Monk Revisions
- Thread starter Xeoble
- Start date
evilbob
Adventurer
As someone who has never played a Monk, I have a question addressed to all those who in this thread who have played Monks and do not believe them to be too powerful. I have to admit that at least from reading the core character descriptions, Monks seem to me to be pretty unbalanced, and at least on paper, far outstripping the other classes. What kinds of reasons have people found for arguing that Monks are -not- actually too powerful already?
Please understand that I'm not looking to offend anyone; I am genuinely interested in hearing all arguments against the idea that Monks are broken.
Someone has already mentioned the lack of a +1 damage potential until the 10th level... But it seems to me that a Monk could simply carry around a +1 or +2 handaxe or dagger or something, incase it is necessary. Also, I'd say that the Monk's receiving of a permanent +1, +2, etc. to their "weapon" that can never, ever be stolen or dropped or taken from them (well, unless their limbs were chopped off, but then they've got bigger problems) more than balances this out.
Tons of AC that also can never be lost, immunity to everything, the ability to become ethereal several times a day, supernatural attacks that cause death instantly, the ability to jump for miles... All this really adds up, in my opinion. And I'm also interested in what the official 3.5e will do to them.
Any other reasons?
Please understand that I'm not looking to offend anyone; I am genuinely interested in hearing all arguments against the idea that Monks are broken.
Someone has already mentioned the lack of a +1 damage potential until the 10th level... But it seems to me that a Monk could simply carry around a +1 or +2 handaxe or dagger or something, incase it is necessary. Also, I'd say that the Monk's receiving of a permanent +1, +2, etc. to their "weapon" that can never, ever be stolen or dropped or taken from them (well, unless their limbs were chopped off, but then they've got bigger problems) more than balances this out.
Tons of AC that also can never be lost, immunity to everything, the ability to become ethereal several times a day, supernatural attacks that cause death instantly, the ability to jump for miles... All this really adds up, in my opinion. And I'm also interested in what the official 3.5e will do to them.
Any other reasons?
IceBear
Explorer
I dunno. I've never played one but I had one in a campaign I was running. He was pretty mediocre - the guy played the ranger (I couldn't believe it 
) was consistently outshining him in combat. I would like to note, however, that we never played beyond 10th level so perhaps some of the unbalances we just hadn't reached yet.
If the monk switches to a +1 handaxe or something, then he loses his favorable unarmed attack bonuses. Also, there are some creatures (like oozes) that hitting with your bare hands will hurt you.
The only time I REALLY saw monks as unbalanced was in NWN and that's because of the ton of non-Core magic items specifically for monks in the game.
BTW - I'm actually a believe in the monk "curse"
I swear, in every session there was at least one critical roll that the monk player always missed. The most infamous was his death. He wanted to jump across a VERY deep chasm. He had to roll anything but a 1. He rolled a 1. Then, feeling merciful, I let him make a Reflex Save to grab on to something. Again, anything but a 1 saves him, and he rolls a 1
I don't think there was one Stunning Fist attempt that actually stunned anything either Cursed I say! Cursed!
IceBear
) was consistently outshining him in combat. I would like to note, however, that we never played beyond 10th level so perhaps some of the unbalances we just hadn't reached yet.If the monk switches to a +1 handaxe or something, then he loses his favorable unarmed attack bonuses. Also, there are some creatures (like oozes) that hitting with your bare hands will hurt you.
The only time I REALLY saw monks as unbalanced was in NWN and that's because of the ton of non-Core magic items specifically for monks in the game.
BTW - I'm actually a believe in the monk "curse"
I swear, in every session there was at least one critical roll that the monk player always missed. The most infamous was his death. He wanted to jump across a VERY deep chasm. He had to roll anything but a 1. He rolled a 1. Then, feeling merciful, I let him make a Reflex Save to grab on to something. Again, anything but a 1 saves him, and he rolls a 1 I don't think there was one Stunning Fist attempt that actually stunned anything either
Cursed I say! Cursed! IceBear
Last edited:
Xeoble
First Post
I currently play a monk and he's doing ok, but its hard to hit things as a melee character with an average attack bonus and our mage always seems to get most of the kills even at 6th level. The only reason i'm occasionally effective is that i use a poison bite attack from the homebrew race that i'm playing. I fear the time when i have to try to hit something with DR, its just not going to hurt the thing at all since i don't have the kind of money to afford bracers of striking.
