D&D monks and their lameness :)

[ProfessorCirno]

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)

That's not DM Fiat though.

There's a difference between something being rules light (ie, how skills or non-skills and roleplaying worked in all editions other then 3e) and requiring the DM to change the rules (ie, monks in 3e).

Rules-light means the rules cover what needs to be covered and leaves things that don't require rules up to the group - and it's more up to the group then it is just up to the DM.

 

[Hussar]

I watched one of my players monk himself right out of a the game.

He died a lot. So, he came up with an effectively unkillable PC. Paladin/Monk/Pious Templar. Any save he made (and he automatically gained saves vs pretty much anything) he ignored the effect, saving throw bonuses out the wazoo, AC in the stratosphere. He really was pretty much unkillable.

Completely and utterly useless otherwise though. Couldn't hit anything and when he finally did manage to luck into a hit, the bloody bard was doing more melee damage. And it a was KOBOLD bard.

I actually gifted the character with a holy avenger just to bring him close to par with the other fighter types in the group. Still completely pants, but at least a tinsy bit effective. He managed to finally commit suicide by demon a short time later by deliberately trying to go toe to toe with something that the party shouldn't have been facing at all. Thank you Paizo for that insane succubus from Maure Castle with the whip.

 

[Stoat]

The third edition designers obviously placed value on the Monk's ability to attack and defend himself without weapons and armor. Witness the fact that the Amulet of Mighty Fists costs significantly more than an equivalent +X weapon.

IMO, they overvalued whatever advantage the Monk gets from his ability to go without weapons. At higher levels, melee classes need that +X to hit. It's tough for the Monk to get his attack bonus where it needs to be.

Add that to the Monk's MAD problems, the Monk's medium BAB, the incompatibility between the Monk's high speed and Flurry of Blows, the difficulty the Monk has in pushing up the save DC for his Stunning First and Quivering Palm, and you get a recipe for mediocrity.

Further, at least in my experience, players want the Monk to be something it is not. Players in my game who have wanted to play Monks expected a Bruce Lee style asskicker. That's not what the 3.X Monk is.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

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

<snip>

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).

Agreed. GM tailoring is not the best solution and it's not a perfect solution. Tailoring encounters is not the only way for GMs to tailor the campaign, of course, but in even the best campaign tailoring, if you look, you can find the seams. It's a solution, still, and one that computer games, for example, cannot adequately replicate. But it's not perfect.

On another note... GM judgment, fiat, and fixing are all different things. Also, viewing the PHB and DMG as a handbook and a guide rather than holy tablet rulebooks - a viewpoint which I advocate - blurs the distinction.

 

[Stormonu]

In 1e, the monk was definitely a badass. 3e was a mixed bag, I had one player who could turn the monk into a god, and in the same group we had a player who had what we called the "Hot Pocket Monk", who could run from half way across the dungeon, hit the opponent, then run away. Doing measly damage - he could nickel and dime the opponent to death, but usually got in only one or two ineffective hits before the group's fighter and warlock had taken the opponents out.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Witness the fact that the Amulet of Mighty Fists costs significantly more than an equivalent +X weapon.

OTOH, a monk could simply buy an equivalent +X monk weapon and do just fine.

 

[Stoat]

OTOH, a monk could simply buy an equivalent +X monk weapon and do just fine.

And he gives up his better than average unarmed damage to do so.

 

[Dausuul]

OTOH, a monk could simply buy an equivalent +X monk weapon and do just fine.

So, the way to succeed as a monk is to be a second-rate fighter?

 

[Neonchameleon]

In 1e, the monk was definitely a badass.

Ah. The Grand Master of Flowers certainly was. But a fifth level monk would be doing 1d6 damage per attack, have 6d4 hit points (average: 15 - the rogue caught up with his hit points at 3rd level), the AC of someone wearing Chainmail, I think, and be out-rogued by the rogue (naturally). All that on what I recall was a steep experience point chart. That's not my definition of badass - naughty donkey would be closer.

ETA: And let's look at the level 1 Monk in 1e. Slightly fewer hit points than the fighter (2d4 vs 1d10). An AC that barely beats the wizard. (Might even tie with it). An attack that ... sucks. From memory it's weaker than the wizard's dagger. And no spell for that moment of glory. Other than 1.5 hit points, the rogue is better all round.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Ah. The Grand Master of Flowers certainly was. But a fifth level monk would be doing 1d6 damage per attack, have 6d4 hit points (average: 15 - the rogue caught up with his hit points at 3rd level), the AC of someone wearing Chainmail, I think, and be out-rogued by the rogue (naturally). All that on what I recall was a steep experience point chart. That's not my definition of badass - naughty donkey would be closer.

Naughty donkey?

If you were standing here I would challenge you to a duel for creating such a bizarre image in my head.

Monks are badass in the right situation. A DM who loves monks can be a huge pain. How much does the party fighter, wizard, cleric, or rogue lose when forced to fight naked? Now think about the monk.

A society of Monk assassins can be stealthy, not need weapons, and will absolutely destroy 99% of their targets that they attack at night in their room.

As a DM I had monks attack a party. They had enough time to grab their weapons, but not enough time to put on armor. That little difference meant a fighter that normally was a joke was a near TPK. Only one player was as badass as the monks, the druid.

The problem is that in a party environment the Monk cannot operate as his most effective. He is a devestating assasin or urban warrior where opponents are less likely to have full gear. Monks are also awesome in that they are the most effective when the party is equipment light or in a setting where magic gear is rare.

This though does not happen much and who wants to play a character that only shines in situations where everyone else feels half useless.