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

[Shard O'Glase]

Monks can dish out good damage as long as you got one of two things either that magic item in sword and fist that makes your unarmed attacks magical weapons or a druid in the party. One player had 1/2 orc 18str monk, who had +3 magic fists with those ki straps things so his stunning blow rocked, and those sandles that let you drop a big does of damage with a charge/mixed with striding and sprining, a +4str boost item, and a monks belt, and a couple minor defensive items. 1d10+9 isn't bad damage, and while they get mid bab, they get lots of attacks, andmid bab at the low to mid levels is only negligbly worse than fighter bab.

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.

 

[Hejdun]

One player had 1/2 orc 18str monk, who had +3 magic fists

If you are talking about Ki Strike, then that +3 doesn't add to hit or damage, it only applies when striking creatures with DR.

 

[tarchon]

Since I made a sweeping comment on monk's suckiness, I'll explain it. The most commonly cited reasons to play a monk are mobility and defense against magic.

1. Mobility is just plain bunk once the Fly spell comes into the campaign. Fly is just as quick as all but the highest level of Monk, and the Monk stands no chance against a flying opponent with ranged attacks. It's not hard to get a hold of a magic item which grants flight as well.

In your campaign, they're forbidden from using ranged weapons or something? They're no worse off than other non spellcasters there. A monk is perfectly capable of shooting a crossbow or throwing a javelin as well. Secondly - and I don't know why I have to point this out - not all opponents fly and have ranged attacks, even when the Fly spell is available in the campaign. And just because something isn't useful in that one condition doesn't mean that it's useless in all conditions.

In the vast majority of combats where there are at least some non-flying opponents, mobility is extremely useful. Monks also have godawful jumping ability so at high levels (and especially with magic aid) they can even intercept unwary flyers with a leap-n-stun or leap-n-grapple attack. They can often outrun flying opponents too (2x90 move from Fly doesn't beat 4x50); they can hide; they can even go to Total Defense and use their good saves, Evasion, and such to allow them draw off spell attacks harmlessly.

I usually play our party monk when the regular player is away, and it sounds to me like you've just never played one. They are extremely effective in combat, melee especially, and the high saves (plus the healing, various immunities, and [Imp.] Evasion) really do make them much less vulnerable than most characters, not only to spells but to other odd things like slippery surfaces, poisons, and assorted special attacks. When a monster lays out most of the party with some stench attack, it's going to be the monk who snorts with derision and whomps it silly. Vampire dominated the fighter and the barbarian? Not likely the monk.

I saw some other guy deriding the stun attack too - I can't even count how many times that's saved our party's bacon. Sure, it doesn't work every time, but it's not supposed to be a sure-fire monster killer. Even if it works half the time, that's level/2 times per day that an opponent loses his action, and when, incidentally, a rogue fighting with the monk will get in a sneak attack. It's very, very nice.

I will say that the monk is not a class for people with little tactical imagination - if your idea of tactics is "run up and hit it," this is not the class for you (I recommend Barbarian for that), but if you can juggle the enormous list of special abilities and use them when it's appropriate, it can do a lot.

To be sure the class has some weaknesses, but it wouldn't be balanced otherwise. One thing that really frustrates monks is proximity special attacks (great heat, cold, or acid, for example), but again that's the way it's supposed to be. There have to be some disadvantages for balance, but disadvantages in some situations don't negate advantages in other situations. Missing this idea seems to be where people usually run aground with "class X is broken/useless/sucks/etc," and that's certainly the case here.

Monastic life is also not "secluded by definition. " It is non-secular by definition; it requires separateness from secular life, not necessarily from other people (otherwise they would live alone in caves, not monasteries - hermits live alone in caves). Buddhist monastic orders don't necessarily require seclusion, and the itinerant Buddhist monk is a stock character in traditional Chinese folklore, one that strongly contributed to this character concept.

 

[nameless]

It looks like I'm the only Monk-basher around... so I'll not dig a hole I can't climb out of....

When I say Monks suck (which I firmly believe to be true), being fun to play is not all-inclusive in that statement. It can be plenty of fun to play a character who sucks with style )). Monks have plenty of style, but generally little substance. If you like running on tightropes, doing backflips down buildings and climbing sideways ropes, then a Monk can be plenty of fun. I'm more pragmatic. Flight is cheap, and rather low-level. It is pretty much the end-all-be-all to movement options (My point with the Monk was that his super-enhanced speed means squat when he's using the Fly 90 from a Fly spell).

Also, when using non-core items, balance can go right out the window. An amulet of greater magic fang may sound like a good idea, but it removes the biggest class disadvantage to Monks at virtually no cost. It would be like an item that allowed Wizards to cast spells without losing them from memory. Anyways, not all non-core stuff is bad (and not all core stuff is good); I just tend to be wary of magical effects with no other precedent.

