Help me convince my DM that monks aren't broken

[Talonblaze]

Monks aren't overpowered. However they can easily get powerful with additional character support to make them look powerful. However, the same can be done with other characters in situations. It's all about how you build them after all.

There are a good amount of stuff for Monk's non-core, but nothing game breaking. Druid's are notably more powerful overall and in more situations.

Maybe you can ask your DM to compare the classes in situations to see the light better. Raw power doesn't always win the day after all. So after he realizes the Monk is less versatile and in some cases less effective than others in combat or outside combat, then he might see the light.

Monks aren't awesome, Monk's aren't super weak either. I find them pretty fun and balanced.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Having only one method means that if that method is taken from you, you are no longer able to break the game.
For instance, a charging/pouncing/power attacking fighter type can deal a hell of a lot of damage.
A Dire Polymorph spell renders him useless, as does Flying, or any other method of altering his ability to do his thing.

Casters have many methods of breaking the game (even just in core), which means you can take one away and they'll pull another one out of their hat.

I also dislike how it considers dipping as part of a class's overall strength.

However, when you consider that the tier system exists to study the maximum possible effect rather than the minimum or average, it makes perfect sense how it is worked out. A perfectly optimised Wizard, Druid, or Cleric will always beat a perfectly optimised tier 2 or lower class due to their versatility and number of ways available to them to win. Similarly, a tier 6 class will never beat a tier 5 or higher class, because part of "optimisation" is knowing what you're up against.

Casters have only one method for breaking the game...magic, specifically spells. Anti-magic fields or whatever those wild magic bubbles are in the FR, are a helluva nerf. Control what spells are accessible and you limit their flexibility.

As I said, given JKaron's assumptions, his logic is consistent. But that's like saying if a comet knocked Earth out of its orbit, then life couldn't exist on planet Earth and Earth is a bad planet for life. Sure, if we take these assumptions as true, then he's right. But that's the whole point, I don't buy the assumptions because I would never just hand out any spell a Wizard wanted just because it's in the book. Super powerful magic necessary to accomlish game breaking feats isn't just available for study at the local Wizards guild. It's pretty plausible to think people with Contact Other Plane might not try and track down everyone who has the spell and eliminate them. There are infinite ways and reasons why game breaking spells aren't just there when you are ready to learn them.

Really, what Jkaron says is obvious. Spell casters derive ALL their power from spells. If the one thing that is meant to limit their power is given to them without restrictions, obvoiusly they are going to break the game. I mean you can't compete with an authors imagination when it comes to making up spells that do things. Any cool thing anyone ever saw in a fantasy movie is probably in some splat book somewhere. That doesn't mean you have to make it available.

Look, 3.5 put arbitrary restrictions on magic items...like +5 total enchancment. Well, what if we removed that restriction and let Fighters have swords with any an all manners of spell powers that are available in the books? What if a you could have a sword of Greater Telportation, Power Word Kill, and Love's Pain, and any other nonsense that derails a campaign? So WotC intentionally limited the power of weapons. Well, do you really think they meant that DM's are forced to let Wizards to take any spell they wanted?

I doubt it.

A perfectly optimised Wizard, Druid, or Cleric will always beat a perfectly optimised tier 2 or lower class due to their versatility and number of ways available to them to win.

If by optimized, Jkaron mean's we ignore the chief restriction that is supposed to limit a Wizard's power, then yes, there is more power in the way of spells than anything else in the game of D&D. After all, it is "magic" isn't it?

The bottom line is I don't find this dispostive when determining a Monk's abilities. Nor do I find it informative. It simply tells me that as a DM, you have a huge responsibility in managing the spells you make available to players.

 

[Dandu]

I'm still mystified as to how we even got to this discussion in the first place considering that there are actual monk threads active right now in the min/max subforum and a monk handbook in the handbook subforum.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Just because you can fix it, doesn't mean its not broken. The opposite, actually. The existence of the requirement of the DM to arbitrate spell choice means that the system is unbalanced. It's a self proving point.