Yes, Monks are not nearly as powerful as they may look on paper. I played one to 6th level in my current game (lost him to some incredibly good die rolls from the DM for a Death domain Cleric's special power attack). He certainly had strengths and weaknesses, but overall it balanced out.
Using a weapon is always going to be a backup, as it's always at a major damage disadvantage to the unarmed combat ability, which is what makes the monk effective in combat. Sure, he can't generally lose his natural AC bonuses, but those frankly don't add up to much. His special powers aren't often called upon in normal play.
Sure, there are times that the monk's abilities really shine. But more often, you're scrambling to find a way to use his abilities effectively and not get instantaneously splattered. Also, you really need unusually high ability scores to stay in the power race with this class. (I rolled three 16's in chargen, which was what made me think of running a monk in the first place ...) On the power scale, they are probably very slightly underpowered, IME. At the lower levels, anyway-as I said, he bit the dust at 6th. (And the party couldn't afford a Ressurrection spell-Raise Dead doesn't work on characters slain by Death effects.
) Similar to a Paladin, probably more effective in general than a Ranger or a Bard, but certainly less than a Cleric, Wizard, or Fighter.
Using a weapon is always going to be a backup, as it's always at a major damage disadvantage to the unarmed combat ability, which is what makes the monk effective in combat. Sure, he can't generally lose his natural AC bonuses, but those frankly don't add up to much. His special powers aren't often called upon in normal play.
Sure, there are times that the monk's abilities really shine. But more often, you're scrambling to find a way to use his abilities effectively and not get instantaneously splattered. Also, you really need unusually high ability scores to stay in the power race with this class. (I rolled three 16's in chargen, which was what made me think of running a monk in the first place ...) On the power scale, they are probably very slightly underpowered, IME. At the lower levels, anyway-as I said, he bit the dust at 6th. (And the party couldn't afford a Ressurrection spell-Raise Dead doesn't work on characters slain by Death effects.
) Similar to a Paladin, probably more effective in general than a Ranger or a Bard, but certainly less than a Cleric, Wizard, or Fighter.
Mortaneus
First Post
evilbob said:
As a Monk player of mine once quipped 'Monks are reallly fast! They miss faster than any other class!'
He was right. Monks, even at high levels, while getting insane numbers of attacks, usually have a lousy attack total. The real balancing factor for monks is their stats. If you have a monk with unholy stats (multi 18s), then yes, they're a monster. If, however, they're more reasonable, they're spread WAY too thin to be effective.
Monks require FOUR primary stats to really be able to hold their own. STR, DEX, CON, and WIS. You probably want a decent INT too so you'll have enough skill points that Hide, MS, Tumble, and Jump won't be your only skills.
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
Most of those monk abilities are "tric" abilities.
Let me explain: the only useful monk abilities are (IMO) speed, stunning blow, SR, and saving throws. Against spellcasters they kick ass! Against anything else they suck.
They get wicked defenses and very very poor offense.
Ki Strike: even if you got Ki Strike +5 at 1st-level, it doesn't help much. Your fighter's +1 weapon (from the wizard's Magic Weapon spell) gives him an actual +1 bonus to attack rolls! The difference is about +5 at 20th-level unless your party has a druid.
There should not be an unwritten rule saying don't bother playing a monk unless you have a druid in your party.
Lots of creatures have DR, and hitting them with a weapon that does 1d6+1 damage doesn't cut it. A monk probably won't have a high Strength score, they certainly won't have Weapon Specialization, etc etc. In other words, they will still miss, and (unlike the unarmed strike) won't do any serious damage.
(Flurry of Blows = Flurry of Misses, aka the Monk Lottery.)
The only class that I've seen that regularly enters melee with a d6 weapon is the rogue, and that's because they get sneak attack. Can you stun with a kama? No, I didn't think so.
Long story: the fighter is better at successful attack rolls per round, he is better at dealing damage, he is better at, well, anything except resisting Hold Monster
It really depends. If your PCs like being strapped naked to a table in a dungeon because it "builds character" then yes, the monk is a cool class.
Immunity to poison is nice. The others are kind of useless. Even Wholeness of Body hardly does anything, and slow fall is just ... bleah. Improved Trip doesn't work either - you use your Strength, and your opponent gets to pick whether they use their Strength or their Dex. When you can't even trip a wizard you know you have a useless class ability.
There are lots of other classes that you can do that with. More importantly, monks have very good stealth skills as it is.
Once a week...
Which is useless because you can't see for miles...
