Monk Revisions

[evilbob]

Silver Griffon: Thank you! : ) Actually, I only keep bringing that up because a friend of mine always plays Paladins, so I'm better aware of the strengths and woes of that class.

Chun-tzu: Paladins need:
High Wis, Cha, Str, and Dex. Also, unless you're of the opinion that skills are for wimps and commies, a moderate Int is nice. And, if you plan on not dying, moderate Con is also good.

Monks need Dex and Wis. Int and Con are the same, but Str isn't as important if you take Weapon Finesse. Cha doesn't matter very much. Monks come out on top. Even -with- good Str, Monks edge out Paladins, stat-reliance-wise.

Ridley's Cohort: What is this "long period of uselessness?" The fact that Monks do less total damage on average per enemy on a round per round basis is one thing, but I just don't understand "useless." Someone already said that Monks are great at bringing back everyone else's corpse when the fight's over... Maybe it's just playing style, but "can't die" wins out over "more damage" in my mind every time.

Oh, and I forgot about another one of the Monk's abilities - DR of 20/+1. That's gotta be nice. : )

 

[Chun-tzu]

Paladins need:
High Wis, Cha, Str, and Dex. Also, unless you're of the opinion that skills are for wimps and commies, a moderate Int is nice. And, if you plan on not dying, moderate Con is also good.

Monks need Dex and Wis. Int and Con are the same, but Str isn't as important if you take Weapon Finesse. Cha doesn't matter very much. Monks come out on top. Even -with- good Str, Monks edge out Paladins, stat-reliance-wise.

Paladins don't need a Wis higher than 14; any higher will give a bonus spell or 2, and better skill checks for Heal and Profession. I don't see why any Paladin would bother. (And I wouldn't consider 14 a high score.)

Most Paladins are heavy-armor types, and would probably take Full Plate Armor at the first opportunity. This allows a maximum Dex bonus to AC of +1. Again, they gain little from a good Dex.

A Paladin doesn't need a good Dex any more than a Fighter would (and many Fighters would need it more than a Paladin). Nor does he need a good Con score any more than any frontline character (including Clerics and Monks).

Monks need high Strength (just as much, or more, than the Paladin), Dex and Wis (since their powers are fuled by these 2). Weapon Finesse doesn't cut it, because of the Monk's poor damage output. Con is more essential to the Monk than the Paladin, because of their lower Hit Dice and their inability to rely on armor.

I'd still say the Paladin only _needs_ a high Strength and Charisma, and medium Wisdom. You can build a kick-ass Paladin with those attributes. A Monk needs more, IMHO.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

How is the Paladin as stat dependent as the Monk?

A Paladin needs high Strength and Charisma, and medium Wisdom. Dex and Con aren't critical, given his good hit points and likely reliance on heavy armor. Int is the standard Paladin dump stat.

Monks need high Str, Dex, and Wis, and arguably, at least medium Con.

Seems to me there's a huge difference between needing 3 good stats and needing 4 good stats.

It is certainly true that the Paladin is not as stat dependent as the Monk, but you overestimate the difference.

The Paladin needs a good Con at least as much as the Monk because his limited mobility in heavy armor prevents him from fleeing easily. He has to be able to stand his ground.

So the Paladin needs a good Cha, Str, and Con. He is kind of hosed if his Dex is not 10-12. His Wis needs to be ~12 or he is screwed for spells.

Int is his only dump stat. Unless you are in a very generous point buy, that puts him in a similar boat to the Monk, who has only Cha as a dump stat.

In a pinch, the number of dump stats is as important as the number of "must have" stats -- it is the other side of the same coin. Monks and Paladins have only one dump stat. Fighters, Clerics, Wizards, and Rogues all have two dump stats. The other classes have more mixed and diverse abilities -- they effectively have two dump stats once they choose their focus.

 

[Victim]

Most CR 15-20 through monsters will be able to ignore your DR 20/+1. It helps you against enemies you should be able to take care of anway.

Actually, Paladins don't really Dex. As a Plate class, they can get by with a low dex. All you need to max out Full Plate is a 12 dex. Wisdom is nowhere as important to a paladin as to a monk. A 14 Wis gives you all your paladin spells, while monks need as high of a wis as they can afford. Because of a paladin's small skill list, a high Int doesn't help that much, while Monks have lots of useful skills. Without STR, a monk does much less damage. Essentially, there's a maximum value to the level of stats that most classes can benefit from, while monks have no such maxima. With incredible stats, this part of the monk class is a tremendous boon, but at lower stat levels, a monk has problems.

"Can't die" is nice, but in a group it just means that other people die instead of you. Like I said, if those groups had a more useful character than a monk, then perhaps then would have been no need to drag bodies. An immobile, Adamantine statue is really tough too, but that doesn't mean it can contribute.

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

Oh, and I forgot about another one of the Monk's abilities - DR of 20/+1. That's gotta be nice. : )

Yeah if you are fighting a horde of goblins, but at 20th Levels it is practically useless since almost every creature will be able to bypass is. Also you left out the wonderful downside. Any divice/arcane spellcaster can become immune to you by casting a 1st level spell.