Also, your other point, the one about weapons, is flat out wrong. The solution to every problem is not successively bigger bombs. If it was, we'd have just glassed Osama bin Laden. Just because it is bigger and more destructive, doesn't mean its better. A degree of finesse is often the better solution. A semi full of nukes has no finesse, and neither does a charger fighter. If the solution can't be solved with a ton of damage at melee range, he has no solution.

If you want to houserule that a Sorcerer can't learn Contact Other Plane, you are welcome to. There are plenty of other ridiculous spells, just in the PHB, that are just as bad. You are only addressing the symptom, at that point. And that's not even going into these "splat" books you seem to have an irrational hatred for, most of which are more balanced than the PHB because they don't contain Polymorph, Shapechange, Wish, Gate, or Simulacrum.

Anyway, this discussion is about monks. I tried to tie it back in, but you drag it back out. If you really want to debate spellcasters and the tier system, I invite you to start a new thread so I can drag you down to my level and beat you with experience. Leave your house rules at home, though, we don't debate their existence on the internet because everyone has different ones and there is no common ground to discuss.

EDIT: Also, you don't have to quote my post unless you are addressing specific points. It's right there next to yours, in case the readers forgot what I said. Its cluttered and looks sloppy when people do that.

IF the basis on how we evaluate a monk is based on this bogus Tier system, then it's relevant. I didn't introduce the Tier system, someone else did.

No, the analogy with the bomb isn't flat wrong because we're only ranking things on one level ability to do damage. A semi filled with Nukes does more damage than any other melee weapon you can think of...but thank god Homeland Security isn't conerned about potential threats...but realisitic and possible threats. That's the point. Attempting to talk about what a bunch of Nukes can't do is missing the point.

Whether you house rule it or not, the point is the DM has control over how powerful non-Monks who rely on spells are. If you fail to close the shutoff valve and then complain the pipe is broken because fluid keeps coming out...you had it coming.

If you're going to let someoen go buy a Candle of Invocation at the corner Magic Shop and then you complain about the outcome...you had it coming.

And that's not even going into these "splat" books you seem to have an irrational hatred for

Claiming I have a "hate" for a book simply because I said you don't have to allow it in your campaing is.....irrational.

That's right..the discussion is about monks and how they are evaluated.

 

[Sekhmet]

Even allowing Fighters to acquire magic weapons of such caliber is not game breaking in itself - the Fighter has no way to make it. He doesn't have access to the caster level or the spells. Speaking of just the fighter, he has no way to make anything better than masterwork equipment by himself, and that is one of the primary concerns for giving them such a low rating.

Even the core rulebooks give methods for acquiring spells without being handed them. Spell research takes only a small amount of time and funds and rewards you with any spell you desire!
A Cleric or Druid does not even have that restriction - he knows all spells of all levels.

The fact that as a DM, you have to specifically say "No, you cannot have this spell" is indicative of the fact that spell casters are above and beyond the limits of non-casters.

Even in AMFs, some spells (mostly Force/Prismatic spells) are unaffected. A Prismatic Sphere works just the same within an AMF as it does everywhere else.
Calling spells are unaffected - call your Elementals and Outsiders and they can charge through that field and destroy your enemies as if the field wasn't there.
Mage's Disjunction can destroy a field outright (1% chance per caster level, no maximum).

While under some debate, Orb spells function perfectly under AMF/Dead Magic as well.

Casters are far from defenseless in AMF/Dead Magic zones, whereas a melee combatant is rendered ineffective through innumerable means.

(Amusingly, it seems, that a level 3 Warblade can destroy an AMF - whereas a 20th level Cleric cannot even end the AMF he, himself, created. Although, the Cleric can ignore it with the Initiate of Mystra feat.)

