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

[Jordan]

I have to jump in on the side that says the monk isn't all that. I played a monk briefly in a side adventure that my group played while taking a break from our main campaign. We started at 10th level with a fairly high point buy. The monk would routinely lag behind the party's (archer) fighter and the party's cleric (with a couple of persistent spells) in terms of combat performance. I can't remember if I had the best AC in the group or not; it was pretty good when I was mage armored by the party sorcerer, but the cleric with magic full plate and a magic large steel shield might have been better.

Here are my observations about the monk.

Pros:

Excellent AC vs. touch attacks, pretty good AC overall
Good saves
Improved evasion
Mobility came in handy sometimes

Cons:

Total attack bonus was considerably lower than the other fighting members of the party; I was missing all the time against enemies the other party members didn't have much trouble hitting.
Damage was really low compared to the other party members
Mobility often wasn't useful since a lot of the time getting too far out in front of the rest of the party is basically suicide

Basically the monk had a lot of good defensive abilities, but he wasn't really much help to the party in combat. Most of the time it was almost as if we had a 3 person party in terms of offense. And this was with a high point buy; a monk on a 25-28 point buy would really suck IMO.

Compared to the rogue I played in our regular campaign, the monk just wasn't very good. My rogue can do tremendous amounts of damage to anything he can sneak attack, and really isn't that bad a fighter even when he can't. Given the choice, I'd always pick a rogue over a monk, based off my experience with the two classes.

-Jordan

 

[Creamsteak]

Funny...

Theres a Jordan in my games that played a Monk and found himself lagging behind -and he normally plays a rogue.

 

[Jordan]

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 disagree. Assuming the party already has the basic four classes, I think another fighter type, or cleric, or arcane caster (wizard or sorcerer, whichever one the party didn't already have) would all make better choices for a 5th man than a monk would. As Zerovoid noted, 3E is very heavily weighted towards offense. There are many monsters that cause damage way out of proportion to their hit points and CR in 3E (orcs, ettins, and girallons being just a few examples). Also, there are many instant death or near instant death attacks in 3E (finger of death or disintegrate on a wizard or rogue, paralysis attack or spell requiring Will save on fighter followed up by coup de grace). What this adds up to is that if you're fighting powerful foes and you can't kill them quickly, you are probably going to lose. So what you look for in an additional party member is either the ability to deal damage and/or instant kill attacks quickly, or the ability to repair damage and protect the party against instant kill attacks. A monk doesn't bring either of these things to the table.

Also, any group of foes that's being played intelligently will very quickly realize two things when they're fighting a party that includes a monk:

a) It's very difficult to hurt the monk, and more importantly

b) The monk isn't doing very much to hurt them.

Thus, they'll ignore the monk for the most part and focus on the other party members. So much for the monk's defensive abilities being a factor.

Really, the only way I think the monk could be a good class would be as a solo adventurer. Then their defensive abilities would really have a chance to shine. But since D&D is mostly a party-based game, I don't think the monk is a very good class. Not to mention the solo monk would have to survive the low levels - without a companion to mage armor him, a 1st level monk on a standard point buy probably isn't going to have a very good AC, and one hit from an orc could easily drop him (there's that 3E favoring offense game mechanic again).

 

[Jordan]

Funny...

Theres a Jordan in my games that played a Monk and found himself lagging behind -and he normally plays a rogue.

Ha! Small world. Jordan's not my real name, though - it was my rogue character's name.

 

[Xarlen]

First of all, to the fella who thinks that Fly is like a sports drink you down before a basket ball game, I must ask, WHERE are all these orcs, goblins, giants, abberations, winter wolves, undead (Sans vampires and liches), etc, getting Fly? Are there sorcerors for hire that just pop down Fly spells on every creature? Some Wizard out there who feels the need to become a level 1 wizard since he spent all his XP making fly potions?

That's like saying why use two weapon fighting, when you have Haste? Why Hide when you have Invisibility? Disarm Traps when you have Teleport? The point is, that you Don't always have them, that they're Not comparable, and you need a Spellcaster. A spellcaster who can be pretty much obliterated pretty soon, or needs those spell slots for Other things. Equally, A Fly spell, or other spells can be DISPELLED. For every fly you can cast, I can cast a dispel. You watch an Area Dispel start dropping characters like flies.

Next, I got to ask, WHY are you trying to Dish out damage with the monk? Especially a spellcaster. You Grapple. Let's see that wizard cast his Disintegrates while you have him in a choke hold, steadily doing unarmed damage. Say you're fighting Big Nasty monsters? Stun 'em (They're big nasty monsters, and most (Sans fiends, undead and dragons) have bad will saves. So, Stun them, then grapple. Since you can use a light weapon in a grapple, stun them again the next round, and keep grappling. While you're holding them down, your Rogue buddy is gutting the sucker.

The first time my party delt with a monk, in the First Round, he did 30 damage to the wizard and stunned him. He nearly Poisoned him with a magical item, but the wizard saved. The next round, he disarmed the Ranger/Fighter's longsword, and stepped back to let his flunkies take care of it while he scaled a wall and got out of there.

As for Mobility not being useful, apparently, you have not come up against monsters you want to get away from. If I'm a monk, I am blessing my fast movement and Spring Attack. If you've ever fought a Remorhaz, Purple Worm, creatures with Swallow Whole, monsters that can Dish out the damage, and critters that can drain you, I want to Run in, smack them, and get the Heck outta there. Not stand there like a target, and keep on hitting it, obviously getting the monster's attention. And, hey, Look at THAT, you're immune to poison. So even if that purple worm stings you... Ahahaha.

