Monk - what do you like and dislike?

[Klaus]

But that doesn't make up for their low BAB.


About the flavor: I guess the main problem is that you're stuck with a ki wielding martial artist. The system should give more choices.

Oh, but it does.

The Fighter, at 20th level, is making one attack at +5 more than the Monk, one attack at the Monk's top rate, and two attacks below it. The Monk on the other hand, doesn't get the higher attack, but attacks *three times* at the Fighter's secondary bonus, and again at the lower attacks. So you're trading one attack at +20 for two extra attacks at +15. Not a bad deal, from my point of view.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Oh, but it does.

The Fighter, at 20th level, is making one attack at +5 more than the Monk, one attack at the Monk's top rate, and two attacks below it. The Monk on the other hand, doesn't get the higher attack, but attacks *three times* at the Fighter's secondary bonus, and again at the lower attacks. So you're trading one attack at +20 for two extra attacks at +15. Not a bad deal, from my point of view.

It's a very bad deal, from my PoV. I'd rather have some consistency in hitting things.

 

[Mad Mac]

Flurry of Blows wouldn't be bad...if the average monk had a reasonably good attack bonus to begin with. Just going off BaB is misleading, as monks often have difficulty pumping their enchanment bonus or St/Dx bonus as high as other classes.

That said, I think the "Monks never hit anything" crowd is going a bit over the top as well. Honestly, if enchanting fists wasn't such a pain in the tukus, I don't think there would be any serious issues with their fighting skills. My experience with playing monks is that they tend to have to overinvest in resources that up their attack bonus, making them weaker overall.

 

[CF]

Flurry of Blows wouldn't be bad...if the average monk had a reasonably good attack bonus to begin with. Just going off BaB is misleading, as monks often have difficulty pumping their enchanment bonus or St/Dx bonus as high as other classes.

That said, I think the "Monks never hit anything" crowd is going a bit over the top as well. Honestly, if enchanting fists wasn't such a pain in the tukus, I don't think there would be any serious issues with their fighting skills. My experience with playing monks is that they tend to have to overinvest in resources that up their attack bonus, making them weaker overall.

I blame MAD (not Mad Mac, I mean Multiple Ability Dependency) on this.

 

[FireLance]

It's a very bad deal, from my PoV. I'd rather have some consistency in hitting things.

It's actually not that bad, if you do the math.

Let's say a 20th-level monk has the following:

1. Strength 20 (starting Strength 14 and +6 girdle of giant strength)
2. Weapon Focus (unarmed strike)
3. +5 enhancement bonus from +5 amulet of mighty fists

His full attack with flurry of blows is +26/+26/+26/+21/+16

Let's say a 20th-level fighter has the following:

1. Strength 26 (starting Strength 16, 4 ability increases and +6 girdle of giant strength)
2. Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus
4. +5 weapon

His full attack is +35/+30/+25/+20

Against an opponent with AC 40 (like a pit fiend) the monk hits an average of 1.2 times per round, while the fighter hits an average of 1.7 times per round.

Against an opponent with AC 35 (like a balor or the Tarrasque) the monk hits an average of 2.2 times per round while the fighter hits an average of 2.6 times per round.

Against the AC 40 opponent, the monk hits about 70% as often as the fighter. Against the AC 35 opponent, the monk hits about 85% as often as the fighter.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

It's actually not that bad, if you do the math.

People used math to prove the new Power Attack is balanced ... yet it still causes problems in campaign. Monk players think they have a cool class, then get frustrated when they can't do anything, even if the math supports them.

Let's say a 20th-level monk has the following:

1. Strength 20 (starting Strength 14 and +6 girdle of giant strength)
2. Weapon Focus (unarmed strike)
3. +5 enhancement bonus from +5 amulet of mighty fists

His full attack with flurry of blows is +26/+26/+26/+21/+16

Let's say a 20th-level fighter has the following:

1. Strength 26 (starting Strength 16, 4 ability increases and +6 girdle of giant strength)
2. Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus
4. +5 weapon

His full attack is +35/+30/+25/+20

Against an opponent with AC 40 (like a pit fiend) the monk hits an average of 1.2 times per round, while the fighter hits an average of 1.7 times per round.

Against an opponent with AC 35 (like a balor or the Tarrasque) the monk hits an average of 2.2 times per round while the fighter hits an average of 2.6 times per round.

Against the AC 40 opponent, the monk hits about 70% as often as the fighter. Against the AC 35 opponent, the monk hits about 85% as often as the fighter.

