Hong,
Have my babies. Seriously. Logic, honest assesment and not degenerating to name calling, all rare qualities on an internet message board.
Let me address
This statement is really illogical. I could just as easly say "I find it odd that people are still claiming that a monk CAN stand out when numerous people, on a regular bases, say they they cannot!" It really has nothing to do with the truth of the matter. There IS right, there IS wrong. Facts don't change because you wish them to, or because looked at with your right eye closed and a 90' degree angle they appear differene. There's nothing subjective about the power gained when you add up a given class's abilities measured against generic D&D power and adentures. You can wiffle all you want saying "my campaign this" or "played smart that", because those are utterly irrelevant issues to the core of the problem with monks. Utterly. You might as well balance shapechange because "my player, the expert, tricked the mighty wizard into turning into a frost beast when he was in a lava tube".
It has NO BEARING ON EITHER THE ORIGINAL POST OF THIS THREAD **OR** THE DISCUSSION OF POWER OF THE MONK CLASS HEREIN.
We're arguing monk power, you're talking about warm feelings you get. I say 1+1 is 2, you say gee golly the number 3 makes me feel happy, in my personal experience, and i also like 4 omg!
If you can't look at things in a non biased, non subjective context, and argue logically, just don't post. The internet is full of arguments that basically boil down to "I feel this because <insert mushy feeling> countered by but i feel THIS because of my OWN <insert equally irrelevant feelings and experiences> . You might as well argue rain makes people happy because you are a farmer and rain in fact, makes you filled with joy. Its totally irrelant to the overall question of how rain makes people feel, overall (the answer of course is, totally subjective and has no clear-cut answer at all). Do you see what i'm getting at? Now on THIS argument, there IS a clear-cut answer, if you're willing to calmly examine the facts.
The facts of the matter are indesputable, and they are this:
1) D&D is a team based, combat game at its core.
2) Upwards of 80% of experience (thus progression) is based on COMBAT power.
3) The monk has the lowest combat power of any pure melee.
4) The monk has lower combat power than any pure spellcaster, except possibly a bard (and thats very debatable).
5) The monk is a defense based class in an offense based (and favoring) game.
6) The monks much touted "options and versatility" is absolutely NOTHING compared to full spell progression (spells from level 1 to 9). In combat and out. Period.
7) The monk is so weak offensively that its only hope to be effective is to play a largely *defensive* game, attemping to play to its (few) real strengths: See, caster killing, supporting real characters (hey, another body never hurts, but some of us think it should ACTIVELY HELP MORE THAN A SUMMONED MONSTER GIVING A FLANKING BONUS).
8) The monk fails to warn people in advance of its true nature, thus people only realize they suck late in the game, this causes (endless) grief, player-dm houserules, and basically time wasted from enjoying gameplay. This has occured since 3.0
9) In a four person party, often as not you can replace the monk with ANY OTHER CLASS and you will come out stronger. If you don't see this as a flaw in the system, you probably feel shapechange is a balanced spell (see: Don't bother arguing with me over this).
10) The monk looks infinitely better on paper than it plays, so do yourself a favor, and write out a druid's spell list, assuming average wisdom, from level's 1-20. Paste that page of paper over the druids spell progression, next to his other abilities. Now look at the monk, preferably while seated.
11) Understand that due to variable and highly campaign dependent circumstances, a basket-weaving expert may in fact be highestly desirable and powerful. THIS DOES NOT MAK A BASKET WEAVER A BALANCED CHARACTER. The core monk, in a standard, core game, is pathetic in combat and lackluster outside. He's outshined and outdone by every character in the game, he has no nitche that another can't OUTPERFORM HIM IN, he's a mistake born of the Matrix and Kung-Fu Legends. He adds no flavor to a western based game, in short, he's a total and utter FAILURE.
Now, what you need to keep in mind, before you reply to this is:
I play little other than monks. Since 3.0 In our (nearing epic) campaign, I'm playing a monk. I love the idea behind the class, the unarmed, self sufficient wise fighter with neat powers. With enough help from an understanding DM, anything can be made playable and fixed: That means
.
3.5 made us repay for half of what were essentially patches to the rules. I have no problem with this. I do, however, have a problem with them making flurry slightly better, and calling the monk quits.
To be fair, part of the problem is not the monk: It's every single warrior class.
Every single advantage the pure warriors had from second ed was removed in third, intentionally. Unlimited constitution based hitpoint gain? Even mages get this now. Fighter BAB at 20 used to be more than three times as good as the cleric. Fighter saves used to be THE BEST IN THE ENTIRE GAME. A base fighter. They changed the power of every melee in the game, fundamentally, and the sad part is people argue the monk is balanced. I dare say, the BARBARIAN isn't balanced, and the monk can't hold a candle to him.
Take a look at the iconic D&D party, as an example of this: Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Fighter. Guess who's by FAR the most dispensible? Thats right, the fighter. Hell, you could replace him with a Cleric, Barbarian, Druid, hell just about any class (except an average monk or bard) is gonna do here folks.
Honestly ask yourself, if you had to lose 1 party members skills/abilities (FOREVER) out of the Cleric / Rogue / Wizard / Fighter party, who would it be? The fighter of course, because every other class in the game can fight, but the cleric, rogue, and wizard all have things unique to them. Stinks, doesn't it? Sorry for the rant, sore subject for me after 4 years of this melee-biased crap
Have my babies. Seriously. Logic, honest assesment and not degenerating to name calling, all rare qualities on an internet message board.
