D&D monks and their lameness :)

[Ycore Rixle]

We played the heck out of a 1e campaign way, way back in the day. After about five years of real time play, the monk PC was immensely powerful. Three characters built a fortress together, with the svirfneblin cleric/fighter on the main levels (who wants to climb stairs for a Baervan Wildwanderer service?), the archmage up in the tower on top, and the monk's training dojo underground. The monk and his followers were the strongest force in that fortress. Quivering palm, powerful multiple attacks, natural AC, chance to stun or kill... the monk was very effective.

3e monks... not so much. That's one reason why Bo9S was so needed, in my opinion. Too bad there wasn't a better direct unarmed replacement for the monk in there, but the book consciously tried to stay away from becoming too eastern, for better or worse.

I will say this, though, that the genius of D&D is the dungeon master. If a player is playing a 3e monk, the DM can and should make certain that the character is as effective (in and/or out of combat) as the other characters at the table. Items, blessings, mentors, pale green ioun stones, deck of fewer but better things all slanted toward unarmed combat, whatever it takes. With enough work, a DM can even help a 3e arcane archer or duelist be effective.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

4e monks are fun. As strikers go, they are comparatively low damage but they get a lot of wire-fu so they can deliver the hurt to the target that needs it the most - or just mess up the enemy battleplan. Probably not a top tier class but not too weak, and quite strong defensively as well.

The core problem with 3.X monks is the absolute lack of synergy. Monks are blindingly fast - but can't flurry of blows and use their speed. Meaning they either don't hit hard or are no more mobile than the fighter. If they are no more mobile than the fighter, they have AC lower than a 2 handed barbarian until about tenth level (at which point it's close to spellcasters or nothing) and even the non-raging barbarian's probably doing more DPR with a two handed sword and less MAD. As for the spring attack path, give it to the barbarian - at least his single attacks hurt. Rather than do 1 dice of damage and are very hard to enchant except as a 1d6 weapon - and suffer from MAD.

 

[pawsplay]

As I said, depends on your DM's interpretation. According to the 3e rules...it states they HAVE TO BE LAWFUL...with no indication that anything other than a pure lawful would be allowed...

You're confused. Pure lawful refers only to one axis; it says nothing about good-evil-neutral. It's like saying you couldn't be a dwarf, because then you would be dwarf-neutral, and not PURE NEUTRAL.

 

[GreyLord]

You're confused. Pure lawful refers only to one axis; it says nothing about good-evil-neutral. It's like saying you couldn't be a dwarf, because then you would be dwarf-neutral, and not PURE NEUTRAL.

Once again, depends on your DM's take. I only bring this up because I have played with a DM that had it so that there were actually pure Lawfuls, Pure Goods, etc. It was a handover from the older system...but he also had the pure Neutral status as well.

One DM...but it did affect classes...so I bring it up. Overall, this is with the original 3e in which I think they didn't see some of the munchkin moves some of us would do...hence some things weren't originally intended to be played as they occurred. 3.5 and on, well, they nerfed enough things in some ways to counterbalance some of that (Buffs for one).

PS: I should add that the rulebook only mentions the 9 alignments, his argument was that it doesn't say the older model from the rest of D&D's past didn't exist...hence his idea for pure Goods, Pure Evils, Pure Lawfuls, Pure Chaotics...in relation to the pure neutral existing as well. The thought was that the Lawful Neutral, Neutral Good, Neutral Evil and Chaotic Neutral were not as committed or as slewed to the alignment as on who was pure...

Don't know how many of those are out there, but this guy still does somewhere (though been a long time since I've seen him).

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Once again, depends on your DM's take.

That would be a house rule then. In my experience, it's rather unique. Lawful in rules as written is the entire axis.

For myself, 3.5 monk was a fun dip class for two levels purely for the feats. I had a bizarre experimental character that grabbed a pair of monk levels for something to do with his off hand. Stunning Fist and Deflect Arrows. At higher levels I grabbed Withering Touch (from Complete Warrior) to deal –6 Strength to foes with the Stunning Fist.

