (and also ridiculous; that's more than a greatsword!), but between split stats and poor item choices, the actual modded damage figure will be quite low. Assuming you actually hit.

And the occasional overpoweredness. Using just core rules, a Mnk1/Druidx was ridiculously overpowered.

It's not like good martial artists couldn't be designed in the rules. D20 Modern had a great martial artist class. A typical combo, a Strong 3/Fast 3/Martial Artist x would have (compared to a heavy fighter) about the same attack bonus, possibly more speed (or evasion; choice), high Defenses, somewhat lower damage,* lower hit points and a lower Fortitude save. Higher speed contributed to the effectiveness of the amazingly awesome Flying Kick ability. Damage scaled sanely. Flurry of Blows was available at 10th-level at the very earliest.

*Mitigated somewhat by the sane damage progression. And sure you wouldn't hit as hard, but then neither would your enemy, who might spend most of their time prone, getting whacked anytime they try to get up.

There was even a prestige class which built on top of that, for people who wanted to play a mystical rather than a martial unarmed combat warrior.

The Midnight low magic setting had a pretty decent martial artist, called the "Defender", which also had (gasp) choice in how you built one.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's an ok dip class for a "real" martial artist class like Swordsage, etc...

I really like monk, but I definitely need to give them some help to make the class appealing and functional. I never saw them in 2E, but I remember monk rocking in Baldur's Gate 2, which was supposedly quasi-2E. Getting massive Magic Resistance % was amazing, the unarmed damage seemed comparable to a fighter (could just be because BG fighters sucked more than even 3E ones...), etc...

 

[MichaelSomething]

The general idea among the dirty optimizers is that the 3.X monk is a horrible class. I don't think the Pathfinder version was able to improve it much either. The 4E version is a good class but most 4E classes are good enough to be playable.

 

[GreyLord]

nd the occasional overpoweredness. Using just core rules, a Mnk1/Druidx was ridiculously overpowered..

Probably because it wasn't intended to be played that way originally...depending on how you interpreted the core rules (aka...your DM) that may not even be allowed due to alignment restrictions (if you were required to be true Lawful...or required to be true neutral...depending once again on your DM and their interpretation of the block...or their independant campaign). I don't see Monk1/Druidx as actually being that overpowered...but then I'm the DM that hits the Clerics before they have a chance to cast any buffs and let the fighters shine...or kill the cleric because the cleric is caught without any buffs and still thinks he/she is as good as the fighter...

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Probably because it wasn't intended to be played that way originally...

Obviously I'm the sort of player who deliberately avoids such rules abuse.

depending on how you interpreted the core rules (aka...your DM) that may not even be allowed due to alignment restrictions (if you were required to be true Lawful...or required to be true neutral...depending once again on your DM and their interpretation of the block...or their independant campaign).

1) It's legal. You just had to be lawful neutral.
2) Alignment has nothing to do with game balance. It was simply an intrusion of rules on roleplaying.

I don't see Monk1/Druidx as actually being that overpowered...but then I'm the DM that hits the Clerics before they have a chance to cast any buffs and let the fighters shine...or kill the cleric because the cleric is caught without any buffs and still thinks he/she is as good as the fighter...

Wildshape lasts hours/level, making the activation time nearly meaningless. Once you hit 5th-level, you might as well be wildshaped as long as possible, as long as you weren't involved in social interactions. (You can do so for 21 hours per day at 7th-level, and IIRC you couldn't dispel it either.) Once wildshaped, enjoy your Wisdom bonus to AC! (And whatever other monk benefits might apply.)

Druids weren't as good at buffing as clerics IME. They tended to be better at blasting though. But if you had a round to cast Barkskin then, why not?

(And on another note, a reasonably built cleric who reached 9th-level could nearly match a fighter in combat with a single spell. No need for a long buffing suite.)

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Monks suffered from Flurry of Misses as a class design - a whole lot of little abilities, and none of them really did anything.

The biggest problems monks had is that they were crammed into the same full attack system that all the other classes have. Here you have a class begging to open up and have different fighting styles and techniques, but no no, charge and full attack only.

The reason the 4e monk and the swordsage and tashalatora-monk work is because they're actual martial artists. The 3e monk is a fighter who traded "being good" for having a bunch of terrible abilities.

And really, that's what it comes down to - at the end of the day? The fighter was better at punching things then the monk was.

Pathfinder hasn't really fixed the problem, either. Same Flurry of Misses class design.