Monk - what do you like and dislike?

[TheLe]

dislike: bab- should be same as fighter.

A number of people have said this, but I can't say I understand why. The monk is not really supposed to be as good as the fighter in combat.

`Le

 

[Klaus]

A number of people have said this, but I can't say I understand why. The monk is not really supposed to be as good as the fighter in combat.

`Le

Yes. The Monk is an Primary (as Fighter, Barbarian and Paladin) or Secondary (as Ranger and Cleric) Combatant. It's an Opportunistic Combatant (as Rogue). A Monk *can* win over a Fighter, if allowed to use his skills and speed to his advantage, possibly Disarming and Sundering the Fighter's weapons. The Monk will always lose if he just stands there and trade blows, arena-style.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

A number of people have said this, but I can't say I understand why. The monk is not really supposed to be as good as the fighter in combat.

`Le

Says who? From the arguments on the thread, quite a few people want monks to be primary fighters, rather than wimps.

 

[TheLe]

Says who? From the arguments on the thread, quite a few people want monks to be primary fighters, rather than wimps.

Exactly. I said that the monk is not supposed to be as good as the fighter in combat.

Alot of arguements are saying the they want a monk that is as good as the fighter in combat, which seems equivelent to saying that they want a Wizard who is as good as the fighter in combat.

But as far as I can tell, the Wizard and Monk were not designed that way.

Personally, I dunno. The Monk has a whole slew of special abilties, while the fighter has none. Giving a Monk the fighter's BAB will give people less reason to take the fighter at all. I have no problems with this, as long as your remove some of the Monks abilities to balance it out.

So that's my question to you - how do you make the Monk a primary combatant without making the fighter class unattractive?

~Le

 

[jcfiala]

So that's my question to you - how do you make the Monk a primary combatant without making the fighter class unattractive?

Did the fighter lose his 12 or so bonus feats somewhere? Has everyone stopped playing Fighters so they can get in on rangers and their yummy skill points and favored enemies?

Monks are built around being able to do unarmed combat, or combat with funky weapons. (Although, let's face it - at the higher levels you're going unarmed because of the huge damage rolls.) The fact that a character whose focus is combat is not allowed to have a fighting level BAB is a problem for it. If a Rogue keeps missing in combat, he knows that he can disarm traps or charm someone or unlock a door or activate a wand or something else with his massive skills. If a monk keeps on missing in combat he... what? Thinks about falling and not getting hurt? Thinks about how nice it is that he can't be poisoned? What do monks do, outside of combat?

 

[Klaus]

Give the Fighter the option to trade in his Medium and Heavy Armor Proficiencies for 4 skill points per level (adding Balance and Tumble) and turn the 1st-level bonus feat to Improved Unarmed Strike. Then make a new feat (with IUS and BAB +3 as prereqs) called Greater Unarmed Strike (increases the damage to 1d6 and gives a minor FLurry of Blows -- 1 extra attack, all at -2). Also create a feat called Hands as Weapons (Prereqs: Greater Unarmed Strike, BAB +6, Concentration 3 ranks), allowing the Fighter to get his hands enchanted as weapons, but he must pay the XP himself, instead of the caster. Then you're looking at a full-BAB class that can walk around unarmed and in leather armor and pummel creatures barehanded.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Exactly. I said that the monk is not supposed to be as good as the fighter in combat.

Alot of arguements are saying the they want a monk that is as good as the fighter in combat, which seems equivelent to saying that they want a Wizard who is as good as the fighter in combat.

But as far as I can tell, the Wizard and Monk were not designed that way.

Personally, I dunno. The Monk has a whole slew of special abilties, while the fighter has none. Giving a Monk the fighter's BAB will give people less reason to take the fighter at all. I have no problems with this, as long as your remove some of the Monks abilities to balance it out.

So that's my question to you - how do you make the Monk a primary combatant without making the fighter class unattractive?

~Le

You could start by killing a lot of the monk special abilities. You could pay for them with feats, instead of having them spoon-fed to you.

The damage should be cut back to 1d10, too, instead of the current insane amount.

But you're probably better off leaving the monk as is and creating a new flexible and sane unarmed combatant class.

 

[TheLe]

Did the fighter lose his 12 or so bonus feats somewhere? Has everyone stopped playing Fighters so they can get in on rangers and their yummy skill points and favored enemies?

The fundamental part of the Fighter is it's BAB and it's Bonus Feats. Not just one or the other, but both.

So if we're handing out the Fighter BAB to other classes like it was free candy... well, why not give it to the Bard or Sorcerer to beef them up to?

Where's the balance?

Now, I could be wrong. If the majority of people feel that the Monk is weak and *should* be given the Fighter BAB for free, without any loss of other abilities, then so be it. I am the first to admit that other Players and GMs know far better than I do.

`Le

 

[jcfiala]

The fundamental part of the Fighter is it's BAB and it's Bonus Feats. Not just one or the other, but both.

So if we're handing out the Fighter BAB to other classes like it was free candy... well, why not give it to the Bard or Sorcerer to beef them up to?

Where's the balance?

Fighters Hit things.
Monks Hit things.
Bards occasionally hit things as they sing songs supporting their friends and buff them and cast the occasional Cure Light.
Rogues occasionally hit things as they disarm traps, open locks, and cham the barmaid into the next room. (Well, unless there's a bard along, in which case the Rogue charms the other barmaid.)
Sorcerers and Wizards Blow stuff up. And occasionally cast mage hand to... oh, wait, PG-13. And occasionally cast teleport to bypass the mountains or water breathing so the fighter doesn't drown after he goes overboard in full plate.

Of the two things in this list whose main focus is hitting things, one gets a full BAB and the other doesn't. Monks don't *do* anything other than hit things, do they? Sure, if you really need to, remove some of the special abilities that come up once in a long while anyway... but what do Monks do if they're not going to be good at hitting things?

 

[TheLe]

Of the two things in this list whose main focus is hitting things, one gets a full BAB and the other doesn't. Monks don't *do* anything other than hit things, do they? Sure, if you really need to, remove some of the special abilities that come up once in a long while anyway... but what do Monks do if they're not going to be good at hitting things?

So by that logic, the monk should also be allowed to wear medium and heavy armor without penalty, since they are primary attackers. Hmmm, I guess the Barbarian should be allowed to have that too.

Since the Monk is a primary combatant, perhaps we should go ahead and reduce his REf and Will saves too. That +12 is ridiculous, since fighters only max at +6.

Hey! This means a 20th level monk gets the following for Flurry of Blows:
+20/+20/+20/+15/+10/+5

Awesome!

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

`Le