That is a difference of nine points on the highest attack bonus (and the monk was forced to take Weapon Focus), and last time I checked, neither monks nor fighters can get a guaranteed full round attack every round. The monk doesn't get the rogue's reward for actually hitting - and a rogue will probably have a higher attack bonus (cheaper enhanced weapons, for starters).

 

[FireLance]

People used math to prove the new Power Attack is balanced ... yet it still causes problems in campaign. Monk players think they have a cool class, then get frustrated when they can't do anything, even if the math supports them.

That is a difference of nine points on the highest attack bonus (and the monk was forced to take Weapon Focus), and last time I checked, neither monks nor fighters can get a guaranteed full round attack every round. The monk doesn't get the rogue's reward for actually hitting - and a rogue will probably have a higher attack bonus (cheaper enhanced weapons, for starters).

Of course the results change if the assumptions change. But the math shows you what is causing the problem, and hopefully, how to fix it.

I picked AC 35 and AC 40 because these were the typical ACs of fairly iconic CR 20 monsters. Within this range of ACs, the monk does not fare too badly against the fighter when he gets to make a full attack and do a flurry of blows (and if the monk never gets to use his flurry of blows, it's about as bad as a rogue never getting to use his sneak attack).

The problem happens when the DM decides to tweak his challenges and presents the party with ACs of 45 and up, especially during the BBEG fights. This disadvantages the monk more than the fighter, and so the player feels he's got a useless character.

The monk's weakness is not as obvious as that of other character types, and may get inadventently exploited by a DM who thinks that the best way to make a fight challenging is to ensure that the best fighter (or the raging barbarian) misses the opponent 50% of the time with his best attack. That leaves paladins and rangers missing the opponent about 25% of the time with their best attacks, and everyone else hoping for a natural 20.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

So now the problem is too high AC? I rarely see monsters with challenging ACs. We should use lower level PCs (eg 10th and 15th) - there are so few CR 20 monsters that their rarity skews the numbers.

I'd also like to see rogue and cleric stats compared, too. I would have done the cleric myself, using only one spell (righteous might), but that one got nerfed I actually liked the 3.0 version of that spell.

 

[Stalker0]

Also lets keep in mind the monk just paid 3 times the amount the fighter did for those enhancement bonuses, amulets of mighty fists aren't cheap.

 

[FireLance]

So now the problem is too high AC? I rarely see monsters with challenging ACs. We should use lower level PCs (eg 10th and 15th) - there are so few CR 20 monsters that their rarity skews the numbers.

Well, some quick and dirty numbers for 10th level. Assume standard wealth value of 49,000 gp, of which about half is spent on offensive equipment.

Let's say the 10th-level monk has the following:

1. Strength 18 (starting Strength 14 and +4 girdle of giant strength: 16,000 gp)
2. +1 enhancement bonus from +1 amulet of mighty fists: 6,000 gp

His full attack with flurry of blows is +12/+12/+7

Let's say the 10th-level fighter has the following:

1. Strength 22 (starting Strength 16, 2 ability increases and +4 girdle of giant strength: 16,000 gp)
2. Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus
4. +2 weapon: 8,000 gp

His full attack is +20/+15

A quick survey of the CR 10 creatures in the SRD gave me the following:

AC 28: Formian Myrmarch
AC 26: Adult White Dragon
AC 24: Juvenile Red Dragon, Gargantuan Monstrous Scorpion
AC 23: Fire Giant
AC 22: Bebilith, Clay Golem
AC 21: 11-Headed hydra
AC 18: Noble Salamander
AC 11: Colossal Animated Object

As expected, the monk fares comparatively poorly against the high-AC creatures such as the Formian Myrmarch and the Adult White Dragon, getting 0.55 hits per round of flurrying against the fighter's 1.05 hits per found of full attack against the Formian Myrmarch (about 52%) and 0.8 hits per round to the fighter's 1.25 hits per round against the Adult White Dragon (64%).

Against the middle range of AC between 24 and 21, the monk starts to catch up. He gets 1.1 hits per round against the fighter's 1.45 against AC 24 (about 76%) and 1.55 hits per round against the fighter's 1.7 against AC 21 (about 91%).

Against creatures like the Noble Salamander and the Colossal Animated Object, the monk actually gets in more hits on average, 2 hits per round against the fighter's 1.85 against the Noble Salamander (about 108%) and 2.75 hits per round against the fighter's 1.9 against the Colossal Animated Object (about 145%).

So, for a party that includes the 10th-level monk and the 10th-level fighter above, the fighter will look good when the opponent has an AC of 26 and above, the monk will look good when the opponent has an AC of 19 and below, and against opponents with AC between 25 and 20, the fighter will do slightly better than the monk, but not so much better that the monk feels useless. After all, he still has other abilities to compensate.