Third edition monks are VERY effective if you aren't fighting the standard "immune to all their special attacks" monsters.
When monks are pitted against humanoids that are subject to grapple, disarm, and stuns, they are incredibly effective. I played a monk in 3e from levels 1-22, and he was devastating against armed humanoids. By high level, he was the go-to wizard/lich killer because of saves, evasion, immunities, and spell resistance.
No one else ever played a monk like that?
How about the grapple specialist monk? Very, very nasty.
I've certainly had a player like that. It isn't just you. It is a problem, I guess, that GreyICE never had this experience.
But this is exactly what I'm saying. Monks have always been super-effective at being MONKS. They make horrible barbarians, wizards, or liches.
@Tovec: Okay, lets compare Rogues to Monks
In combat:
3/4 BAB
Sneak Attack vs. Flurry of Blows
Magic Weapon vs. pseudo-magic weapon
Improved Evasion/Uncanny Dodge vs. Evasion
Opportunist vs. Flurry of Blows
Use Magic Device vs. A bunch of daily or weekly abilities.
Okay, so same BAB, check.
Sneak Attack vs. Flurry. Comparable in many ways.
Magic Weapon vs. Psudo-magic weapons. But the monk has the option of using magic weapons too, AND Boosting his fists. So I gotta give it to the monk.
Improved Evasion (which rogues have to buy) vs. Improved evasion (which monks get FIRST)
Uncanny Dodge vs. wis (and a minor class bonus) to AC. So, don't lose dex, vs. dex+wis(+minor class bonus) to AC.
Opportunist vs. stunning fist that can kill people.
UMD vs. several FREE extra bonus abilities, including self-healing. Thought slightly an apples to oranges comparison. Let's compare UMD to bardic music then?
Out of Combat
8 Skills base and one of the best skill lists in the game vs. 4 skills base and okay skills
The ability to disarm traps easily and safely (including magical traps) versus the ability to step on traps and avoid most conditionals (but take more damage)
The ability to use magical devices vs. the ability to fall down walls without taking damage
8+int vs. 4+int. That is true, rogues win here. But then again, monks get 4+int which is more than the FIGHTERS you keep thinking they are, so I think I still win my point. Not to mention monks have a comparable list of skills to rogue, not fighter.
Disarm traps (easiness is based on DM) vs. avoiding them entirely or avoiding the effects.
UMD again? vs. several free abilities. Apples to oranges, again. If anything, add the skill to the monk's list, what is the problem here?
So what you're saying is the monk is either a really bad fighter in combat with marginally more utility out of combat, or an okay rogue in combat with infinitely, indescribably less utility outside of combat.
What I am saying is that the monk ISN'T a fighter. That any classes attempting to be a fighter are a bad fighter. I'm saying they fill (at best) the rogue slot. And even then they are a good 5th man (much like the bard). Beyond that, being an 'okay rogue' is good enough for me.
So in other words they're the worst class in the PHB, have no unique identity, and replaced their unique identity with a bag of mediocre tricks.
Actually, they are one of the MOST unique classes in the PHB. But I will agree that they are generally a poorly designed class. I can give you suggestions on how to fix them if you like.
I am also saying they have MANY tricks that cannot be easily shoehorned into other classes in order to have that other class replace the uniqueness which is monk.
A ROGUE IS BETTER AT LIVING THAN A MONK!
In what respects?
Improved Uncanny Dodge versus nothing
An 8th level rogue has improved uncanny dodge, which I have rarely seen used in any campaign. It is predicated upon a rogue not getting flanked, but any rogue worth their salt can tumble out of there. So can the monk, at the same level. Also, at 9th level monk has improved evasion, which the rogue doesn't.
Improved Evasion versus baseline Evasion
Sigh, nope. Monk gets improved evasion at 9th, for free. Rogue gets it at 10th by spending a customization point. Which means they aren't getting that opportunist you talked about earlier.
Use Magic Device gives them huge amounts of flexibility for niche situations
So, to fix the monk all we have to do is give them UMD? Cool thanks GreyICE.