 

[Borthos]

Monks aren't overpowered. However they can easily get powerful with additional character support to make them look powerful. However, the same can be done with other characters in situations. It's all about how you build them after all.

There are a good amount of stuff for Monk's non-core, but nothing game breaking. Druid's are notably more powerful overall and in more situations.

Maybe you can ask your DM to compare the classes in situations to see the light better. Raw power doesn't always win the day after all. So after he realizes the Monk is less versatile and in some cases less effective than others in combat or outside combat, then he might see the light.

Monks aren't awesome, Monk's aren't super weak either. I find them pretty fun and balanced.

That is true, and it's something I've addressed with him; monks do have a lot of love non-core to help them be a competitive class. Problem is, this is a core only game. Not even that, this is a PHB only game. He isn't even allowing feats from the MM, like Ability Focus or INA.

Has this DM had second thoughts? Is the DM willing to come here and defend his proposition? I seriously want to hear what reasons a person has for placing a monk into the overpowered category.

Nope, my DM is very set in his ways. I'm not sure anyone can really convince him unless he sees it himself repeatedly. Much like using the scientific method, even though this particular experiment has already been done a lot.

Please, folks, if you want to talk about the tier system, make a thread for it. I'll gladly make one for you if you'd like.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I'm not sure anyone can really convince him unless he sees it himself repeatedly. Much like using the scientific method, even though this particular experiment has already been done a lot.

I'm not really interested in convincing him, I'm just interested in having the opportunity of such a strange specimen explain his "evidence" for framing the monk as unbalanced. I seriously just want to hear it from himself.

Secondarily maybe a dialog could be struck, but that's not a big deal.

 

[Talonblaze]

That is true, and it's something I've addressed with him; monks do have a lot of love non-core to help them be a competitive class. Problem is, this is a core only game. Not even that, this is a PHB only game. He isn't even allowing feats from the MM, like Ability Focus or INA.

If it's PHB only, the then Monk is no where even near its max potential that can make it dangerous in a game to be perfectly honest. Its quite weak in comparison to the potential of a Druid or Wizard in such cases.

So, what is it exactly he is complaining about Monks? or is he just generalizing 'they are too powerful'. If he's worried about that, I'll send him core only builds that will make the Monk look like childs play with just the PHB.

It's also not just how you build em, its how you play them.

 

[Borthos]

I'm currently striking a conversation with one of the other players, will post rough conversation transcript shortly. it will be in this post btw.

conversation goes back and forth
Not me: "I am glad it is a basic game and not overpowered."
Me:"Yeah but [DM] seems to think the monk is broken when it isn't."
NM "[player] says if it gets stupid and OP he will quit."
Me "How could it [get broken]? Aside from spells, anyway."
NM "the fury of blows or w/e it's called."
Me "Flurry of Blows? How is that OP?"
NM "[player] and I think it OP too. You can use it every time."
Me "...No you can't. You can't use it in a round you move more than 5 feet."
NM "Yeah but you can just stay in one place and just continue using it, or move 5ft and do it."
Me "Not if the enemy dies after the barbarian charges them. I have to move to the next enemy. Also, remember the monk only has a BAB of a cleric and FoB gives a -2 penalty on all attacks that turn, even AoOs."
NM "I don't care - you can argue with [player] and [DM] tomorrow about it before the game, I just want a regular, non OP game."

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

That is true, and it's something I've addressed with him; monks do have a lot of love non-core to help them be a competitive class. Problem is, this is a core only game. Not even that, this is a PHB only game. He isn't even allowing feats from the MM, like Ability Focus or INA.

Those are two of the monk's BEST core feats. INA being the absolute best core feat for them. I reiterate my advice from page one regarding your friend's desire to make a monk: Abort! Abort!

Seriously, there will be other games in the future, it's not like he'll never get to try out his concept if he doesn't do so right now (unless you actually never play with another DM, or you or someone else in the group that's more reasonable ends up DMing).