What's Up With The Monk?

[Wolfen Priest]

My monk-slaughterer:

Ok, here is my 10th (half-orc) fighter made using 32-point buy:

initial (unmodified) stats:
STR 22 (+2 from levelling)... with items, it’s actually 26
DEX 12
CON 16
INT 6
WIS 10
CHA 6

Saves:
Fort: +10
Ref: +4
Will: +3

Skills (13 points):
climb +17 (with modified STR modifier)
ride +7 (with DEX modifier)

Feats:
Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (spiked chain), Weapon Focus (spiked chain), Weapon Specialization (spiked chain), Improved Critical, Sunder, Blind Fighting

Magic Items (had 49,000 gp to spend):
+3 full plate -10,500 gp
+1 holy, flaming spiked chain -18,325 gp
boots of speed -8,000 gp
+4 belt of giant strength -16,000 gp
ioun stone (dusty rose prism) -4,000 gp

remaining gold: 825 gp

BAB (with spiked chain): +20/+15 (+20/+15/+20 while hasted with boots)

damage (with spiked chain): 2d4+1d6+11{avg = 19.5 per hit}, (2d4+3d6+11 vs.
evil enemies {avg = 26.5 per hit}), crit x2 (19-20)

Hit points (based on average hit die +.5 per level, as indicated): 90

AC: 23

Now, it’s overkill, yes, of course. However, I really don’t think you could even make a monk this effective, using just the core rules. I’m not saying that this fighter could slaughter almost any 10th level monk (that really doesn’t even need to be said, does it?); I’m saying I would rather have this fighter in my party than a similarly created monk.

 

[Hejdun]

Using average +1 for HP, that would be 60 hp (correct me if I'm wrong)

Using max at first, then 4.5 a level (average on a d8). you'd end up with 58. Minor difference though.

Boots of Striding and Springing (2.5k)

Errata'd to 6,000gp. Again, minor stuff.

+4 belt of giant strength -16,000 gp
gauntlets of ogre power (+2) -4,000 gp

Those don't stack.

 

[mattcolville]

That was my objection in the first place, one that was never satisfactorily addressed.

What is that thing the Monk does, that's both A: needed and B: something only he can do?

Still don't know what that thing is. When the chips are down, and everyone's fighting for their lives (which is to say, we're playing D&D) the Monks often get looks from the other players like "Jesus, is that all you can do?"

Which is not the same as "you're useless." It's "you're not useful *enough*." The only other class that gets this is the Bard, but we recently had a very effective bard in the group, and we changed our minds. I'm just curious as to when we're going to do the same thing with the Monk and it looks like the answer is "never."

I've added Quarterstaff, Longspear, and Javelin, all simple weapons, to the list of weapons the Monk can use with his unarmed ATK bonus and number of attacks. These should probably have been there in the first place, since relying on oriental weapons is something you should only have to do in an oriental game.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

How does this make a monk "useless." I would prefer a cogent reasoning (as I gave above), than just a "he sucks" post.

Fair enough.

A low level monk has very, very little to offer the party except melee fighting skills. And he is not noticeably better in that role than a similarly constructed rogue, if better at all. +1d6 (or +2d6) damage is a big balancing factor. The rogue however is likely to be the superior scout, superior archer, and have a pile of other skills. Don't discount the value of ranged attacks! Both the rogue and monk are relatively soft in the AC and HPs, so it is likely they will need to retreat from any heavy brawling and pull out the crossbow.

Stunning Fist is an excellent ability at medium or higher levels. It is very minor at low levels because the limited number of uses per day and the high probability of misses, especially if you Flurry. Saves are useful, but they aren't such a big deal at low levels (though they can be critical at higher levels).

The fact that I can even plausibly argue that rogues fight as well is quite damning to monks, even if you disagree with my analysis. Melee fighting is a secondary skill to many rogues; it is a primary function for monks. Dare we take a look at a cleric or paladin for comparison? Or a barbarian?

 

[Wolfen Priest]

Those don't stack.

Ok, I edited it, and changed it to a dusty rose ioun stone (+1 deflection bonus to AC). So now he is only +20/+15/+20 to hit while hasted, and his AC rises to 23.

In essence, he would still take out the monk with about 3 hits (and he would still be 100% likely to hit him at least twice every round), on average, while the monk probably wouldn't even scratch the fighter (averaging only 6.5 points of damage on a hit, which would only happen 40% of the time on his best attack, against 90 hit-points). It's really no comparison whatsoever. That's my point.

Which character would you rather have in your party, if the goal was to gain experience points?

 

[Hejdun]

I'm just pointing out minor mistakes

Likes this one:

I've added Quarterstaff, Longspear, and Javelin, all simple weapons

Longspears aren't simple weapons

In order for a monk to be effective, they HAVE to do more than fight. Monks just aren't (and never will be) on par with paladins, fighters, rangers, or barbarians at fighting. Therefore, in order for a monk to be as effective in a party setting, they have to do something other than fight. Ok, well, monks might fight a little better than a ranger, but that's not the point.

