Does the Monk class stink?

[Bauglir]

Mnk 5 - 16 dex, wis, 14 str , Weapon Finesse (+6 to hit)

I was basing it off this guy.

Stunning fist DC =

10 + 1/2 monk's level [2.5] rnd down = 2 + wis = 3

= 15

Yes I was factoring in the chance to hit, since that has a bearing on the chance of a stun, once declared actually landing..

I chose an even CR to the monk, which seemed a fair test, plus gave enough results to reduce statistical skewing (plenty of CR 5 monsters). I'm fairly confident you could do mnk 4 vs all CR 4, mnk 6 vs all CR 6 etc and see a similar result (but I'm not going to because that was a lot of work ).

The Yuan-ti have weak fortitude saves, but the monk still only has a 33% chance of affecting these (and that's BEFORE they bring their special abilities to bear...)

I was addressing your contention that if you didn't use spellcasters, that the monk's ability wasn't as useful against just monsters from the DMG. Clearly, that's not the case.

How exactly does a 13% success rate NOT qualify for the title of 'not as useful'?

Heck even against a spellcaster:

Wiz5 - Dex, Con 14, Mage Armour, Shield = AC 23
Chance to hit = 20%
Chance to fail fort = 55%
Chance of successful stun = 11%

 

[Neowolf]

Honestly, I don't see why Stunning Fist is such a huge point in this discussion, when you consider some of the other abilities the class gets (albeit at higher levels):

Wholeness of Body
Diamond Soul
Leap of the Clouds (much more useful if you're into playing the acrobatic monk, as I am)
Improved Evasion
Abundant Step
Quivering Palm
Empty Body
etc.

Honestly, I expected Abundant Step, Quivering Palm, and Empty Body to be big points of debate.

When you think about the fact that the monk can (basically) teleport himself, kill with a touch (and the target doesn't even have to die immediately!), and make themselves incorporeal, whether or not you can stun someone for a round isn't that big of a deal.

 

[WizarDru]

How exactly does a 13% success rate NOT qualify for the title of 'not as useful'?

Because the question of whether or not he hits is such a major factor in your calculation, and too many factors go into deciding whether or not it works, that you can't include it, IMHO. You're willing to give the monsters all their special abilities, but the monk has absolutely no equipment in your equation, including the 9500 gp worth he should reasonably have. A ring of magic fang is what, 2,000 gp, for example? Add to this the issue that the Monk, like the rogue and bard, is meant to be a tactical support fighter, and you have a more complex equation. You might argue that, on the same lines, the rogue's sneak attack isn't very useful, as so many creatures are immune or so difficult to hit, that it's of no practical benefit. Obviously, that's not the case.

What I do think is that the monk class is more vulnerable to campaign-specific designs than other classes. The fact that I see quite a few people arguing strongly on both sides of the fence displays that fairly well, I think. The same would be true of someone playing a rogue in a game where you fought nothing but the undead and constructs. My personal experience with monks is that they are very viable, and can be quite enjoyable characters to play. I've DMed two 3e games with them, and while they've sometimes felt underpowered, when they come through, they come through big. If you add the material from supplements, especially OA, they become even better.

And to those who say that the DM shouldn't occasionally set up a situation where the monk should excel...I'll agree to disagree with you. My DMing style obviously differs from yours. My view is that the DM is there to provide a way for the players to have fun, and to me that means making sure every dog has his day. That's a style choice of DM capitulation that some might not enjoy.

 

[Eldorian]

Wth is a ring of magic fang? Can you point to me the page on which it appears in the core rulebooks? How about any official, non setting specific WotC material? Closest thing I got is the amulet of mighty fists from sword and fist, and it's 6000 gp, 3 times more expensive that what you quoted. 6k is over half the characters wealth, therefore not an item he should reasonably have.

The point stands that, in a world of weapons, attacking with your fists is just a dumb idea. Hell, I can't think of a martial arts movie where a man, facing an armed opponent, dropped his weapon in order to fight with his fists.

I believe the monk remains as one of the stinkier classes in the books at low levels. At higher levels with decent gear, they are good at getting to and killing spell casters, but before then, they aren't very useful. In most instances, a fighter/rogue or barbarian/rogue would be a better choice as an addition to the party.

Eldorian Antar

 

[Gizzard]

Honestly, I expected Abundant Step, Quivering Palm, and Empty Body to be big points of debate.

Partly spurred on by the number of people who were talking about how cool Monks were at high levels, I started this poll thread a while back to find out what levels people actually play:

The Poll Thread

The result (with 175 people responding so far) is that most people start at low level --- 81%. Also, nearly 68% of all people hadn't broken the level 12 ceiling yet in their current campaign.