A BARBARIAN IS BETTER AT LIVING THAN A MONK
A Wizard is better at living than a barbarian
Improved Uncanny Dodge and Trap Sense versus Evasion
Changable Magic vs. Improved Uncanny Dodge and Trap Sense. Oh, did I mention that wizards(and monks for that matter) don't need to worry about being flanked all the time and they can certainly avoid it.
d4 vs. d12, I guess the wizard must suck now. Oh wait.
More ability to raise Con versus MAD
Monks are MAD, you have me there. Fix that for next time, WotC.
Barbarians can only up their CON (and STR), wizards can up everything. Therefore barbarians shouldn't exist.
Oh, also, Barbarians can raise their CON and fighters can't, so fighters shouldn't exist.
Not to be too technical, but monks get DR too. But monks aren't getting hit FASTER than barbarians get DR. Also, wizards
Are we just yelling abilities now? Abundant Step!
OH YEAH AND THE MONK HAS TO MAKE A STANDARD ACTION TO BE RELIABLY HEALED OR CURED OR AFFECTED BY BUFFS OR ANY POSITIVE SPELL WHILE IN COMBAT
Okay? So a monk takes a standard and is healed. A barbarian can't heal at all.
Also, a barbarian (after rage runs out) loses their HP. Because the barb's HP are actual HP, not temporary.
And? So?
They're friggin terrible. There's no excuse for calling them a serious character class. The best thing you can say about them is that the DM typically leaves them alone because there's bigger threats, and thus they don't take damage very often (which is good, because in-combat healing is risky on them).
Actually, a DM can't just leave monks alone, because even if the monk is doing 1-2damage a round (which they would be doing much more but that is besides the point) the bad guys aren't doing 1-2 damage to the monk every round. So, even if the DM kills everyone else, the monk will remain and (eventually) win. Even if we use your idea that monks do almost no damage per round.
Now yes, it is very true that the best 4 man party of PHB classes is probably 2 Wizards, a Cleric, and a Druid. And the best 5 man party probably adds an extra druid, an extra wizard, or a bard (bards can do some unique things). But this isn't because of necessarily flawed design. It's due to flawed balance.
Right, an monks belong in that 5th man slot too. Bards are terrible. They are really bad characters. Are we going to axe them next?
The Barbarian is legitimately a tough, dangerous combatant who deals the most damage of any martial class. It's just bad balancing that a Druid in Wildshape form and their animal companion can outdo that damage with ease.
So, barbarians can "defeat" monks, therefore monks should go away. Yet, druids can defeat barbarians, therefore barbarians should go away? And druids can defeat almost all other classes, therefore all those other classes should go away. You have convinced me GreyICE. Only druids should be classes.
The Rogue is legitimately capable of doing things that no other class can with their skills and being a great secondary striker in combat alongside the frontline classes. It's just bad balancing that the Wizard gets spells that can replicate most of what the Rogue can do.
Okay, and that monk, which has a similar skill list, can't? And the monk isn't unique in what they can do?
I agree on that wizards can replicate other classes thing, let's fix the wizards too. Oh wait, your idea isn't to fix classes it is to cut them. Wizards are too much work so let's just cut them.
It's no exaggeration. Read the Monk entry once, and ask yourself "what did they mean this class to do?" Read it twice, and three times, and ask that question again. You can't answer it. There's no design goals there.
So, all classes need to pass a GreyICE litmus test in order to be a class? I never had a problem seeing what monks did. That is precisely what attracted me to them in the first place. Since playing them I have learned their deficiencies and and worked on correcting them or avoiding those issues when they arising.
We will not be sticking to the 3E vision of the monk because there is no 3E vision of the monk. Just a bunch of bad stereotypes drawn from Kung Fu the Legend Continues.
I assume by 3e you will allow 3.5?
Monk :: d20srd.org
Also, could we not apply the same (bold) argument to almost all other classes? Wizards are just a bunch of bad stereotypes drawn from the tales of Merlin.
Beyond that, how many classes don't even have a real analogous example to point to? Warlocks, sorcerers, bards, druids, paladins? Just to name a few. Why draw the line at monks?