Let me address
This statement is really illogical. I could just as easly say "I find it odd that people are still claiming that a monk CAN stand out when numerous people, on a regular bases, say they they cannot!" It really has nothing to do with the truth of the matter. There IS right, there IS wrong. Facts don't change because you wish them to, or because looked at with your right eye closed and a 90' degree angle they appear differene. There's nothing subjective about the power gained when you add up a given class's abilities measured against generic D&D power and adentures. You can wiffle all you want saying "my campaign this" or "played smart that", because those are utterly irrelevant issues to the core of the problem with monks. Utterly. You might as well balance shapechange because "my player, the expert, tricked the mighty wizard into turning into a frost beast when he was in a lava tube".
It has NO BEARING ON EITHER THE ORIGINAL POST OF THIS THREAD **OR** THE DISCUSSION OF POWER OF THE MONK CLASS HEREIN.
We're arguing monk power, you're talking about warm feelings you get. I say 1+1 is 2, you say gee golly the number 3 makes me feel happy, in my personal experience, and i also like 4 omg!
If you can't look at things in a non biased, non subjective context, and argue logically, just don't post. The internet is full of arguments that basically boil down to "I feel this because <insert mushy feeling> countered by but i feel THIS because of my OWN <insert equally irrelevant feelings and experiences> . You might as well argue rain makes people happy because you are a farmer and rain in fact, makes you filled with joy. Its totally irrelant to the overall question of how rain makes people feel, overall (the answer of course is, totally subjective and has no clear-cut answer at all). Do you see what i'm getting at? Now on THIS argument, there IS a clear-cut answer, if you're willing to calmly examine the facts.
The facts of the matter are indesputable, and they are this:
1) D&D is a team based, combat game at its core.
2) Upwards of 80% of experience (thus progression) is based on COMBAT power.
3) The monk has the lowest combat power of any pure melee.
4) The monk has lower combat power than any pure spellcaster, except possibly a bard (and thats very debatable).
5) The monk is a defense based class in an offense based (and favoring) game.
6) The monks much touted "options and versatility" is absolutely NOTHING compared to full spell progression (spells from level 1 to 9). In combat and out. Period.
7) The monk is so weak offensively that its only hope to be effective is to play a largely *defensive* game, attemping to play to its (few) real strengths: See, caster killing, supporting real characters (hey, another body never hurts, but some of us think it should ACTIVELY HELP MORE THAN A SUMMONED MONSTER GIVING A FLANKING BONUS).
8) The monk fails to warn people in advance of its true nature, thus people only realize they suck late in the game, this causes (endless) grief, player-dm houserules, and basically time wasted from enjoying gameplay. This has occured since 3.0
9) In a four person party, often as not you can replace the monk with ANY OTHER CLASS and you will come out stronger. If you don't see this as a flaw in the system, you probably feel shapechange is a balanced spell (see: Don't bother arguing with me over this).
10) The monk looks infinitely better on paper than it plays, so do yourself a favor, and write out a druid's spell list, assuming average wisdom, from level's 1-20. Paste that page of paper over the druids spell progression, next to his other abilities. Now look at the monk, preferably while seated.
11) Understand that due to variable and highly campaign dependent circumstances, a basket-weaving expert may in fact be highestly desirable and powerful. THIS DOES NOT MAK A BASKET WEAVER A BALANCED CHARACTER. The core monk, in a standard, core game, is pathetic in combat and lackluster outside. He's outshined and outdone by every character in the game, he has no nitche that another can't OUTPERFORM HIM IN, he's a mistake born of the Matrix and Kung-Fu Legends. He adds no flavor to a western based game, in short, he's a total and utter FAILURE.
Now, what you need to keep in mind, before you reply to this is:
I play little other than monks. Since 3.0 In our (nearing epic) campaign, I'm playing a monk. I love the idea behind the class, the unarmed, self sufficient wise fighter with neat powers. With enough help from an understanding DM, anything can be made playable and fixed: That means
.3.5 made us repay for half of what were essentially patches to the rules. I have no problem with this. I do, however, have a problem with them making flurry slightly better, and calling the monk quits.
To be fair, part of the problem is not the monk: It's every single warrior class.
Every single advantage the pure warriors had from second ed was removed in third, intentionally. Unlimited constitution based hitpoint gain? Even mages get this now. Fighter BAB at 20 used to be more than three times as good as the cleric. Fighter saves used to be THE BEST IN THE ENTIRE GAME. A base fighter. They changed the power of every melee in the game, fundamentally, and the sad part is people argue the monk is balanced. I dare say, the BARBARIAN isn't balanced, and the monk can't hold a candle to him.
Take a look at the iconic D&D party, as an example of this: Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Fighter. Guess who's by FAR the most dispensible? Thats right, the fighter. Hell, you could replace him with a Cleric, Barbarian, Druid, hell just about any class (except an average monk or bard) is gonna do here folks.
Honestly ask yourself, if you had to lose 1 party members skills/abilities (FOREVER) out of the Cleric / Rogue / Wizard / Fighter party, who would it be? The fighter of course, because every other class in the game can fight, but the cleric, rogue, and wizard all have things unique to them. Stinks, doesn't it? Sorry for the rant, sore subject for me after 4 years of this melee-biased crap
Last edited:
