What's Up With The Monk?

[hong]

I cant debate whether a Monk is useful at high levels; I havent tried it. But I can tell you whats special about the Monk at low levels - he sucks even more than the Bard. (Actually, now that the Bard has healing spells, the Monk sucks *much* more than the Bard. ;-)

Hee hee. Hey, at least it's better than the 1E monk -- where you were FORCED to have AC 10 and deal 1d4 damage at 1st level, regardless of your actual stats....

 

[Kesh]

Next time I play a monk, I intend on having two items crafted for him once he can afford them:

Fang Gloves - Gloves which grant Greater Magic Fang X times per day.

Iron Shirt - An old staple of martial arts fiction, it's a fine silk shirt that is enchanted to act as armor.

Solves a few problems right there.

 

[Darklone]

And actually, an AoO will stop a monk trying to grapple, assuming it hits....

... Makes the monk look kind of foolish for concentrating so much on movement, eh?

Actually no. You can make as many grapple attempts as your BAB allows you attacks. Thus a monk with +4/+1 for unarmed attacks may try to grapple an enemy twice per round and only the first one may be spoiled by an AoO. The only danger may be the rogue friend of the grappled foe.

About the monks movement: Be imaginative. Use it. You can do many things with it that won't help a flier. Besides... dispelling fly should let the enemy DROP at once

 

[Hakkenshi]

Hong, what I meant is that quarterstaves and spears aren't monk weapons. And that's just messed up.

Also, 4d6+20 assumes that the fighter has a lawful, chaotic, holy, unholy or elemental weapon, all effects that could just as well be added to a monk's fists.

If you say 2d6+20 for the fighter, he's using a greatsword and only has 4 attacks. A monk with Flurry of Blows is doing 1d20+5 (using your example) with *6* attacks. Without going into mathematical discussions, it still looks pretty good.

And why the HECK does the monk have to equal the fighter at fighting??? The fighter is SUPPOSED to be the best; people would cry bloody murder if he wasn't. The point is that the monk is ALMOST as good, and he can easily have better AC, does in fact have incredibly superior mobility, SR, Dimension Door, immunity to poison, etc. etc. But the fighter needs items (or spells) to get these abilities, at least a few of which (you must admit) are rather desirable.

And you would totally waste a good fighter by trying to equal the monk at grappling, THE single most underused ability.

 

[dravot]

And you would totally waste a good fighter by trying to equal the monk at grappling, THE single most underused ability.

Can someone please explain how/why a monk is so good at grappling? I'm not seeing it.

The monk I play in our beta campaign only has a 12 STR, so an opposed grapple check doesn't look very likely to me.

(then again, for some reason, the grapple rules have always eluded me)

 

[hong]

Hong, what I meant is that quarterstaves and spears aren't monk weapons. And that's just messed up.

Well, since this thread is basically about how the monk is messed up....

Also, 4d6+20 assumes that the fighter has a lawful, chaotic, holy, unholy or elemental weapon, all effects that could just as well be added to a monk's fists.

Since when has it been possible to enchant the monk's fists?

Also: frost shock greatsword = 4d6.
Frost shock holy greatsword = 6d6.
Etcetera.

If you say 2d6+20 for the fighter, he's using a greatsword and only has 4 attacks. A monk with Flurry of Blows is doing 1d20+5 (using your example) with *6* attacks. Without going into mathematical discussions, it still looks pretty good.

With, as I said, most likely a lower attack bonus than the fighter. That's especially the case when you consider the fighter will probably have higher Str than the monk, not just a better BAB. And a monk who stands there to do a full attack on someone is vulnerable to a full attack back. In general, this is Not Good; monks usually don't have the AC or hit points to stand there and take it.

And why the HECK does the monk have to equal the fighter at fighting???

You tell me. You're the one who brought up the damage dice thing in the first place.

 

[Hakkenshi]

Well, I may not have been clear, Hong. What I mean is that for someone who is seen as so vastly inferior to a fighter, the monk isn't. He's quite close to being as good. Everyone seems hell-bent on crippling him.


1) I only brought up the damage dice because I was seeing a lot of "the monk sucks at damage" talk. Sorry if that wasn't clear, my bad. For someone who ISN'T a fighter, the monk does fairly well at imitating it.

2) Why can't you give a monk a ring of Lawful Holy Flaming Burst Fists??? The rules are essentially limited only by your imagination. If you give a fighter a fighter weapon, give a monk a monk weapon, THEN compare.

3) In every campaign I've played in and run, the monk had a higher AC than the entire party, until they got to mid-levels, where he was easily on par with the best AC. I may be playing it differently...

4) Yes, you're right, the thread IS about how the monk is messed up, but, IMHO (and bear in mind it IS only an opinion ), that's only because he's never given sufficient support to make him the great class he actually is. Have any character with inferior item support from the DM, and that character will be underpowered. The monk just happens to be the best at surviving without those items; doesn't mean he's going to EXCEL without them.

Give the monk a chance; all it takes is equal-opportunity DMing

PS: About the low BAB, if you're going to put a low stat in Strength, you had better Weapon Finesse your unarmed strike before complaining you can't hit. But I'm sure everyone knew that

 

[Darklone]

Can someone please explain how/why a monk is so good at grappling? I'm not seeing it.

If your BAB grants you several attacks, you can use each of them as a grapple attempt. Assuming a full attack action, even with low strength you should be able to grapple someone with a little luck.

Or like a monk in my group did once: Start with a stunning fist at the enemies fighter (he rolled bad for the save... but that happens more often than you could think after reading this thread), second attack was a trip followed by a Improved trip bash, next attack was grapple. Sure he had not a big chance to grapple his opponent, but without the magical modifiers to hit, grapple checks can always be won if you roll high and the enemy low.

 

[Hakkenshi]

I totally agree, Darklone, that's exactly what I'm talking about: using the monk's full potential. Although I've been told that apparently Stunning Fist is a standard action

Personally, whatever the rules say, that will never be the case in my group. It's just not as fun that way

 

[Glamdring]

Of course the monks in your group are going to be useless when you throw monsters at them that make monks useless. I ran a campaign in Waterdeep and my friend played a very good monk character. Why? Because a city-based campaign doesn't usually have shadows and golems walking the streets. Besides, characters far below 10th level shouldn't expect to be able to vanquish golems with ease, and the party cleric should be handling the shadows, not the monk. Monks (along with a great many character classes) should be included in a game that is tailored for every class. If your players are asking, "Are you a front-line fighter," then maybe you should suggest that your new gamers make front-line fighters. If you allow them to play monks, bards, and druids, and you plan on throwing golems and moderately powerful undead at them, it shouldn't be a surprise that they feel weak. A campaign that is centered around heavy combat should include heavy combatants. You can run a great game with monks, bards, mages and clerics. It's up to the DM to make it fun and believable.