This means that admittedly cool abilities like Abundant Step (12th) and especially Empty Body (19th) seldom get played. It also means that if you are typical, you will be forced to endure your Monks pathetic-ness during low-level (1st-6th) level play until you can get to his cool abilities at mid- or high-levels.

Btw, feel free to vote in that poll if the results surprise you. They surprised me a bit. Maybe I'll go give it a bump and see if it picks up any more votes.... ;-)

 

[Bauglir]

Because the question of whether or not he hits is such a major factor in your calculation, and too many factors go into deciding whether or not it works, that you can't include it, IMHO. You're willing to give the monsters all their special abilities, but the monk has absolutely no equipment in your equation, including the 9500 gp worth he should reasonably have. A ring of magic fang is what, 2,000 gp, for example? Add to this the issue that the Monk, like the rogue and bard, is meant to be a tactical support fighter, and you have a more complex equation. You might argue that, on the same lines, the rogue's sneak attack isn't very useful, as so many creatures are immune or so difficult to hit, that it's of no practical benefit. Obviously, that's not the case.

The chance to hit IS part of the monk's problem. If the stunning fist doesn't hit, then it doesn't affect, and it's STILL used up. (And you've still just spent another combat round being ineffectual)

And as I've repeatedly been pointing out, I HAVEN'T been applying special abilities, just straight AC/Fort from stat blocks.

A ring of Magic Fang, as someone has pointed out is not a core item (Where core = PHB, DMG, MM). The addition of non-core abilities can have a massive bearing on how a class may fare. For example, how much more effective does Elemental Substitution make a sorcerer?

In any case, it wouldn't make a huge difference. The chance to stun an Achaierai increases from 12.25% to 14%. The average overall success rate will still be sitting at an estimated 15%, which is still woeful.

Also this relates to something I mentioned aaages ago. A 5th level monk needs to be scraping together all the AC boosting items he can get his hands on, just to stay alive. Will he really have the money to spare for a ring of magic fang (that ultimately won't make much difference?)

A rogue's sneak attack chance is his chance to hit, period. There's no saving throw vs sneak attack. There is armour of fortification, but this is expensive stuff (and most monsters won't have it). And when he's not sneak attacking, the rogue can be the trapfinder, the diplomat, the thief, or just about any role he puts his mind to. The monk, for all its abilities, is a very limited class..

What I do think is that the monk class is more vulnerable to campaign-specific designs than other classes. The fact that I see quite a few people arguing strongly on both sides of the fence displays that fairly well, I think. The same would be true of someone playing a rogue in a game where you fought nothing but the undead and constructs. My personal experience with monks is that they are very viable, and can be quite enjoyable characters to play. I've DMed two 3e games with them, and while they've sometimes felt underpowered, when they come through, they come through big. If you add the material from supplements, especially OA, they become even better.

I haven't had a chance to see the OA monk. From what I've heard the general 'power level' of OA is a bit higher than core D&D, so the OA monk might be better balanced with the other core classes

And to those who say that the DM shouldn't occasionally set up a situation where the monk should excel...I'll agree to disagree with you. My DMing style obviously differs from yours. My view is that the DM is there to provide a way for the players to have fun, and to me that means making sure every dog has his day. That's a style choice of DM capitulation that some might not enjoy.

I agree strongly with this. The DM should most definitely have a look at what people are playing, and try and weave opportunities for them to shine into the adventure, without making it TOO contrived of course . Players should be supported without them KNOWING it's happening..

Unfortunately, the monk is so statistically weak that I can't think of too many non-contrived scenarios where he could shine. Something involving his mobility and speed perhaps?

But hey, throw a few ideas about. A good imagination will help lots in this area.

 

[Technik4]

Monks shouldn't attack unless they are under the same conditions as a rogue (ie- flanking, or monk is invisible, monk acquires ring of blinking, etc).

If a monk is unhappy with his stunning fist or wimpy hand fighting (due to lack of supplements which improve these things, amulet of mighty fists, ki straps, etc) then the monk should suck it up and buy a nice fatty enchanted monk weapon.

A monk with tumbling (5+ ranks) gets almost the same mileage out of fighting defensively as a fighter does using 4 points of expertise. And the monk can pick up expertise as well.