Let's face it, the monk is not the combat master that is the Fighter. However, that's what the fighter's Job is. Fight. That's what he's made to do. That's why he's horrible at other things. Monks can actually be used in roleplaying, AND can be a second line fighter. Not comparing to the fighter? How about protecting your party wizard? Deflect any arrow that comes near him, smack around any target that rushes up, and that wizard will gladly give you a Mage Armor.

And, after being harrassed by monsters with little rest, getting ambushed, dealing with traps, guerilla tactics, etc, surviving is what's important, and Not dealing the most damage. Besides, a lot of classes, when they're Prepared, they can whoop you, or stand up to your assault. However, when dealig with a Monk, you can surprise him, and if he survives (I doubt he fails his save, or is hit by a sneak attack), then you're about to get your butt kickd.

And, look at the monk from an enemy stand point. Cleric and Wizard are memorizing their spells, barbarian and fighter go take a leak. The monk swoops in, stunning fist/Kills the wizard in one fell smack. then lays into the cleric. Here come Fighter and Barbarian? BOOM! They're eating the monk's dust because he just went off at 90' a round. Or, heck, he could've just ran far enough to let the barbarian get close, turn around, stun him, la into him, then repeat the process to the Figher.

It's all in how you play your character, and what you're fighting. Rogues are not grand in combat if they can't get their sneak attack on. Ask a rogue how useful he feels against a golem, or undead. A wizard has to deal with Defense or offense, and you have any idea how many Nasty monsters have SR and Powerful saves? A fighter is Will-save bait and isn't good out of combat. Does this mean they 'suck', and are 'broken'?

No. It just means that the Monk is to combat as the Bard is to Roleplaying. The monk has a lot of different qualities from other classes. He can heal himself, avoid damage, and still lay a decent smack down.

 

[Storm Raven]

At 10th level with flurry of blows he was doing +15/+15/+13/+11 for 1d10+9 each the 1st blow was usually a stunning blow at a 24dc. The fighter was 11th at the time and hitting at +22/17/12 for 1d8+12 each. All in all the fighter dished out more damage like he should but the monk wasn't a slouch in comparison. The stunning blow part helped a lot especially the rouge was bow focussed and if anyone got stunned they usually got wasted.

You were misusing the stunning blow ability. The monk's stunning blow is a supernatural ability, and unless noted otherwise, supernatural abilities require a standard action to use. Stunning blow does not note otherwise. You cannot make multiple attacks in the same round you use your stunning blow ability. Sorry.

 

[Storm Raven]

Re: Bah, monks are kewl!

1) Evil necromancer tries flying away from party; PC mage casts successful Dispel = evil mage go splat.

When a Fly spell ends, the creature affected floats to the ground safely. This is detailed in the spell description.

 

[nameless]

I don't want to back down on the Fly spell. If the orcs, winter wolves, zombies etc. don't Fly, and I do, then the fight just got a whole lot easier. If that half-dragon griffon is after me, and I can't Fly, there's a chance I'll die. Movement doesn't really get high enough to outdistance other classes until higher (9+) levels. You can bet that I'm gonna have Wings of Flying, Winged Boots, or Celestial Armor by then, so I can be airborne at least during battle. You spent 6 levels as a Monk and nabbed Boots of S&S (for 6,000 gp) to get your 100 ft. ground movement. I spent 12,000 gp, and got whatever classes I wanted to move 90' in the air. I can still fly in a 10x10 corridor with the Fly spell, since it doesn't give me actual wings. There is no drawback, only superior mobility.

My point isn't that flight is so common as to make other things worthless (though it is )... it's that flight is too good to not get ASAP. It means that non-flying opponents fight purely on my terms. If they don't have ranged weapons, they can't even fight back against my Longbow/Hold Monster/Polymorph/whatever. And try grappling that Wizard when he's flying 150 feet overhead. Try using an dispel when no two combatants are within 50 feet of each other. Try disarming a bulette. You're not a versatile as you think. When the monster has a high attack bonus, your low AC (compared to the platemail fighter and cleric and the polymorphed + shielded wizard) means he's gonna lay a smackdown on you; he might even power attack. Those big beasties tend to have high Fort saves, too. Say goodbye to stunning fist. Even if you take that beating, you'll barely dent the thing with your medium attack bonus and relatively low damage (if you full attack the thing, you're mincemeat). At least the rogue can tumble into flanking position and deal some big damage with that one shot before he gets a smackdown laid on him. The Monk will get that same smackdown, and not have accomplished much in the process.

-nameless

 

[Wolfen Priest]

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.

You misinterpreted my point. I wasn't trying to say that I think the monk is a powerful character class, quite the opposite, in fact. I was simply pointing out that, the goal of D&D generally being that all involved have fun, any DM can remedy the inherant weakness of a monk by giving said player a few special items.

Is this unbalanced? I doubt it, seeing how many people agree that the monk is inherantly weak to begin with. If I get a new player who's really psyched to play a monk, sure I'll give him a few extra items to make him decent in combat. It is just a game after all.

 

[Zog]

Stunning attack is a special ability, akin to a feat. In fact, it is an improved version of a feat. And feats can be used with multiple attacks. You can trip, disarm, sunder in your three attacks if you wish. You can also trip, stunning blow, disarm, if you wish.

If stunning blow could not be used with iterative attacks, there would be no need for the statement that "you can only make one per round".

Although, the save is fortitude (not will, if memory serves) - which makes it rather tough for those big tough monsters.