 

[Gargoyle]

Monks are a lot like bards. (And yes I know some of you think they suck too...) They're specialized, and they're most useful in large parties that already have the major classes covered. They're good for rounding out a party, but won't replace a fighter, cleric, wizard, or rogue.

When monks have the advantage:

- In civilized areas where weapons are banned or uncommon. (Not a common D&D setting!)

- Against creatures without damage reduction.

- In wide open areas where their mobility is useful.

- Against lots of low AC creatures.

- Against spellcasters.

I like to think of them as the special forces of the party. They can get behind enemy lines and take out leaders and spellcasters, but can't soak up or deal out the damage like a fighter.

Some advice on playing a monk:

- If you're playing a monk in a party with only a few members, try not to be a substitute fighter. You'll be much more effective as a substitute rogue. If there are no fighter types, consider playing one instead, then multiclassing into monk later (it could be an interesting roleplaying experience to have such a career change.)

- Don't disdain using magic weapons. You need to hit more often and need to get past damage reduction.

- Learn to realize when damage reduction is causing your blows to have no effect. Switch to a magic weapon, or grapple with such a creature instead so that your friends can finish it off easier.

- The monk's biggest problem is not hitting often enough and not hitting hard enough. If you use unarmed attacks, you don't hit often enough, but do cause good damage, unless facing damage reduction. If you use magic weapons, you hit more often, but do less damage at higher levels.
My advice is to do one of two things: Either start with a high Strength and keep improving it through magic items and when gaining levels, or go with a high Dexterity and take Weapon Finesse: Unarmed Strike, then Weapon Finesse: <Insert monk weapon here>. Each path works well for a monk. Make Wisdom your second most important stat in any case.

If you're DMing a group with a monk, I would suggest making sure that the monk has something useful to do. They're great at surviving traps, volleys of arrows, and spells. Good challenges for them include hordes of low AC / low hit point enemies for them to use flurry of blows on (good for fighters with Cleave too), enemy spellcasters hiding behind lines of troops, and encounters where weapons aren't allowed or available. Also, make sure they can get magical weapons just as easily as the other members of the party, and that if you throw high damage reduction creatures at them, that there are other enemies that they can fight effectively. (I actually made this mistake last weekend, but the monk improvised and bullrushed the lead villain off the deck of the ship with a flying kick, turned out to be quite cool.)

Monks are hard to play, and create some challenges for the DM, but if they fit into your campaign world (and they don't always fit!) then I think they're balanced and fun. They're just not as easy to deal with as the other classes, and really should be used to round out a larger party, not as a fighter substitute.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

Which character would you rather have in your party, if the goal was to gain experience points?

Either one, since they both have their strengths and weaknesses.

The monk doesn't have the sheer combat power of the fighter, but he also doesn't have the brain of a turnip or a Will save that's going to cause him to drop like panties on prom night.

It's all gonna come down to party composition.

As designed, the fighter is great against nasty beasties. He can get stuck in against brawling monsters and more than hold his own. Get some enemy spellcasters in the mix though, and, without proper support, he's very likely f'ed.

The monk sample character, meanwhile, lacks the sheer stopping power of the sample fighter. He can, however, get across the entire battlefield in about .5 seconds and put a hurt on the spellcaster that's just itching to drop a Dominate Person or Hold Person on the fighter. He also makes a great partner for a party rogue, since he can set up flanking maneuvers with ease and has more than respectable scores in Move Silently and Hide.


Now, as to the question of whether the monk class does what it was supposed to do.

I think it does, but I don't think that what it does is what it should have been designed to do in the first place.

I think that there is simultaneously too much and not enough "asian" flavor, for lack of a better term. Many of the monk's abilities are clearly inspired by HK movies and the whole eastern unarmed ass kicker archetype, but the class comes across as more of a survivalist than it does a Kain/Bruce/Jackie/Jet/Shaolin composite.

I think a problem a lot of players and DMs have with the class is that it brings to mind images of Shaolin warriors kicking and punching their way through legions of hapless opponents without really giving you the tools to do it.

In other words, it does its job well, but it does the wrong job.

-Patrick Younts

 

[apsuman]

help!

What is the wealth level for a tenth level character, and more importantly, where do you find this information?


thx,

g!

 

[hong]

If you have a shirt that is enchanted to act as armour, isn't that essentially armour?

A silk shirt with an armour bonus to AC would essentially be bracers of armour occupying a different item slot. No big deal there. You don't even need an item made for you, just a cleric who can cast magic vestment when needed.

If I was running a game, I wouldn't allow it. Heck, I'm not even a 100% sure where I stand on Bracers of Armour (right now I'd be willing to allow it).

The consensus for the longest time in the Rules forum has been that bracers don't count as "worn armour".