Monks make great heroes for "getting there" in time with a potion and their unusual high ac (30+ point buy, monk interested in bumping dex, wis, and getting usual AC bumpers, monk beats rest of party when properly buffed. Why? A fighter wants bull's strength and maybe endurance. A monk wants wisdom and maybe dex or con) means they often last a while at low hit points. I've gone 3 rounds in combat with 2 hit points and while I was knocked unconscious, I didn't die.

Monks can usually afford to charge, charging on the rear end of an enemy (gaining flanking) is an additional +4 to hit.

Weapon Finesse means strength can be a bit of a dump stat. Average damage might go down, but hits go up. This means bigger chance of getting off a Stunning Attack, Quivering Palm, or *gasp* a cool touch attack you might have from a magic ring.

Monks are generally good diplomats and have keen detection skills. Monks tend to know about some arcane things, and sometimes religion too.

Monks are difficult to sway with enchantments, the #1 reason fighters and rogues cower, run away, or become held with a dumb look on their face.

Monks can wake up after a long night of drinking and being thrown in jail, shipwrecked with none of their stuff, teleported away to a far off land with none of their stuff, or be polymorphed to great effect because they rely more on themselves for their abilities than items (compared to other characters).

Monks almost never need feather fall cast on them, and will usually be the first to jump across roofs, down holes, take a swim, or anything else crazy.

Monks don't know the definition of "arcane spell failure" or "armor check penalty".

Monks can don a disguise faster than most characters, as with a simple staff and a hat they are suddenly Joe Commoner.

Monks are better at subduing enemies to question them later, as its a simple matter of dealing subdual, without the -4 penalty.

A 20th level monk can probably make more attacks than a 20th level fighter on a full-round attack. If the monk has invested in a "holy" or "lawful" or "bane" monk weapon, thats potentially quite a bit of damage.

Monks have really high touch ACs, useful when fighting clerics and other people who want to reach out and touch you (like disintegration rays from beholders).

Monks can heal at a rate of 3x their level per day (after level 7) as opposed to their level per day of hp.

And of course, everyone thinks the monk sucks, so they never see it coming when the monk mops up.

Technik

 

[WizarDru]

A ring of Magic Fang, as someone has pointed out is not a core item (Where core = PHB, DMG, MM). The addition of non-core abilities can have a massive bearing on how a class may fare. For example, how much more effective does Elemental Substitution make a sorcerer?

Not core? How do you figure? It's a core spell, as is manufacturing a ring. It isn't listed in the DMG, true, but neither is every other single spell that could be put into a potion, ring, staff or wand. That doesn't make them non-core. The core adventure path series only uses material from the core books, and you'll find a ring of magic fang appears at least twice...and matches the exact calculations the DMG provides. However, if that bothers you, then go with the fact that Gauntlets can be affected by Magic Weapon and Greater Magic Weapon, according to the Sage and FAQ, specifically in reference to monks.

Will he really have the money to spare for a ring of magic fang (that ultimately won't make much difference?)

I'm not arguing that he isn't. What I am arguing is that it's too situational to make that call. You're making the assumption that the monk is working alone, and I'm not. I'm assuming buffs being in operation, and team tactics working. The monk excels in a team environment. They will still lag behind the front-line fighters, but some spells and effects contribute to everyone's chance of success that becomes more valuable to the people on the lower end of the scale than the higher. Spells like Bless, a bard's Inspire Courage, Cat's Grace, Bull's strength, and so on.

You asked earlier what a support fighter was (as opposed to a front-line fighter), and I'll tell you how I view them: characters who engage in melee but are not expected or likely to be the ones to bring them down by damage. They support the main fighters with flanks, attacks to aid and a host of special abilities. They throw monkey-wrenches into the BBEG's machine. A monk will not outdamage a fighter or barbarian, ever. Monks and rogues tend to pull tricks out of their hats that stymie their opponents...when they work. A rogue without a partner to flank has a much lower chance to ever use sneak-attack. A wizard without defenders will be slaughtered. A fighter without magical support or healing is doomed.

The monk, for all its abilities, is a very limited class..

Limited in focus, yes. But so is the fighter, in that regard.

I haven't had a chance to see the OA monk. From what I've heard the general 'power level' of OA is a bit higher than core D&D, so the OA monk might be better balanced with the other core classes

There isn't an 'OA' monk. The only difference is they are allowed to freely multiclass without penalty (there are no ex-monks) and they have access to more feats that are more monk-specific or monk-friendly. Some of which have been errataed to be more balanced. The power-level of OA is about the same as, perhaps even slightly lower than, core D&D (feats like the unerattaed Falling Star Strike, notwithstanding).