-nameless

 

[ForceUser@Home]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I have to rebutt it with gusto! You seem to think that monks not having magic weapons - and relying wholly on their innate ki strikes - is the norm. It's not; there's not reason a monk can't have a +2 kama or +3 nunchuka to whip out for those times that damage reduction comes into play. Monks are hardcore; they are perfectly balanced as per core rules against the fighter. By your statements, my impression is that you think that if a power does not directly relate to combat utility (damage dealt or AC), it sucks, and thus, monks "suck." I wish we could make you see that monks are great because they are generalists, good for those situations that trouble your average melee character. Like an earlier rebutter posted, sure, you're not cranking damage like a fighter, but when spells are slinging and Will saves are coming, it's the monk that is going to carry the day while the fighter stands there drooling and held. Not to mention, in the end game, monks get more attacks per round than any other character class (5 base + 1 flurry + 1 hasted), and they're doing d20 damage per blow. Hardly in the realm of "suck."

 

[Vaxalon]

As has already been posted, monks aren't front-line damage-dealers.

Where a monk REALLY shines is attacking wizards. Their saves shrug off most effects, and evasion helps avoid the rest. They can deflect the odd arrow here and there, and with a decent tumble score they can ignore the front-line fighters and go straight for the spellcasters.

 

[Zarrock God of Evil]

As has already been posted, monks aren't front-line damage-dealers.

Where a monk REALLY shines is attacking wizards. Their saves shrug off most effects, and evasion helps avoid the rest. They can deflect the odd arrow here and there, and with a decent tumble score they can ignore the front-line fighters and go straight for the spellcasters.

When playing really tactically, the monks ability to maneuver himself easily into position for flanking and other supportive action - often tumbling easily through threatened squares and avoiding attacks of opportunity - is a huge boon to any party....

-Zarrock

 

[nameless]

My point isn't necessarily that monks are walking nerf fotballs, just that their role is served better by other classes or multiclasses. Rogues also get tumble, and Sneak Attacks are definitely effective against wizards. A Rogue also gets the invaluable ability to Find and Disarm traps. Rogues and Monks in fact have a very similar level of mobility (I of course go back to the Fly spell for this). Heck, even a Wizard can use summon monster spells to bring some flankers into the fray. Assuming the goal of a character is to support the party, a specialized character is more effective than a general one. That's the pitfall of the bard, too. In those rare situations where teamwork is out of the question, then the Monk shines. In the more common ones where everyone pulls their weight, Monks and Bards are a little too diluted to match up to the four "Core" core classes.

-nameless

 

[Mouseferatu]

My point isn't necessarily that monks are walking nerf fotballs, just that their role is served better by other classes or multiclasses. Rogues also get tumble, and Sneak Attacks are definitely effective against wizards. A Rogue also gets the invaluable ability to Find and Disarm traps. Rogues and Monks in fact have a very similar level of mobility (I of course go back to the Fly spell for this). Heck, even a Wizard can use summon monster spells to bring some flankers into the fray. Assuming the goal of a character is to support the party, a specialized character is more effective than a general one. That's the pitfall of the bard, too. In those rare situations where teamwork is out of the question, then the Monk shines. In the more common ones where everyone pulls their weight, Monks and Bards are a little too diluted to match up to the four "Core" core classes.

-nameless

You're assuming the fly spell is available. It isn't always. Some groups don't have arcane casters, or have arcane casters without the fly spell. And it's not necessarily "cheap." I know a huge number of DMs, myself included, who don't allow PCs to buy just any magic they want. Furthermore, sometimes a single spell isn't enough, or the caster must focus on other spells during the fight, or the battle is taking place in a dungeon or other location where flying isn't an option, or the caster simply doesn't have tie to reach the monk before he has to move, or...

And so forth.

Rogues don't have the saves of monks, or (usually) the AC. Rogues don't have the capability to deal out the same amount of damage in all circumstances, and they don't always get to sneak attack. You don't always have the option of summoning monsters; again, not every arcane caster has those spells. We recently just finished up a campaign that got to 13th level, and at no point did the sorcerer ever pick up any summoning spells, or fly. None of them were ever appropriate to a) the character, or b) what she needed at the time.

Plus, the whole point is that the monk can do all this without aid from spellcasters, leaving resources available for other stuff. Wizards have spells that can often do more damage in one round than a fighter, but you don't normally see people using that as an argument that fighters are unnecessary.

You're trying to convince us that monks are useless by focusing on specific circumstances where they're useless. But you could do the same for any of the classes, even the basics light fighter and wizard, with the right examples.

Heck, even the bard shines in the right situations (although I'll admit I've never myself encountered one of them).

 

[Hakkenshi]

Bah, monks are kewl!

Fly is REALLY unimportant. Not only is it expensive and/or spell-consuming to have an entire party flying, it's just plain silly. We're a very flight-phobic party in my group, since the three times someone has flown in-game, it ended badly for someone (most often the bad guy, but we learn from examples).

1) Evil necromancer tries flying away from party; PC mage casts successful Dispel = evil mage go splat.
2) PC mage tries flying up to get a better perspective on a battle, Gnoll ranger opponent brings him down with a crit on a longbow.
3) Monster tries to do a fly-by on the party, my Azer monk leaps onto his back and subsequently trounces him.

Flight means nothing with 100-foot jumps from an Azer monk with Boots of Striding and Springing