Anyway, maybe I'm just dismissing the above comments, but I see very little in the way of offense from the monk. I wouldn't mind if they toned down their defense somewhat to give them the ability to do something useful in combat.
Let me explain: the only useful monk abilities are (IMO) speed, stunning blow, SR, and saving throws. Against spellcasters they kick ass! Against anything else they suck.
They get wicked defenses and very very poor offense.
Ki Strike: even if you got Ki Strike +5 at 1st-level, it doesn't help much. Your fighter's +1 weapon (from the wizard's Magic Weapon spell) gives him an actual +1 bonus to attack rolls! The difference is about +5 at 20th-level unless your party has a druid.
There should not be an unwritten rule saying don't bother playing a monk unless you have a druid in your party.
Lots of creatures have DR, and hitting them with a weapon that does 1d6+1 damage doesn't cut it. A monk probably won't have a high Strength score, they certainly won't have Weapon Specialization, etc etc. In other words, they will still miss, and (unlike the unarmed strike) won't do any serious damage.
(Flurry of Blows = Flurry of Misses, aka the Monk Lottery.)
The only class that I've seen that regularly enters melee with a d6 weapon is the rogue, and that's because they get sneak attack. Can you stun with a kama? No, I didn't think so.
Long story: the fighter is better at successful attack rolls per round, he is better at dealing damage, he is better at, well, anything except resisting Hold Monster
It really depends. If your PCs like being strapped naked to a table in a dungeon because it "builds character" then yes, the monk is a cool class.
Immunity to poison is nice. The others are kind of useless. Even Wholeness of Body hardly does anything, and slow fall is just ... bleah. Improved Trip doesn't work either - you use your Strength, and your opponent gets to pick whether they use their Strength or their Dex. When you can't even trip a wizard you know you have a useless class ability.
There are lots of other classes that you can do that with. More importantly, monks have very good stealth skills as it is.
Once a week...
Which is useless because you can't see for miles...
Anyway, maybe I'm just dismissing the above comments, but I see very little in the way of offense from the monk. I wouldn't mind if they toned down their defense somewhat to give them the ability to do something useful in combat.
evilbob
Adventurer
As far as the "spread out your stats" thing goes, I look no further for a counterexample than the Paladin. : ) Poor guy. He needs *everything.*
Using a regular weapon -is- a poor backup method... But that's why it's the backup method, and unless your DM is the type to send oodles of foes specifically balanced against your character, I have a hard time believing someone with a "cannot be dropped/lost/stolen/sundered" natural 1d20 +3 weapon has a hard time doing damage in battle.
All characters aren't that powerful to begin with... (Look at the Wizard, for example.) I guess to clairify, I am asking about significantly advanced (above level 10) Monks, just so I can hear from someone who's really spent some time with the character. And it's really the mid-game you spend the most time in, anyway.
So far, the only arguement that really seems to carry any weight is the low AR bonus... But, as it was pointed out, the Monk gets tons of attacks per round, which sort of makes up for low AR (also see: Two Weapon Fighting). And Weapon Focus works for unarmed combat, too... And I think we could all agree that raising the AR for a Monk would pretty much make him a demigod, anyway.
Still not convinced... : )
(By the way, I don't mean to take over this thread... I'm sure there are probably hundreds of threads in this very forum already hashing out the advantages and disadvantages of Monks. If anyone can point out a few of them for me - since I can't search - I'd be grateful.)
Using a regular weapon -is- a poor backup method... But that's why it's the backup method, and unless your DM is the type to send oodles of foes specifically balanced against your character, I have a hard time believing someone with a "cannot be dropped/lost/stolen/sundered" natural 1d20 +3 weapon has a hard time doing damage in battle.
All characters aren't that powerful to begin with... (Look at the Wizard, for example.) I guess to clairify, I am asking about significantly advanced (above level 10) Monks, just so I can hear from someone who's really spent some time with the character. And it's really the mid-game you spend the most time in, anyway.
So far, the only arguement that really seems to carry any weight is the low AR bonus... But, as it was pointed out, the Monk gets tons of attacks per round, which sort of makes up for low AR (also see: Two Weapon Fighting). And Weapon Focus works for unarmed combat, too... And I think we could all agree that raising the AR for a Monk would pretty much make him a demigod, anyway.
Still not convinced... : )
(By the way, I don't mean to take over this thread... I'm sure there are probably hundreds of threads in this very forum already hashing out the advantages and disadvantages of Monks. If anyone can point out a few of them for me - since I can't search - I'd be grateful.)
