Monk Revisions

[Zephalon]

Basically most people here base their opinion on the monk class only on it's impact in combat. And nobody can deny that the monk is a frontline fighter-type. That he isn't as good in melee as a fighter is mostly true, but neither is the paladin nor the ranger.

Monks have a good mix of abilities as stated above. On the other hand:

- their combat prowess is really slow at low levels (low damage, low attack bonus)

- they have low hit points

- they need at least high dex and wis (IMO str is not as important as their base damage increases with levels... whats a +2 if you're rolling a d20)

- they really need to take weapon finesse very early, wasting one feat

- multiclassing is really restricted, even with prestige classes because most of them don't increase the base damage or AC bonus


I think it's a good and balanced class which is rather weak at low levels but has great abilities and roleplaying flexibilities later.

 

[evilbob]

Wow, lots of posts!

First, I think the Monk is pretty obviously a good party player. Several people have cited "doesn't let enemies escape" as an example of this. Plus, the entire point of a Monk seems to be this plethora of misc. abilities unrelated to dealing direct damage. Seems useful to me in a group.

1) Ki Strike maxes out at +3.

Whoops! Totally right. My mistake. But yes, I was using a level 16 Monk there. Would your average Figher have a +5 greatsword by level 16? (This is not a challenge; I am seriously asking this question. Would they?) Another thing to factor in is that every level 16 Monk gets that for sure, whereas a fighter must find/buy his weapon.

Once again, I simply don't buy the "Monks need more stats!" arguments, and I once again counter with the word, "Paladin."

Icebear's admonishments aside, I still think some people are tearing down Monks a bit much. It seems to me that life isn't 100% about dealing direct damage as quickly as possible... Also see: most other character classes. The amazing list of defensive, secondary, and "assist" abilities Monks get so far really seem to balance out - if not supercede - the "can't do as much damage outright each turn as a Fighter" idea. Honestly, if a Monk -could- do as much damage each turn as a Fighter, Fighters would become worthless. Sure, a Fighter "majors" in direct damage against one guy. But a Monk's "minors" add up to more than this one major ability, in my opinion.

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

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

One thing that you keep saying but I don't think you're getting. The Ki Strike ability does not add bonuses to hit or damage it only allows the monk to bypass DR x/+4. Therefore in your example above the Fighter would be doing an average of 11 points of damage a hit where a monk would be doing 10 (I know this is statistically correct, but you get the picture).
Sorry if anyone pointed this out already but I didn't finish the thread yet


Anyways, I'll jump in here on the Monks are wussies bandwagon. I remember when I was making my first 3e char I was playing a human monk thinking about how great this guy would be. Low and behold he sucked wind because he could hit anything since I didn't dump any points into Strength. As others have pointed out monks really need 3 mid/high stats minimum to be worth while in combat.

 

[evilbob]

Zephalon: That's right - I had completely forgotten about Weapon Finesse! Wow... That's a major blow to the "low AR" argument. And to the "need so many stats" idea, although can't somebody think of the Paladins? Won't anyone think of the poor Paladins?

I agree with your other statements, except that I don't know if having lower average hit points is a problem when you can't be hit and spells never work on you. : )

So far the only major convincing arguments to me have been lower total chance to hit, and lower total damage per round on average. The DR thing is still a sticky issue, especially with the upcoming changes, but that's still a consideration. Overall, these issues are important, but there are at least 3 or 4 other things that Monks do better than everyone else for each thing they do not excel in. If 100% of your gaming involves Dungeon Hacks, then OK, your Monk just won't do as much damage per round and that makes him look weaker. If not, however, there's still a TON of things Monks can do.

 

[evilbob]

kigmatzomat: I agree. I hope the New Monk (similar to New Coke, perhaps?) ends up more Rouge-like in their ability to pick feats from a list; that would certainly help vary up Monks and let them have a little more slack when it comes to PrCs.

Baron Von StarBlade: Ack, you're right! Me and my lack of math skills... Still, one point off ain't too shabby. And again, the Monk's 1d20 weapon can never be dropped/stolen/sundered/lost/vaporized by an angry god/etc.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Re: 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)

I think that is a good philosophy. Having a solid core class to compare with let's us gauge power progression at each level.

The design problem with the monk is that the power progression is too peculiar to compare directly with other classes. Analyzing it on papaer is difficult. Only experience will tell, and I have seen plenty of evidence the balance is badly out of whack.

 

[Silver Griffon]

evilbob: Alright already with the paladin! Yes, they also need to have too many high stats to be effective! You win, they suck too.

Let's start another thread for them.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I think it's a good and balanced class which is rather weak at low levels but has great abilities and roleplaying flexibilities later.

Unfortunately, none of the other classes suffer through a long period of uselessness in order to earn the reward of playing an interesting class later in the campaign.

The monk is the only class out of the 11 core classes with this "feature". That is a design flaw.

BTW, it is not just the monk's player that suffers, but the rest of the PC's (and their players) as well. Monks are so pathetically weak that if it were not for metagame considerations, I would rather recruit a 1st level Warrior than a 1st level Monk to join my adventuring party.

 

[the Jester]

I predict a list of feats they can pick from as bonus feats (as was done in OA).

I also predict that they'll get rid of the no-multiclassing rule.

 

[Chun-tzu]

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.