Monks need Dex and Wis. Int and Con are the same, but Str isn't as important if you take Weapon Finesse. Cha doesn't matter very much. Monks come out on top. Even -with- good Str, Monks edge out Paladins, stat-reliance-wise.

Monks need Strength not to hit but for damage. Monks have very few items that will boost damage, where a fighter in comparision can easily do 20 points of damage a hit and more than likely hit more often (since they have magical enhancement to hit).
Again as everyone keeps pointing out monks look awesome on paper, but once you play them you realize that they are pretty weak compared to other classes.

 

[evilbob]

I don't know if I completely agree on the difference between a Paladin stats and a Monks; for one thing, a Paladin really needs to have at least a 10 or 12 or so in Int, whereas a Monk can have an 8 or 6 in Cha and still be effective. Someone could do a point-by-point analysis, but the back of the envelope calculations in my mind still put the Paladin at the back of the pack.

I knew the 20/+1 thing would generate tons of "well, everthing has +morethan1 at that level," but it's still a useful ability. However, that's another thing I bet they change about the class... Maybe a 5/+1, 10/+1, 15/+2 sort of progression instead of the whole wad all at 20th level.

Again, several people keep saying Monks are "weak." I still think this comparison is unfair, because it seems that the only way it is possible to come to this conclusion is by looking at direct average damage *only.* (It's similar to another thread I've read about people saying that without the old Haste, Wizards are worthless. Well, no, they just don't have the same opportunity to deal as much direct damage as before. They still destroy everything, just like Fighters.) Monks are apparently all about things that are not direct damage (including Never Dying), and it's still my opinion that these benefits more than outweigh the negatives.

 

[evilbob]

"Can't die" is nice, but in a group it just means that other people die instead of you.

Actually, someone else already pointed out that it -is- a usefull party ability, as the Monk can tie up a potentially deadly (to everyone else) baddie while others do their things.

An immobile, Adamantine statue is really tough too, but that doesn't mean it can contribute.

This is my favorite quote so far of the entire thread. : ) (I think it's a logical fallacy, but it's a great line.)

 

[IceBear]

I don't know if I completely agree on the difference between a Paladin stats and a Monks; for one thing, a Paladin really needs to have at least a 10 or 12 or so in Int, whereas a Monk can have an 8 or 6 in Cha and still be effective. Someone could do a point-by-point analysis, but the back of the envelope calculations in my mind still put the Paladin at the back of the pack.

I knew the 20/+1 thing would generate tons of "well, everthing has +morethan1 at that level," but it's still a useful ability. However, that's another thing I bet they change about the class... Maybe a 5/+1, 10/+1, 15/+2 sort of progression instead of the whole wad all at 20th level.

Again, several people keep saying Monks are "weak." I still think this comparison is unfair, because it seems that the only way it is possible to come to this conclusion is by looking at direct average damage *only.* (It's similar to another thread I've read about people saying that without the old Haste, Wizards are worthless. Well, no, they just don't have the same opportunity to deal as much direct damage as before. They still destroy everything, just like Fighters.) Monks are apparently all about things that are not direct damage (including Never Dying), and it's still my opinion that these benefits more than outweigh the negatives.

But Bob, the reason that we said it was weak was because you postulated that the monk was TOO powerful. Thus we focused on where the monk was weak - offensive combat - to show you that the monk wasn't unbalanced. I personally think the monk is an interesting character to play, but a party that depended on a monk to be the primary fighter would be in trouble. You can't have it both ways - you either think the monk is too powerful or not

BTW - some people point out that when the monk gets the 20/+1, he becomes an outsider and thus a Protection from Evil spell would keep him from touching you. I'm not sure about that, but that's how some people feel.

IceBear

 

[Victim]

Actually, someone else already pointed out that it -is- a usefull party ability, as the Monk can tie up a potentially deadly (to everyone else) baddie while others do their things.



This is my favorite quote so far of the entire thread. : ) (I think it's a logical fallacy, but it's a great line.)

I think a Monk diversion to hold up a powerful foe only works if the foe is going to keep attacking. If a bunch of other targets are running around, I'd think that many enemies would switch from a target that wasn't doing much against them and that they couldn't hurt easily to an easier target that is attacking one of the lackies. Maybe that's just me.

But a Monk can be a great diversion. They have perform as a class skill. Max that out, then pick performance types like satire, mockery, witty insults, etc. Then the monk runs around and taunts enemies with great skill to draw their fire.

The statue remark is meant to somewhat ridiculous. Still, IMHO, relative invulernability is useful as a platform to launch other actions with impunity, and thus has value in combination with other abilities, but not inherently. In a solo game, it's bit different since you can use attrition even if it takes forever to defeat something.

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

BTW - some people point out that when the monk gets the 20/+1, he becomes an outsider and thus a Protection from Evil spell would keep him from touching you. I'm not sure about that, but that's how some people feel.

That would be the case (at least with protection from law). The caster would still have to bypass the monk's SR but at that level it would be pretty easy.