After monk, changed alignment for other abusive multiclass dips.

 

[Wik]

Once again, depends on your DM's take. I only bring this up because I have played with a DM that had it so that there were actually pure Lawfuls, Pure Goods, etc. It was a handover from the older system...but he also had the pure Neutral status as well.

First, saying "it depends on variant house rules" in a rules discussion is kind of a pointless thing to do. Because this is always the case. I mean, if someone says "spellcasters are too powerful Rules-As-Written", someone else replying "well, in my campaign, there are no spellcasters, so problem solved" is kind of a waste of pixels.

As for the question at hand, 3e/3.5e used the same alignment system as 1e and 2e, with the only change being that True Neutral was eliminated and replaced by "neutral", which made a lot more sense 98% of the time. 1e and 2e had no "pure lawful" or anything like that.

BECMI (and maybe OD&D - I do not recall) had Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic as alignments. Different set of rules, though.

One DM...but it did affect classes...so I bring it up. Overall, this is with the original 3e in which I think they didn't see some of the munchkin moves some of us would do...

Like taking one level of ranger and then going into whatever class you felt like?

[PS: I should add that the rulebook only mentions the 9 alignments, his argument was that it doesn't say the older model from the rest of D&D's past didn't exist...

I'm sorry. This isn't really directed at you, but that GM. But this is a rather silly argument to make. It'd be a lot like saying "well, this 3e PHB doesn't say rangers CAN'T cast wizard spells when they reach 10th level, so it must mean they still can... after all, they could in 1e".

If you're cross-pollinating from editions, that's one thing and more power to you (I do it a bit myself). But you can't assume that an edition, by default, will integrate and expect other editions to function. In other words, a PHB or DMG shouldn't have to spend page space specifically saying "other editions are null and void".

 

[Wik]

Onto the matter at hand...

Monk has always been one of those classes I'm leery about allowing into the game. I have banned it in the past (with no complaint from my players). Nowadays, I allow it, but with one big change.

The thing is, I've never had a problem with the mechanics of monks (although grapple-focused monks would be barred, because I HATE the grapple rules!). I do, however, have a problem with the flavour - pseudo oriental karate kids. So, when I allow monks, I always do so with a "you're not some asian ninja guy - make him western, or he's not allowed".

This keeps in line with my very first 4e house rule: "Shuriken do not exist. They are called throwing knives. Those who call them Shuriken take an automatic five damage." I had instant player buy-in on that one.

 

[Wik]

I will say this, though, that the genius of D&D is the dungeon master. If a player is playing a 3e monk, the DM can and should make certain that the character is as effective (in and/or out of combat) as the other characters at the table. Items, blessings, mentors, pale green ioun stones, deck of fewer but better things all slanted toward unarmed combat, whatever it takes. With enough work, a DM can even help a 3e arcane archer or duelist be effective.

Yes... and no. Allow me to provide an example.

A few years back, we had a 3.5 campaign. And I really, REALLY wanted to play a spellthief. It was (and still is) my favourite class. The problem, however, is that spellthieves are heavily campaign reliant.

Because of this, the GM made sure there was plenty of opportunities for my spellthief to shine. And fun was had by the entire group (coincidentally, there was also a monk in our three man group, and he had a lot of fun, too).

However, any encounter in which there were no opportunities for my spellthief to shine, the entire effectiveness of our group dropped - and I saw just how useless my PC was compared to everyone else. And I knew that many things were being thrown at us simply for the benefit of my character - yet, there were never any encounters tailored for the monk... or the cleric. They were fine enough as is.

When you spend your play experience having the GM trying to tailor encounters for you just so you can stay balanced with everyone else, it makes your victories seem a little hollow (to say the least).

 

[ProfessorCirno]

DM Fiat equates to "DM Fixing" and something that needs fixing is broken.

 

[Argyle King]

DM Fiat equates to "DM Fixing" and something that needs fixing is broken.

Out of curiosity, how do you view 4E treating so many non-combat; non-skill challenge situations as DM Fiat? (i.e. wanting to build a castle)