Monk - what do you like and dislike?

[Klaus]

I didn't say anything about house rules. The rules are not clear about this. They say you can enhance your natural weapons as manufactured weapons, without clear numbers being stated anywhere. The Amulet of Mighty Fists is also expensive, and that's the only cost we're given in the core rules.

No, the rules say your "unarmed strikes" count as natural or manufactured weapons. Since you don't need to specify *how* you're attacking when using your unarmed strike, it doesn't seem fair to specify *how* you're enchanting it. A monk only needs to turn to a wizard and say "I want my unarmed strikes to be enchanted" and that's all there is to it. No enchanting of head, arms, legs, elbows or whatnot.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No, the rules say your "unarmed strikes" count as natural or manufactured weapons. Since you don't need to specify *how* you're attacking when using your unarmed strike, it doesn't seem fair to specify *how* you're enchanting it. A monk only needs to turn to a wizard and say "I want my unarmed strikes to be enchanted" and that's all there is to it. No enchanting of head, arms, legs, elbows or whatnot.

Unfortunately, to enhance a item (with a enhancement bonus to attack and damage, that is), it must be masterwork. But the Monks hands are not stated as masterwork. And there is no description how to make it masterwork.

But also:

...treated both as manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured or natural weapons *such as the magic fang and magic weapon spells

A "enchantment" via Craft Magic Arms and Armor is, as far as I know, not stated as an effect. It's also not a spell, either. So, in short, you can't enhance the monks fists or unarmed strike with Craft Magic Arms and Armor.

 

[The_Gneech]

Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II got around this problem by having magic gauntlets adding bonuses to "unarmed" attacks. That worked reasonably well, I thought, if slightly kludgey.

-The Gneech

 

[Andor]

No, the rules say your "unarmed strikes" count as natural or manufactured weapons. Since you don't need to specify *how* you're attacking when using your unarmed strike, it doesn't seem fair to specify *how* you're enchanting it. A monk only needs to turn to a wizard and say "I want my unarmed strikes to be enchanted" and that's all there is to it. No enchanting of head, arms, legs, elbows or whatnot.

OTOH the Kensai class in CW does explictitly charge the monk extra for each hand/foot/buttcheek he enchants.

 

[Imp]

Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II got around this problem by having magic gauntlets adding bonuses to "unarmed" attacks. That worked reasonably well, I thought, if slightly kludgey.

Neverwinter Nights does this, too, and unarmed monks are very strong in that game, until epic levels anyway, when huge DRs start kicking in.

 

[Klaus]

Unfortunately, to enhance a item (with a enhancement bonus to attack and damage, that is), it must be masterwork. But the Monks hands are not stated as masterwork. And there is no description how to make it masterwork.

But also:

A "enchantment" via Craft Magic Arms and Armor is, as far as I know, not stated as an effect. It's also not a spell, either. So, in short, you can't enhance the monks fists or unarmed strike with Craft Magic Arms and Armor.

Well, Improved Natural Attack has been deemed an "effect" by WotC, so Monks can benefit from it.

Regarding the "masterwork" prerequisite, you're right on that one. Maybe this is a question that we should ask WotC itself.

 

[Mad Mac]

Heh, come to think of it, you don't often get to see dev comments on the Monk.

Mearl? Monte? Andy? Eh..Bob? (Not so good at remembering names)

If you were redesigning the monk from scratch, what would you change? Were there any inspirations besides the 1e class? And, uh...is it just me, or does the iconic monk Ember totally look like she was based off that scary chick in Conan the Destroyer?

 

[Blastin]

one little point about the monk vs fighter that I think people are missing is all the monk defenses. I mostly DM, and let me tell you, monks are damn hard to kill/take out of the fight. Even at mid levels you have the best saves in the party, evasion/improved evasion, probably the best touch ac in the party, resistance to enchantments above and beyond the good saves, immunities to poison/disease....
Sure, in a one on one fight a fighter is gonna hand a monk his rear. But when you have a fighter and a monk in the party, and are going against a mixed group of opponents, the fighter might do more damage/hit more often, but chances are that the monk is gonna be standing when the fighter is taken out.
Wanna take out a fighter...hit him with a will save spell, attack him with spells/incorporeal attacks that target touch AC, hit him with area spells/reflex saves, hit him with poison enough to make him miss a save..... and then try those same options angainst the monk....and at high levels with SR it gets even harder to take the monk out of the fight.
I think people don't take these things into consideration enough when looking at monk's effectiveness.....

 

[CF]

What's the point of being the one still standing if you cannot be valuable for the party? I mean, the monk isn't all that important. He doesn't fight as the other man-at-arms, he doesn't heal, he doesn't have any spells and he isn't exactly the best rogue. And even as the 5th character of the party, the monk is a bad choice. I would rather have a bard.

 

[Hussar]

Monks do decent damage and make perfect Polish Mine Detectors.

At least that's what's happening in my camp.

The other thing to remember - Grapple. It's not that hard to buff grappling and, if the monk grapples the fighter, the fighter dies. Gotta lose that nifty two handed weapon to grapple back, then win the grapple to get free. Then you gotta pick up that weapon, which draws an AOO, thus landing you right back in the grapple again.

Blastin's point about the monk being the last man standing is very true.

Just as a question though, at 10th level, the monk is 3 BAB behind the fighter. Three points? Who cares? It's not like the monk is attacking as a wizard. The difference between the progressions is not so large that it makes such a huge difference. The only time the monk is missing a lot is against very high AC opponents. Fair enough. There should be at least one thing the fighter does better than the monk.