Help me convince my DM that monks aren't broken

[Dandu]

I think it would be a great idea to go for the Armor Piercing Question and ask your DM why real powergamers disdain the monk.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Another bit of Monk fun: in DCv1, there are a couple of nice feats for Monks. Pole Master and Unorthodox Flurry both expand the list of weapons with which a PC may flurry- the one for polearms mirrors the one in PHB2, and UF mirrors some that popped up in Eberron, but is broader & more general.

In addition, there is Ring the Golden Bell, which lets you use your Stunning Fist at range. It's not über powerful- the range is not great- but it is definitely flavorful.

 

[Sekhmet]

I doubt there is anyone at ENWorld who loves Monks more than I (check my sig), and even I won't assert the class is broken. Or even on a par with most other classes.

(Ilovemonkstoo).

Also, a Cleric/Monk build is extremely good, even with only a single level of Monk.
But thats because your Extended Divine Power and Persistent Bless, Aid, Prayer, Haste, and others work with Flurry Of Blows to allow you much better than Fighter BAB and damage dealing.

I remember playing a similar build (M1, CL17, M10, Divine Champion 2) during a Neverwinter Nights game. By the end, averaged right about 1100 damage a round and never missed an attack (18 hits [dual wielding Kamas], Perfect Two Weapon Fighting, Greater Flurry, and Haste), my last iterative attack was over +50.

 

[xigbar]

Tell your party Druid to take the Planar Shepherd Prc.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Thank you guys for all the examples though, I'll use them in trying to convince him. He is an experienced DM but he's a very house rules heavy DM, and he doesn't see that his house rules destroy the game balance in all forms. So this game we're sticking to RAW as close as possible, and he's still stuck on the "monks are broken" line.

EDIT: worst part is, DM doesn't see the druid as broken, even though in the past the player has come up with the most op combinations because of his stupid house rules. Yet he warned the monk guy (new guy) that he better not break the game. When was the last time Sacred Fist broke your game?

If this DM is really a houserule enthusiast and a veteran, he ought to understand the rules.

Some key concepts:

Multiple Ability Dependency (MAD): Monks are crippled by having to depend on several ability scores.

Base Attack: Melee classes without full base attack are at a huge disadvantage. Each "lost" point of base attack is a 5% less chance of being effective at your main task. Losing iterative attacks is equally problematic.

AC: Melee classes without the ability to use armor and shields are at a huge disadvantage. Armor is a cheap way off improving AC. Without it, you need to splurge on magic items or get ripped apart.

Damage: Melee classes without magic weapons are at a huge disadvantage. Enchanting natural strikes is more expensive and difficult, and beating DR is a problem.

***

The boatload of special abilities mostly just go to fixing the drawbacks above.

Monks look powerful because their table is so full, but in truth they're weak. Their main use is that they're great at resisting magic. See the tier system for a collective analysis of D&D classes and why the monk is less powerful than the druid by a long shot.

 

[Borthos]

If this DM is really a houserule enthusiast and a veteran, he ought to understand the rules.

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

Some key concepts:

Multiple Ability Dependency (MAD): Monks are crippled by having to depend on several ability scores.

This is more or less covered by a ridiculous point buy he gave us. 48. Too much? Yes. Are we complaining? F*** no.

Base Attack: Melee classes without full base attack are at a huge disadvantage. Each "lost" point of base attack is a 5% less chance of being effective at your main task. Losing iterative attacks is equally problematic.

AC: Melee classes without the ability to use armor and shields are at a huge disadvantage. Armor is a cheap way off improving AC. Without it, you need to splurge on magic items or get ripped apart.

Damage: Melee classes without magic weapons are at a huge disadvantage. Enchanting natural strikes is more expensive and difficult, and beating DR is a problem.

***

The boatload of special abilities mostly just go to fixing the drawbacks above.

Monks look powerful because their table is so full, but in truth they're weak. Their main use is that they're great at resisting magic. See the tier system for a collective analysis of D&D classes and why the monk is less powerful than the druid by a long shot.

I know all about the tier system, but I tend to ignore it, and I'm fairly certain the other players do too. We tend to just make what we want (concept wise) and go from there, not caring about overall power level. Most of us anyway. And it's the optimizers (namely me) in the group that with a limited set of source can find something good and use to it's full extent without blatantly ignoring certain rules.

In the past I have played a monk where it was a kitchen sink game and while I didn't try to get the 36d12 (or w/e) that brilliant gameologists did, but I got pretty decent attack and damage and a really good support character going. I think that's why the DM thinks monks are OP. But in a PHB only game, monks and bards are terrible. Teeeeerrrrrrrrible. And I can't get that past his thick skull.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I know all about the tier system, but I tend to ignore it, and I'm fairly certain the other players do too.

Maybe the existence of a commonly used theory of gaming developed by people with serious system mastery will convince the DM.

but I got pretty decent attack and damage and a really good support character going. I think that's why the DM thinks monks are OP.

You've got to watch out for those support characters.

This is more or less covered by a ridiculous point buy he gave us. 48.

(I'm assuming under the standard DMG point buy rules)
So then the real question is, why is a DM who gives you a 48 point buy concerned that anything is overpowered?

 

[Borthos]

Maybe the existence of a commonly used theory of gaming developed by people with serious system mastery will convince the DM.

Touche, spiderman.

You've got to watch out for those support characters

(I'm assuming under the standard DMG point buy rules)
So then the real question is, why is a DM who gives you a 48 point buy concerned that anything is overpowered?

You know I've asked myself that too, but now I just roll with it.

 

[Dandu]

Maybe the existence of a commonly used theory of gaming developed by people with serious system mastery will convince the DM.

Well clearly he is more brilliant than all of us combined. Clearly.

 

[emoplato]

Well first your DM should realize stunning fist/quivering palm only work on creatures with discernible anatomies(aka anything with precision damage/critical hits immunities). So, Mr. druid has a lot of options against Mr. monk.
He also should know on top of not being able to readily get unarmed damage enhancements(though, they could just use a different monk weapon instead), since they can't have armor without almost losing everything they can't have coveted armor much less shield magic enhancements either.
As for the passive immunities and resistance stuff, which I am pretty sure he is livid about, really just amounts to perks rather than something that can be a defining ability to exploit with other material.
Though, monk outside of strict core does have a lot feat combos and class synergies.