The Monk's Hit Dice Should Be a d8! [Rant]

[Ridley's Cohort]

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 like that can make most characters a viable combat-machine.

To my knowledge, every single person who has come here with tales of overpowered monks in real life play, when pressed for details, always present characters with three or more stats of 16+ rolled and/or very potent magic items.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that low level monks are weak when stacked up against any other core class.

 

[Zerovoid]

I don't understand why anyone has ever thought a monk was good, even on paper. Their abilities are all trivial compared to spells that a wizard and cleric could use to buff the monk. d20 damage? Don't make me laugh. The fighter or even the rogue will have a magic sword that does just as much damage, and hits more. Especially if you factor in that the fighter could have power attack for free, and then use their BAB advantage to get even more damage compared to a monk.

If I ever played a monk, I'd be a half orc to maximize my damage potential. I'd put my stats in this order:
Str, Wis, Con, Dex, Int, Cha.
I'd always get mage armor from the mage, and get that permanent magic fang thing from S+F. Even then I doubt that my armor class and damage would be as good as a rogues.

 

[Piratecat]

True - a dispelled fly spell still means the caster floats gently to the ground.

Not in my game! Dispelled magic means the magic is dispelled, not that the spell has ended. Grumble grumble.

 

[Enkhidu]

I don't understand why anyone has ever thought a monk was good, even on paper. Their abilities are all trivial compared to spells that a wizard and cleric could use to buff the monk. d20 damage? Don't make me laugh. The fighter or even the rogue will have a magic sword that does just as much damage, and hits more. Especially if you factor in that the fighter could have power attack for free, and then use their BAB advantage to get even more damage compared to a monk.

If I ever played a monk, I'd be a half orc to maximize my damage potential. I'd put my stats in this order:
Str, Wis, Con, Dex, Int, Cha.
I'd always get mage armor from the mage, and get that permanent magic fang thing from S+F. Even then I doubt that my armor class and damage would be as good as a rogues.

OK, I've got a question for you. What is better, the ability to cause damage or the ability to avoid damage?

Fighters excel at causing damage, large numbers of attacks with powerful weapons soon equal victory over foes.

However, monks are unparalleled at avoiding damage - Improved Evasion, high base touch AC, amazing speed. They create an environment where they can continue to cause their (admittedly lower) damage over a longer period of time.

Really, it's 2 avenues to the same goal, victory in combat. I don't think either one is more important than the other.

 

[Piratecat]

I attacked my group with advanced wraiths the other week. Everyone had a touch AC between 12 and 20 - except for the monk. His was AC 33.

Yeah, I think monks are just fine!

 

[Wolf72]

Not in my game! Dispelled magic means the magic is dispelled, not that the spell has ended. Grumble grumble.

hey new guy , I like your style! You should like ... ya know ... DM at tourny's and stuff.

 

[coyote6]

To my knowledge, every single person who has come here with tales of overpowered monks in real life play, when pressed for details, always present characters with three or more stats of 16+ rolled and/or very potent magic items.

Heh. I think my monk had the best stats in the group, including three stats at 16+, but I still spent the vast majority of my time running around helping others. Leading the league in assists, but certainly not points scored, as it were. The rogue/ranger with the wacky stats (highest stat: Wisdom) did more damage.

hey new guy , I like your style! You should like ... ya know ... DM at tourny's and stuff.

Hey, let's not get carried away here. He needs seasoning. Maybe after he's got a couple of games under his belt. Maybe.

 

[Zerovoid]

OK, I've got a question for you. What is better, the ability to cause damage or the ability to avoid damage?

Fighters excel at causing damage, large numbers of attacks with powerful weapons soon equal victory over foes.

However, monks are unparalleled at avoiding damage - Improved Evasion, high base touch AC, amazing speed. They create an environment where they can continue to cause their (admittedly lower) damage over a longer period of time.

Really, it's 2 avenues to the same goal, victory in combat. I don't think either one is more important than the other.

Causing damage, without a doubt. What does it matter how long you can stay alive if you can't affect your foes? More importantly, what does it matter how long you can stay alive, if your enemies can kill your friends?

In a balanced adventuring party, there will always be a better target than the monk. It doesn't matter than they can't dominate the monk, because they'll dominate the fighter instead. It doesn't matter if the monk has improved evasion, because the fireballs will kill the wizard. Your goal is to get everyone in the party through the fight alive, but DnD has is so heavily weighted towards offense that the only practical way to do this is to kill your enemies quickly.

And, I doubt the monk's defensive abilities. The ability to count wisdom as AC is worth +4 at most. Exactly the same as the rogue's chain shirt. Alot less than the fighter's plate mail.

 

[Enkhidu]

Causing damage, without a doubt. What does it matter how long you can stay alive if you can't affect your foes? More importantly, what does it matter how long you can stay alive, if your enemies can kill your friends?

In a balanced adventuring party, there will always be a better target than the monk. It doesn't matter than they can't dominate the monk, because they'll dominate the fighter instead. It doesn't matter if the monk has improved evasion, because the fireballs will kill the wizard. Your goal is to get everyone in the party through the fight alive, but DnD has is so heavily weighted towards offense that the only practical way to do this is to kill your enemies quickly.

And, I doubt the monk's defensive abilities. The ability to count wisdom as AC is worth +4 at most. Exactly the same as the rogue's chain shirt. Alot less than the fighter's plate mail.

I have to agree with you in that fact that I don't think a monk has a place in a small (4 person or less) party. I strongly believe that monks are individually balanced with the other classes, but don't "play well with others" as well. Too many of their (admittedly powerful) abilities can not be used to directly aid another character (like buffing, healing, etc). However, you would be hard pressed to find a better 5th man, as the monk's unique abilities can come in quite handy in larger groups (I suggest reading the recent posts in Piratecat's Story Hour for some examples of this).

By the way, I've got to say that a monk's touch AC is where they really shine - that Wisdom bonus is as good as any light armor out there (or the equivelant of magic armor when buffed with the appropriate 2nd level spell). That, combined with a monk's improved evasion (which with his high REF save will negate quite a bit of spell damage), allows him to be the best overall defensive character in the game.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Something like that can make most characters a viable combat-machine.

To my knowledge, every single person who has come here with tales of overpowered monks in real life play, when pressed for details, always present characters with three or more stats of 16+ rolled and/or very potent magic items.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that low level monks are weak when stacked up against any other core class.

I think the opposite is true more often. I've seen countless people whine about how poor a combatant the monk is and then I find out they put a 12 in str. Well gee ya mean when you give your damage dealing stat a relatively low priority you don't do much damage. The monks I've made put str as their 1st and highest attribute then went wis, then dex, then con, then int then chr. My damage was still less than a fighter at most levels but not by a ton. And the only powerful magic items were stat boosts that every class gains, and gloves of magic fangs which while not core, one should of been and two could of been made by just asking your local druid to make somethig lie that for you and then the dm comes up with a cost.

Also the big lim everyone talks about with multi stat dependency ends up being a boon at higher levels. Why cause while my wis may start at 14 I can get an item and boost it to 20. Most classes don't get much from boosting stats except for the standard benies for their core stat. str more damage and more hits, int more skill points higher dc etc. The monk gains concreate class specific benefits from multiple stats which are easily boosted by items and or spells.