The Monk's Hit Dice Should Be a d8! [Rant]
- Thread starter Creamsteak
- Start date
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
I think the poster has an earlier edition version of fly in mind. A lot of spells changed in 3e, which sometimes surprised me when I read the new version of the spell - fly was one of those.
Henry
Autoexreginated
True - a dispelled fly spell still means the caster floats gently to the ground.
Also, fly is good, but it can't help you break the sound barrier.
A 20th level monk with boots of striding and springing and all necessary accoutrements can move at something like - what? - 1700 feet per round?
Also, fly is good, but it can't help you break the sound barrier.
A 20th level monk with boots of striding and springing and all necessary accoutrements can move at something like - what? - 1700 feet per round? 
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
creamsteak,
To answer your question, it is most likely that your DM is counting special abilities and has not a clue how the disadvantages play out. Monks are noticeably underpowered until approximately 7th level.
It is also possible he is right. A monk who can stack up really high stats can be a DM nightmare in a way a raging barbarian never will be. But that will never be the case for a campaign that stays reasonably close to the three core books in balance.
The monk is the most stat intensive character class in the PHB. That is a liability in most campaigns. It is a real boost in a few.
On the general point of railing against monks:
Monks are no substitute for a Fighter or a Barbarian or two in the party. But the mobility can be a huge boon for tactically savvy parties, and the opposite for the foolish.
My experience is that if the DM cracks open the OA monks are brutally effective against weaker foes, but they just don't have the staying power one-on-one with the big boys. The answer is teamwork. For example, the synergy between Stunning Fists and Sneak Attack is amazing.
To answer your question, it is most likely that your DM is counting special abilities and has not a clue how the disadvantages play out. Monks are noticeably underpowered until approximately 7th level.
It is also possible he is right. A monk who can stack up really high stats can be a DM nightmare in a way a raging barbarian never will be. But that will never be the case for a campaign that stays reasonably close to the three core books in balance.
The monk is the most stat intensive character class in the PHB. That is a liability in most campaigns. It is a real boost in a few.
On the general point of railing against monks:
Monks are no substitute for a Fighter or a Barbarian or two in the party. But the mobility can be a huge boon for tactically savvy parties, and the opposite for the foolish.
My experience is that if the DM cracks open the OA monks are brutally effective against weaker foes, but they just don't have the staying power one-on-one with the big boys. The answer is teamwork. For example, the synergy between Stunning Fists and Sneak Attack is amazing.
coyote6
Adventurer
nameless said:
Only with time or help. If Joe Rogue tumbles through the enemy front lines to get to Evil Wizard, he only gets to sneak attack EW if EW is deprived of his Dex bonus or flanked. JR can't flank EW by himself, and getting EW flatfooted beyond round 1 is tough. THe only way the rogue can do it by himself is to feint (Bluff) then attack. Barring boots of speed or help from an arcane spellcaster, JR needs two rounds to do that, which gives EW a whole action to do something to remove the problem rogue. And JR's Fort and Will saves are poor.
The monk, OTOH, can tumble in, spring attack, stun the wizard (poor Fort saves!), and tumble out, and has better saves to defend against those pesky holds and disintegrates (never mind spell resistance at higher levels).
OTOH, it can be tough to play a monk effectively. I think playing a monk requires a bit more thought (especially with regards to tactics) than playing a fighter or rogue. The campaign where I played a monk is on hiatus; while playing, though, we didn't get past 5th level, and we faced all of one enemy arcane spellcaster in play. So I had to work to feel like I was contributing -- mostly, I tumbled around to try to setup flanking situations so the rogues could get sneak attack damage or the barbarian could get flanking bonuses (so she'd hit and deal her party-best damage, despite the player's bad dice rolls). It got to the point in a couple of fights that all I did was tumble and Aid Another. But I had fun, and the other players had fun.
As for the original poster: your GM is goofy.
Last edited:
After seeing Monks in play in both high and low powered settings our group no longer tries to make them viable. If you have fun playing one, that's great. By all means continue. But Monks are inferior to the core classes in all but the most specialized circumstances. This goes for Bards as well. Things get even worse for them if access to magic items (particular stat enhancing items) is limited. DnD is about roleplaying, so no class is completely unviable, but if you are looking to be "powerful" in a game mechanics sense, being a Monk will probably let you down. Say what you will... I've been playing this edition since it's introduction and have seen a lot of this class in action. I will stand by the opinion that they are underpowered. Why your GM would weaken them further is completely beyond me.
Wolfen Priest
First Post
IMC, we have a fighter, a cleric, a rogue/mage, and a dwarf monk. Granted, he had really high stats, but he was the best combatant in the game, pretty much. The only reason for this was that the DM gave him some +1 'wolverine'-like claws, which added 1d6+1 to his damage and gave him a +1 to hit.
Something that simple can make the monk a viable combat-machine, IMO.
Something that simple can make the monk a viable combat-machine, IMO.
ruleslawyer
Registered User
I know this topic has been beaten to death, but the fact remains that the "generalist" classes (monks, bards, multiclasses, rangers) never look too good when compared to the more specialized classes. When a class has the ability to be REALLY good at one thing (a favorite example is the wizard with high save DCs, but the bag-of-rats fighter and the bbn/frenzied berserker uber-ragers are good examples as well), it's easy to max that thing into what appears to be a guaranteed winning tactic. A class that's pretty good in a number of situations but exceptional in few, OTOH, tends to look worse on paper.
In short: I think monks are perfectly capable of holding their own with other classes. Inversely, any DM who thinks that monks are overpowered enough to warrant a lower hit die is just wack. My suggestion: Print this topic and show it to him. Maybe he'll change his mind!
In short: I think monks are perfectly capable of holding their own with other classes. Inversely, any DM who thinks that monks are overpowered enough to warrant a lower hit die is just wack. My suggestion: Print this topic and show it to him. Maybe he'll change his mind!
