Monk Revisions

[IceBear]

Yeah, that's the reason for the pet peeve. It's one thing to believe that a rule is broken by reading it. Then when people give reasons why it's not and it's been hashed to death, it's just annoying (to me) when the first person doesn't let it drop. At this point he should say, "Ok, let me try this for myself". If he has the same experiences as everyone else he understands where they're coming from. If he has different experiences that lead him to believe he was right, well, that's what these boards are for (and it'll probably turn into a debate about "Oh, you use Rule X from Book Y, that's why you had a different experience" or something like that. Rinse and Repeat ). At least now he has rules and experiences to talk from

IceBear

 

[green slime]

The MAIN problem with the monk is this:

People expect it to kick major league bootie. They've seen the latest Jackie Chan flick, have images of Bruce Lee whopping a**e and think: "That's for me!"

But that just ain't the DnD 3e monk. In DnD 3e there is only one major league always-on butt-kicker: the fighter. IMO this is a Good Thing (tm). In 2e the fighter was sidelined. Nobody played a straight fighter. So comparing to a straight fighter is somewhat misguided, but understandable given people's expectations. The apparent short comings are also magnified by the Combat-Heaviness of the adventures that are available. Adventures focusing more on stealth would enable the Monk to shine but cause the Fighters Union to go on strike.

Secondly, the monk is only somewhat compensated for their lack of BAB by their "Flurry of misses". This can be further off-set by judicial purchasing of equipment, but they will never catch up to the straight fighter.

And to the topic of this thread;

The future of Monks as I see it:

• Greater flexibility in choosing what abilities come into play, similar to OA, but even greater (more) choices.
• Allow Ki Strike to affect Total Attack Bonus (but not BAB).
• Provide more equipment in the DMG magic items from splat books.
• Weapons from OA, such as the reach-chain weapons.

 

[Victim]

And as far as the nit-picking of previous statements... I still say all of those Monk abilities help keep the character alive better than other characters. Can't die from poison, can't die from disease, harder to die from falling, can speak to any creature in the universe, can become ethereal, etc, etc. This just adds more to the list of things that won't accidentally screw up your character.

That's a real nice set of abilities. For the monk. Last time I checked, characters usually work in teams. What does a character whose main ability is not getting hurt add to group?

Not that much. Once you reveal the fact that your monk doesn't do damage with a flurry of misses, his AC isn't that important as smart enemies switch to an easier target that actually hurts them - like the rogue. Many times, I've seen people post that their Monk rocks, because with their saves, movement they were the only character to survive the tough battle and avoid a TPK. When I see that, I always wonder if there would have nearly been a TPK in the first place had the monk instead been a cleric, rogue, etc. Without extreme twinking, a monk will have a hard time contributing in combat. While their out of combat abilities are useful, I wouldn't consider them to be any better than other Moderate attack and HD classes.

Considering the potential abilities of high level characters, I see neither problems with the Monk on paper or in practice. In fact, one of the worst high level characters I've seen was a Monk. An attack series starting at +17 results in lots of misses against 15th level enemies. Remember that when looking at on paper performance, the PHB abilities need to be looked at in the context of DMG wealth and items along with the probable opponents. Before the DMG's release, monks certainly looked overpowered. d20 damage!!! Compared to a fighter's 1d10? But when you consider that, based on the wealth charts, a +5 sword is weaker than usual for a 20th leve fighter, the tendency of a fighter to have a higher strength since they have fewer essential stats, that many monk abilities can be easily replaced by spells or magic items - Fly gives Monk speed and immunity to falling - things look much more even.

 

[Silver Griffon]

The MAIN problem with the monk is this:

People expect it to kick major league bootie. They've seen the latest Jackie Chan flick, have images of Bruce Lee whopping a**e and think: "That's for me!"

But that just ain't the DnD 3e monk. In DnD 3e there is only one major league always-on butt-kicker: the fighter. IMO this is a Good Thing (tm). In 2e the fighter was sidelined. Nobody played a straight fighter. So comparing to a straight fighter is somewhat misguided, but understandable given people's expectations. The apparent short comings are also magnified by the Combat-Heaviness of the adventures that are available. Adventures focusing more on stealth would enable the Monk to shine but cause the Fighters Union to go on strike.

Actually, the rogue is the always-on stealth-master and we shouldn't step on his toes either.
Seriously, you raise a valid point about expectations. But, I don't think the fighter has to be the hands-down best in melee. On the contrary, I think that what sets the fighter aside in 3e is the flexibility of all those bonus feats. Some fighters are not so good in melee but rock in ranged combat, for example. Others excel only from horesback. Still others focus on two-weapon fighting which basically just duplicates the monk's flurry of blows but with a better BAB (with enough feats and light weapon) and more damage. Currently, the monk is a fighter (but not as good) and a rogue (but not as good). Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. After all, there is something to be said for versatility. That's why people multiclass even though it slows down acquisition of high-level abilities. But, the monk currently doesn't "shine" anywhere. That's the real problem. If given more flexibility, the monk can be the best in melee (except for the fighter who puts all his feats in melee), OR the sneakiest guy (except for the rogue who concentrates on hide/move silently) OR as something in between like it is now, but always with a little extra "flavor". 3e is about choices and options. Right now, a monk is a monk is a monk.


