Monk - what do you like and dislike?

[sniffles]

I don't like the name. They should be called martial artists. A monk is a type of cleric.

I also don't like their attack progression. If you're going to make a fighter-type who specializes in unarmed combat, give him an attack bonus that will make him as effective as any other fighter-type.

But mainly I don't like the way people pigeonhole monks into a pseudo-Oriental class and can't broaden their definition to include something else.

 

[Klaus]

Weapons that look damn simple are instead exotic because of the monk. Nunchaku are the only one that deserves exotic status.

kama are sickles.

Sai: Blunt dagger with disarming tines would be more than fair at martial.

Shuriken: Only needs the feat for the draw as if ammo rule it has.

Siangham: How does one get any simpler than a pointy stick????!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll take this opportunity to shamelessly plug my alternate monk weapons:

http://www.fierydragon.com/db/2004-10-27.htm

http://www.fierydragon.com/img/monastic_dragon_weapons.jpg

 

[Felon]

Because humans, and their natural weapons, are soft and weak. Feet and Fists are inferior to blades and bludgeons, as they should be. Only when magic enters the scene should that ever change And when one person “magics up” his fist and the other one ‘magics up” their sword, both in equal amounts, the one with the sword should win in a straight up battle.

Great insights...for another game. In D&D, it's an almost humorous rationale to offer. Thiis is a game of larger-than-life combat that doesn't scale to reality. Soft weak humans can carve up 20-ton giants like Christmas turkeys, outdamaging blow for blow leviathans that should regard a medium-sized creature's longsword as a pinprick, and conversely should be able to step on a puny human fighter and squash it like a ketchup packet. And yes, the human warrior can pwn a giant without magic weapons.

Likewise, D&D martial artists aren't the equivalent of real world martial arts. They're guys who shatter stone and metal with their bare hands. If that's going to be allowed in the game (which it already is), then open it up so more classes can do something with it. Forget fighters, I'd like to see barbarians that can actually rip someone apart with their bare hands.

 

[Felon]

I don't like the name. They should be called martial artists. A monk is a type of cleric. I also don't like their attack progression. If you're going to make a fighter-type who specializes in unarmed combat, give him an attack bonus that will make him as effective as any other fighter-type.

So, drop the spiritual aspect of the class completely, make it purely martial, give it the fighter's BAB, and in general give it fighter-like effectiveness.

Or, just provide the feats to allow the fighter to become a martial artist.

 

[radferth]

The name bugs me too, and the fact that it has not evolved much from a David Caradine character class. I suggest a two-pronged approach: feats that let fighters do the martial artist thing; and a mytic class thats like the monk only more customizable.

On a strictly mechanical level, its high-damage unarmed attacks that urk me. Besides the fact that they end up doing more damage without a weapon, you end up with the odd case that they are quite effective vs. normal opponents, but suddenly impotent against folks with the right DR. I usually change things around to have them do a bit more with weapons than with unarmed.

I find them fun to play if the group has enough front-line fighers, but much less fun if I need to step up all the time.

 

[James Heard]

What I don't like about monks: It's very narrow. It should have many feat options like the fighter and pay for their feats (vs fighters) by reduced hd and armor options. I want to be able to make Bruce Lee, Rocky, and Dhalsim with a monk build. Right now it's not very easy without multiclassing and multiclassing can be a pain if you're talking core rules only.

What I like about monks: Bruce Lee, Rocky and Dhalsim. Jet Li and Jean-Claude Van Damme. Players grappling beholders and attempting to piledriver them.

 

[Hussar]

A simple change to monk proficiencies makes a big difference and isn't all that overpowering. Put in clubs - you have an escrima fighter, toss in longspear and you have a naginata.

One of the problems I see is that people want their monks to be the ultimate fighter type. Death dealing massive damage mook who obliterates those in front. Monks are not meant to be tanks. Even the difference in hit dice is not that big of a deal. D10 to d8 is only 1 hp average difference. The base hp difference between a 10th level fighter and 10th level monk is 11 points. Not particularly significant.

I think, and this is purely my own opinion, that one of the reasons monks tend to get a bad rap is because people play VERY high point games. If you tone it down to a 25 point game, monks suddenly become very strong. The damage output puts fighters to shame now that fighters don't do +6 or +9 damage from their 20 strength greatsword attacks and power attacks.

In a lower point game, monks become a much more viable class, same as rangers.

 

[Gumby]

I think, and this is purely my own opinion, that one of the reasons monks tend to get a bad rap is because people play VERY high point games. If you tone it down to a 25 point game, monks suddenly become very strong. The damage output puts fighters to shame now that fighters don't do +6 or +9 damage from their 20 strength greatsword attacks and power attacks.

In a lower point game, monks become a much more viable class, same as rangers.

I can't agree - monks are very dependent on a wide variety of stats, and only get better with higher point-buy totals. Fighters do get better as well, but stats are more important to the monk than the fighter.

 

[FireLance]

I never realized that the Asian style tone of the monk was such a serious issue for players and GMs.

Yup. As ColonelHardisson once said in another forum, "It's weird how a hobby that supposedly requires an imagination of those who enjoy it has so many adherents that have no ability to think a teensy bit outside the box."

Don't like the name? Don't like the flavor? Change it. Or is that too much effort?

 

[Drowbane]

...If you tone it down to a 25 point game, monks suddenly become very strong. The damage output puts fighters to shame now that fighters don't do +6 or +9 damage from their 20 strength greatsword attacks and power attacks.

In a lower point game, monks become a much more viable class, same as rangers.

Wow, you've boggled my mind.

You're off your rocker! (no offense meant) Monk is the worst class you could make on 25pts! It needs alot more decent stats than a Fighter or Rogue or Barbarian or Wizard or...

Fighter drops the bulk of his pts in Str, some in Dex and Con and then go for Full Plate and a big weapon... they're good to go! Give the Rogue a rocking Dex, a chain shirt and a rapier (with finesse) and they're done. The Monk needs two 18s to manage an 18 AC. A fighter can do that with a 12 Dex and heavy armor while a Rogue can manage that with a single 18 (not hard for a halfling or elf) and Chainshirt. If anything, the 25pts begs for min/maxing more than high point games. On fewer points you have to min/max or risk being useless. On 32+ you can afford to have a fighter with some decent mental stats... and you can actually have a monk who isn't a complete joke.

Hussar, for my sanity I'm going to assume that you were joking.

I know the DMG claims that 25pts in "standard" and is what is expected to match the CR System... but frankly thats bananas.