Monk - what do you like and dislike?

[jcfiala]

So, why would I want to take the Fighter again?`Le

Well, let me try asking my question a third time, and make it clearer.

A) Monks don't do anything but fight.
B) Monks are not very good at hitting things.
C) Why shouldn't monks be good at hitting things?

Armor? Monks don't need armor because they've got alternatives. (Wisdom bonus and class-related bonuses.) Barbarians don't need it because they've got such a high hit die.

Fighters fight, encased in armor, with a magically enchanted sword and armor. Monks fight with their wits, dodging out of the way of blows, using their bare hands. And miss.

Why would you want to take a Monk?

 

[TheLe]

Fighters fight, encased in armor, with a magically enchanted sword and armor. Why would you want to take a Monk?

A Flurry of blows with +20/+20/+20/+15/+10/+5 still seems awfully powerful. Which I suppose is fine to power gamers.

If the fighter is so good, why take the Barbarian? He can't even read.

 

[jcfiala]

A Flurry of blows with +20/+20/+20/+15/+10/+5 still seems awfully powerful. Which I suppose is fine to power gamers.

If the fighter is so good, why take the Barbarian? He can't even read.

So make the flurry of blows weaker. What do I care for flurry of blows? Fine, fine, flurry of blows is -5/-5/-5/-5 - whatever.

And why do you keep bringing up the barbarian? What are you talking about?

 

[Jim Hague]

So make the flurry of blows weaker. What do I care for flurry of blows? Fine, fine, flurry of blows is -5/-5/-5/-5 - whatever.

And why do you keep bringing up the barbarian? What are you talking about?

Ah ah ah! No cherry-picking - that's not kosher debate. What Le is pointing out is that by your logic, there's no reason not to take the Barbarian as a class instead of Fighter - better Hit Die, special abilities the Fighter doesn't get, full BAB progression. Thus, the logic is flawed, because you're only looking at the 'why' from a single angle, and thus the argument augurs into the dirt right off the bat.

The monk is what the monk is: an unarmed fighter with several special abilities, including an unarmed damage that outpaces the fighter's armed damage in a lot of cases. I personally like the monk, though I do think it could do with a bit of tweaking. The Oriental flavor is a bit jarring, but honestly, the monk is no more the odd man out that, say, the ranger.

So, to answer the OP's original question.

Like:
*The light, mobile fighter concept.
*That hella unarmed damage.
*Special abilities - slow fall is a great one, as is the ki strike.
*Flurry of blows.

Dislike:
*The overwhelming Oriental flavor that doesn't fit with the more 'generic' classes.
*The lack of a full BAB (presumably traded for the damage and special abilities)
*The Hit Die (again, presumably traded for the damage and special abilities.

Why would anyone take Monk as a class - it's a pretty good light skirmish fighter with a fist full of special abilities, a bit more flavor than the more generic classes, and it gets hella damage later on. Or, if that doesn't satisfy you, try 'concept.'

 

[jcfiala]

Ah ah ah! No cherry-picking - that's not kosher debate. What Le is pointing out is that by your logic, there's no reason not to take the Barbarian as a class instead of Fighter - better Hit Die, special abilities the Fighter doesn't get, full BAB progression. Thus, the logic is flawed, because you're only looking at the 'why' from a single angle, and thus the argument augurs into the dirt right off the bat.

Well, then he should more carefully say so, because that's not what I was reading. The reason to take a Fighter over a Barbarian are obvious: Feats and Choices. Fighters can use nearly any method of fighting and be good at it (or excellent, if specialized). Barbarians are restricted to certain armors, and their fighting style is forced into the 'raging barbarian' type.

The monk is what the monk is: an unarmed fighter with several special abilities, including an unarmed damage that outpaces the fighter's armed damage in a lot of cases. I personally like the monk, though I do think it could do with a bit of tweaking. The Oriental flavor is a bit jarring, but honestly, the monk is no more the odd man out that, say, the ranger.

I blame JRRT for the ranger class.