Unfortunately, the monk is so statistically weak that I can't think of too many non-contrived scenarios where he could shine. Something involving his mobility and speed perhaps?

I don't have to think any up, I've run some of them. For example: Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil: Warning: SPOILER HERE!

At the second entrance to the crater ridge mines, there is a room with a sniper hanging suspended from a ceiling in front of the main gate. His job is to defend the gate, should it be penetrated, and shoot thirty feet below at anyone entering the area. With 9/10s cover, and no easy way up to him, he's a nasty problem for a party to deal with...especially if they're trying to remain stealthy. In my game, I had two snipers there, since I had six players. It was the monk and the rogue who made a beeline up there and eliminated them, not the barbarian, the wizard or the cleric. Could the wizard have used a magic missle? Sure...but for a pair of low-level human guards, that'd have been a waste...especially since a pair of classed Ogres and some gargoyles were just ahead.

Another example: Earlier in RtToEE, the party is searching the (supposedly) abandoned moathouse. In the dungeon, they first encounter some ghouls. Who makes the saves not to be paralyzed, and avoids a TPK? The monk. The barbarian killing machine sits like a lamb for the slaughter. A little later, same dungeon: the party rounds a corner, and encounters two evil clerics, one of whom is a troglydyte. The barbarian both loses STR to the stench, and then gets blinded and lost in a obscurring mist. It's the monk who tumbles through, causing them to retreat...and then uses the much-maligned stunning fist to paralyze the trog (who is wearing full-plate and on a slippery floor), who falls precariously to his doom into a hole leading into a temple to Tharizdun.
END OF SPOILER!

I could cite other examples from other modules, but the point is this: depending on the players, the situation and the style of the game, the monk is just fine, IMHO. My perception is that more people would not have a problem with the monk, if they perceived him as less Bruce Lee and more Yuen Bao. Less 'Game of Death' and more 'Drunken Master', if you will. I'm not countering your statistics, because they seem spot on...I'm merely saying that your perception of the monk's effectiveness runs counter to my experiences, and that perhaps that's a reflection of game style.

 

[Bauglir]

You asked earlier what a support fighter was (as opposed to a front-line fighter), and I'll tell you how I view them: characters who engage in melee but are not expected or likely to be the ones to bring them down by damage. They support the main fighters with flanks, attacks to aid and a host of special abilities. They throw monkey-wrenches into the BBEG's machine.

The most successful character I ever had in this vein was a fighter I made (ironically enough for RTToEE) who carried a spiked chain and had improved trip/disarm, and wore a mithral breastplate (so he could tumble). He was a walking 10' radius 'field of disabling'. At one point he tripped a ranger with an AoO, then 1 point of initiative later used his 2 iterative attacks to disarm him. The ranger surrendered

I've never seen a monk do anything like that. I think their statistical weakness cripples them in this role, and see no reason (from the point of view of effectiveness) to choose a monk, rather than another fighter with a different set of feats.

I could cite other examples from other modules, but the point is this: depending on the players, the situation and the style of the game, the monk is just fine, IMHO. My perception is that more people would not have a problem with the monk, if they perceived him as less Bruce Lee and more Yuen Bao. Less 'Game of Death' and more 'Drunken Master', if you will. I'm not countering your statistics, because they seem spot on...I'm merely saying that your perception of the monk's effectiveness runs counter to my experiences, and that perhaps that's a reflection of game style.

Perhaps so. I think I'll stop here, as the discussion is getting a little circular. I'm still no closer to being convinced the Monk is good for anything, and I'm never going to convince you that it isn't

Been interesting rattling out the details though.

 

[Storminator]

Mnk 5 - 16 dex, wis, 14 str , Weapon Finesse (+6 to hit)

I was basing it off this guy.

Stunning fist DC =

10 + 1/2 monk's level [2.5] rnd down = 2 + wis = 3

= 15

<SNIP>

Heck even against a spellcaster:

Wiz5 - Dex, Con 14, Mage Armour, Shield = AC 23
Chance to hit = 20%
Chance to fail fort = 55%
Chance of successful stun = 11%

Let's add +2 to hit from Cat's Grace -> total to hit +8
Add +2 to SF DC from Owl's Wisdom DC = 17

And the wizard?

Wiz 5 - Dex,Con 14, Mage Armor, Shield = AC 16

Because the monk moved to the other side of the shield!

Chance to hit = 65%
Chance to fail fort = 60%
Chance to successfully stun = 39%

Repeat next round, and the wizard has a 37% chance of not being stunned for a round. And with the monk getting in the wizard's face like that do you think he's going to Hold Person the fighter?

PS