Ag_Griffon

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

A "small" digression...

The major design flaw of a monk is they require 4 good attributes to be effective at melee. The net result is that they are very, very weak relative to all comparable classes for levels 1-6 with point buys in the 25-32 range. I am not making this up; I have seen multiple examples of this problem in play.

For comparison, any of the basic 4 classes (fighter, rogue, wiz, cleric), is functional in their role with just two good stats, more good stats is just gravy. Not so for the monk -- if he wants to live.

If you crunch the numbers you will find that a well designed 1st level 25 point Rogue fights in melee better than a 1st 25 point Monk. That seems rather odd considering that the Rogue has 16-20 more skill points and is a deadlier ranged combatant (for the price of lower saves). This gap doesn't really vanish until mid-levels.

In theory having fours melee stats can be turned into an advantage. In practice, that is unlikely to be true until high levels (13+) unless you roll exceptional dice at chracter creation.

High level monks are fine characters. The combination of great mobility and great defenses are valuable both to the PC and the party when many instant doom spells/effect are flying around. Note that I have seen zero evidence that high level monks are overpowered.

The weird thing about monks is that they as "pseudo-spellcaster" melee combatants. What I mean is that their principal contribution to the party is melee fighting while their unique abilites scale as if they were spellcasters. The result is the power progression seems off compared to the other 10 core classes.



What would I suggst to do to fix the monk is decouple the monk from such strong stat dependency. (1) Let monks uses Wis instead of Dex for AC (not a bonus) and increase the monk AC bonus. (2) Let monks use the Wis for determining "to hit" bonus in melee instread of Str (but let Str still affect damage bonuses).

 

[Grog]

They get wicked defenses and very very poor offense.

That's monks in a nutshell. The problem is, in a party-based game, offense is MUCH more important than defense. So the monk is a pretty crappy class, IMO. I wouldn't mind a bit if they powered down a monk's defensive abilities and improved their offense. That might actually make them a worthwhile class.

 

[Mortaneus]

From what I've seen, core-book monks are good for 7 things:

1. Flanking (they're the rogue's best friend)

2. Tying up a big-baddie for a while (as it misses a lot trying to beat on the annoying little squishy thing that WON'T STAND STILL!!!)

3. Putting the smack on spellcasters

4. Scouting

5. Chasing people (ZOOM!...trip attack...)

6. Against touch attacks

7. Dealing with archers ('I'll just stand way back here and shoot at...*WHOOSH* DEAR GOD! *boot to the head* OW OW OW OW!!')


However, other books change this:

If you introduce OA into the mix, they become even worse than spellcasters at crippling the enemy. Those alternate stun feats in there are scary powerful. Whack! You're blinded/paralyzed/nauseated/etc...

At epic levels, once they get infinite deflection, archers are completely hosed. Once they get epic deflection, so are mages. Toss in reflect missiles, and they're invincible at range.

 

[Benben]

Fighter's Greatsword: 2d6 +5
Monk's hand: 1d20 +4

Evilbob your numbers her confuse me. Are we comparing an average monk of 16th or greater level, with a fighter of similar level but without a magical sword? What are the supposed stats?

And just a few notes beyond that:

1) Ki Strike maxes out at +3.

2) Ki Strike does not add to damage. It is just an enhancement bonus to be considered, when damage reduction comes into play.

The monks purpose in the party seems to be to survive long enough to drag corpses to the local temple for ressurrection.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Make more like rogue (only not)

I'm hoping they make the monk progress like the rogue; with a suite of optional abilities that are chosen from. Monks that decline, say, quivering palm can choose Weapon Specialization (unarmed). Maybe a monk without Abundant Step but can Spring Attack.

I like the monk as is, but I understand that it is NOT the main whomper of a party. They are great flankers and the person most skilled at playing "tag" with a critter that the rest of the party doesn't want to deal with for a few rounds. I really don't want the monk to take over "chief ass kicker" role from the fighter but I want it to be able to stand next to one and not be ignored. (Even if it does begin taking more damage)

 

[Christian]

From what I've seen, core-book monks are good for 7 things:

1. Flanking (they're the rogue's best friend)

2. Tying up a big-baddie for a while (as it misses a lot trying to beat on the annoying little squishy thing that WON'T STAND STILL!!!)

3. Putting the smack on spellcasters

4. Scouting

5. Chasing people (ZOOM!...trip attack...)

6. Against touch attacks

7. Dealing with archers ('I'll just stand way back here and shoot at...*WHOOSH* DEAR GOD! *boot to the head* OW OW OW OW!!')

I don't know if those are the only things they're good at, but that pretty much sums up the common situations ... I have fond memories of participating in items 2 through 5. Prior to his tragic death, my monk's party was notorious for never permitting monsters to flee. Once something's beaten down badly enough to want to run, the monk wasn't worried about fighting a couple of rounds on his own while the dwarves & gnome tried to catch up.

And re #6: it still chafes me that he died from a touch attack. Best stinkin' touch AC in the party, but the [unprintable] DM has to go and roll a 20.