I don't mind removing abilities and ramping down the rapid strike to allow the Monk to have a better BAB - but what the OP wanted to know was what people liked and disliked about the Monk, and what a number of people dislike is the BAB progression and the massive unarmed damage at high levels. (Well, other than people who dislike the class overall for flavor.)

Why would anyone take Monk as a class - it's a pretty good light skirmish fighter with a fist full of special abilities, a bit more flavor than the more generic classes, and it gets hella damage later on. Or, if that doesn't satisfy you, try 'concept.'

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Just to throw in my two copper pieces:

I like:
-The Flurry of Blows idea (if not the execution)
-The Unarmed Damage scale
-The other abilities it gains

Dislike:
-Medium BAB (Flurry of Blows gets called Flurry of Misses for a reason)
-"Forced" Flavor (Sure, you can change the flavor, but the abilities (especially Ki point to Eastern Style))

I would say go the feat route for the Martial Arts abilities. This might make the Fighter a better unarmed fighter than the monk. So what? That is what the fighter does. Monks would still have the extra stuff. I like the way the Star Wars d20 did this (I think Modern is the same basic idea, but I could be wrong).

There is a set of basic Unarmed feats. The first lets you do unarmed without AoO with 1d4 damage and a crit threat range of 20 (keep in mind Star Wars uses VP/WP and armor as DR). The second "basic" feat has you do 2d4 damage with a criit range of 19-20 and the third is 3d4 with 18-20.

Then there are Style Feat sets. One is the Flurry of Blows style. One gets past armor and DR (punch a hole in a Space Ship with your bare hands), one is a Barabrian like style to rip enemies to shreads style (wookie unarmed combat). Each has three levels. Each style level requires the equivalent "basic" feat (the first "flurry" feat has a prereq of the first "basic" feat and so on).

What would this style leave for the monk? Slow Fall is nice to have. Increased speed is very nice. I wouldn't mind seeing these split into paths as weel, like the Ranger TWF/Ranged. You want an earstern style? Take the Stunning Fist path. Want a Cloistered Cleric? Maybe there could be a Knowledge paths (bonus to Knowledge Checks and a Bardic Knowledge ability).

This would allow a lot of variety to the martial artists. Some would brawlers (with decent damage and full BAB), some would break through walls with their bare hands and some would be street fighters who rip arms off of people because they lose a board game. This would still allow for the meditative clear minded style monk, who may not be the best street fighter in existance - has a load of other abilities that help keep them in the fight.

Just my take on the issue.

 

[Klaus]

"-Medium BAB (Flurry of Blows gets called Flurry of Misses for a reason)"

In 3.0, perhaps. But in 3.5 you eventually get *two* extra attacks at *no penalty*!

 

[CF]

[quote='Klaus"]In 3.0, perhaps. But in 3.5 you eventually get *two* extra attacks at *no penalty*![/quote]

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.

 

[SWBaxter]

I don't mind the Monk as written. I have no trouble dealing with the flavour, just as I have no problem dealing with the crusading religious warrior flavour of the Paladin - I either write my setting so there's a logical place for those sorts of characters, or make it clear they're pretty exotic. I do tend to house-rule away the Monk's alignment and multiclassing restrictions. Works well enough whenever somebody wants to play a Monk.

But I do have a major problem with the monk on a more "meta" level. The Monk is clearly a person who's drawing on their inner strength to do phenomenal (and ultimately supernatural) things. So it seems pretty clear to me they should be linked with Psionics in some way - ideally, a Monk should be to a Psion as a Paladin is to a Cleric, IMHO. But the mechanics are almost completely unrelated, which makes things look messy. If I really wanted a campaign where the Monk fit in really well, I think I'd just take the Psychic Warrior and give them access to some of the Monk's combat abilities on their bonus feat list, so a Monk would be a particular Psychic Warrior build.

 

[Felon]

I like the way the Star Wars d20 did this (I think Modern is the same basic idea, but I could be wrong).

Indeed, D20 Modern's martial artist is actually one the few classes that does get a 1/1 ratio BAB.