Unarmed combat: you can junk the monk

[Jefe Bergenstein]

So, in 4e, the monk should be junked and merged with the fighter.

The fact that the monk kind of underperforms in 3e shouldnt be taken as a sign that it should be scrapped for 4e... after all, the fighter is frequently labeled as a weak class, and he's being retolled to be comparable to other classes. It just means that the monk needs a better design. Part of the problem with the 3E monk lies in other editions, when they tried to copy over its mish-mash of abilities directly. The 1st edition monk sucked, hard. I even recall a Dragon magazine article that actualyl declares him an "XP leech" for the party, with its pathetic d4 HP and laughable damage (coupled with a horrendous advancement table).

With 4E the monk is potentially poised to become a real contender. The loss of the full attack option means that mobility becomes considerably more useful for those who dont have the pounce special ability, as before the trade of full attack for spring attack just worsened the monk's mediocre damage output. Throw in some good choke holds, improved stunning that actually has a chance of landing on non-wizards, and you have yourself an excellent martial striker. I can definately see why he's not included in the PHB though, as there is already a martial striker (rogue.. possible ranger too) and the monk is less iconic in terms of generic fantasy tropes.

 

[RtrnofdMax]

Your base AB stops progressing at epic levels so your fighter is still at 20.

I would like to see these calcs for a quarterstaff. 1d6 damage but 10 attacks because flurry adds attacks to both ends.

 

[Jhaelen]

what does an analysis of 3.5e mechanics have to do with 4e, anyway?

That's what I immediately asked myself after reading the OP.
It just means that the 4E monk class will have to be different from the 3E monk class, which is about as surprising as the sun rising in the morning.

 

[The_Gneech]

"Junk the monk" sounds like it should be a euphemism, as in, "I'm junking the monk right now, IYKWIMAITYD..."

Not sure what it should be a euphemism for, but I'm sure I wouldn't endorse it.

-The Gneech

 

[Stormtalon]

Huh, and here I was under the impression that you simply couldn't utilize ANY of the Two-weapon fighting feats when using natural weapons -- Improved Unarmed Strike being included in that list. At least, that's the way I've always played when both as a monk, a fighter and a DM. So, TWF works for a monk when wielding kamas, but not barehanded, as it specifically mentioned you're using all parts of your body when fighting unarmed.

For that fighter above, I'd look at it, look at the player & say, "All these TWF feats and no weapons, huh? Waste feats much? 'Cause you ain't gettin' to use 'em unless you have at least a dagger in each hand."

 

[Masquerade]

So, in 4e, the monk should be junked and merged with the fighter.

Err..no. You've offered evidence that the monk should be "junked" in 3.5, and not very convincing evidence at that (IMHO). Pointing out an apparent imbalance between X and Y beyond 20th level isn't likely to surprise anyone.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Having said that, does the monk have issures? Hell yeah. It's the best arguement for the role-oriented approach of 4e. It may be ibothersome hat the druid can field every position on his team, but it's downright lousy that a monk is challenged at fielding any of them. The way I'd sum them up now would be "defenders with bad hit points and AC". Their saving throws and class features make them resistant to a lot of attack types, they just can't absorb much in the way of actual damage.

Exactly. When working on a character for our Birthright game, with rather generous bloodline rules for stats, I made a very nice VoP goliath monk.

And then noticed that said monk would still be underperforming, in every way, compared to a cleric, druid, or barbarian. Oy.

Here's hoping there's a good mystic martial artist monk coming soon.

Brad

 

[AffableVagrant]

Not just that...

Fighter can be a better archer than a Ranger, if you do it right. :\

 

[Quartz]

Strength is halved for off-hand

Not for natural attacks, IIRC.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Fighter can be a better archer than a Ranger, if you do it right. :\

I would suggest that if you simply use the Fighter's feats to buy up all the good archery feats, even without trying hard, it's almost impossible not to "do it right", in the sense of being significantly more effective an archer than a Ranger.

Maybe that's righteous, though, because why should some wolf-loving tree-hugging bastard outshoot a deadly ultra-trained archer anyway?

Maybe I'm biased, because I was never into the concept of "Ranger is the best at shooting bows!". Whilst the woodsman being a good shot is a fairly common fantasy trope, it's far from everpresent, and he's rarely the ONLY good shot.

I'd see nothing wrong with the Fighter being better at unarmed combat than the Monk, either, nor wearing armour to do so. Indeed, it's kind of cool, to my mind. Maybe I just love Fighters though (which would be odd, given I never play them).

I think in 4E we need to see the Monk directed to either kind of "Divine Striker" or "Martial Controller" role, imho, and given more clear abilities to do so.

I sincerely hope the Fighter class in 4E has at least ONE official "unarmed" tree, by say, a year after the PHB's release. The Monk should not have the monopoly on unarmed combat, any more than the Ranger does on archery. Monopolies on fighting styles are "role-defining", they're stupid and unecessarily limiting.