What's Up With The Monk?

[Henry]

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?

I won't take the Cleric comparison with ANY other character - those jokers are so loaded it's amazing - but the loading is intentional there.

I do see Hong's point - a monk does not fulfill a role that many people want him to fulfill. The only two points I wish to make are that a monk is not useless compared to the other base classes, and that there is precedent scattered throughout history and legend for the monk's abilities. I myself do feel that more weapons that could be used for unarmed attacks could have been included - and that in truth, an ability that could allow a monk weapon slightly better base damage as well as UAB at higher level would have been welcome. But I can speak from personal experience to say that monks have been quite popular and enjoyable in our campaigns - just as they have not been as enjoyable in yours.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

couple points one the fighter displayed on this page would get owned by any monk built with any degree of efficiency. hide/sneak are brutal skills in one on one fights, spring attack and great movement make these skills even more brutal. weapons may be cool but if your stunned even once your weapons are dropped, and that nice movement rate likely means your weapons are long gone before you get to move again.

Well, to address this issue, we were limited to 32-point-buy, which is the main reason why I disagree with you. Also, there were two feats I had this gruntish brute take that were pretty much optional (and needless); I could've taken (and indeed thought about taking) the feat Great Fortitude instead of Sunder, in which case his Fort save would be +12. Not likely to be stunned, really.

Second, The whole reason I gave him spiked chain was so that spring attack wouldn't work. The monk (indeed any monk) would run up for a spring attack, and boom: AoO at +20. That's an automatic hit (vs. his [dodge enhanced] AC of 20). Two more of those and the monk is likely dead.

Hakkenshi, yes, I see I did spend way too much money on his equipment! I don't know how I let that slip through, but I made the guy in about five minutes or so before I started entering him into this thread. In any case, I guess what I would do is 'shrink' his weapon to simply a +1 holy spiked chain. Maybe that's what I thought I did; I don't remember.

And second, (and more importantly), I agree with you Hakkenshi that I too would not really want to play that fighter. A big dumb jerk with a 6 INT and 6 CHA. Pretty lame, no doubt. But still, I would prefer to play a character that was at least marginally effective, if at all possible.

I guess my overall point/opinion here is that I think the monk needs an overhaul. An upgrade. I think they should give him an official redesign to make him almost as good as a fighter, or, optionally, better at some other things. But I have no idea what I would change. Perhaps more skill points?

 

[Hakkenshi]

Well, I'm sure you know my opinion on the monk's status already, so I don't need to tell you I think he's fine.

HOWEVER, I will agree that he could be reworked. If I were to remake the monk, he would not get SR, nor become an outsider (that's for a prestige class to do, if at all), nor would he be able to heal himself or Dimension Door. In exchange for these (pretty powerful) abilities, I'd probably have him:

a) deal bonus damage based on Wisdom;

b) add Wisdom bonus to attack rolls;

c) count as one size larger, then two sizes larger in combat for purposes of tripping, disarming, grappling, etc.;

d) get more monk weapons (shortspear, quarterstaff, longspear, javelin, maybe even a bow);

e) get the psionic feat Up the Wall despite not having the prerequisites.

Bear in mind these are quickly thought up and written, and I may be way off base, but I'm certain this would fit my idea of the monk much better.

I'd like to see others redesign the monk in a few quick changes. Post your own ideas!

 

[Enkhidu]

Well, I've been thinking about this topic for a while - over the 2 threads that it covered - and I'm beginning to think that we're all looking at this the wrong way.

To me, putting different core classes up against one another - especially one with very different abilities - is similar to playing rock-paper-scissors. As has been shown, a fighter can beat a monk (we'll call the fighter rock), the monk can beat a wizard (magic resistant scissors cuts paper), while a wizard can beat a fighter (paper covers low will save rock).

When you put a monk up against a fighter in a straightforward fight, the fighter will more often than not win. After all, fighters fight. If monks were supposed to fight as well as fighters, they would be called fighters as well.

But monks aren't fighters - they are survival specialists. They survive against all kinds of foes, and in all sorts of dangerous situations. They may not always win a fight, but are very capable of "running away to fight another day."

Monks fill their role in a party, but that role isn't necessarily to fight. It might be to be cleanup crew, or be point man (they are very good at this because of their saves and movement rates), or be an ace in the hole against spellcasters, but it's not to take the role of the brick, or the meat shield.

 

[hong]

I guess my overall point/opinion here is that I think the monk needs an overhaul. An upgrade. I think they should give him an official redesign to make him almost as good as a fighter, or, optionally, better at some other things. But I have no idea what I would change. Perhaps more skill points?

Right, here we go again.

I've already mentioned in this thread that I have a martial artist class on my D&D page, but it got lost in the flood of posts.

Here's an executive summary of what it's about. First the statement of purpose: the martial artist is about _unarmoured combat_. This is what distinguishes the class from the fighter, and the rogue, and any other class. If you're habitually wearing chainmail or full plate, then even if you're jumping around with boots of striding and springing or a ring of jumping, you're not a martial artist.

This is distinct to the martial artist from Chainmail Bikini's Beyond Monks pdf, which defines the martial artist's niche as _unarmed_ combat.

The class and feats are here:
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/martialartist.htm
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ma_feats.htm

I'm in the process of submitting this to Asgard magazine, with a few revisions I've been planning to do for some time. This will include a reworked treatment of martial arts schools, plus new prestige classes (of course) and mastery abilities.

If anyone has any suggestions on what they'd like to see in this article, or any changes they'd like to see for the class, speak up now or forever hold your peace.

 

[Hakkenshi]

I had already seen your martial artist, hong (I was one of those few who DIDN'T miss reading it in the posting frenzy ), but to me, it's too much of a fighter with unarmed combat feats. Which is fine, really, because as it is right now, it's next to impossible to build a good pugilist.

The feats I have more trouble with, for reasons I don't fully understand myself. I wish I could explain it better, but they just don't feel right to me. That being said, if they work in your games, then your system is fine.

The thing with the monk is that I like the idea of a more mystical fighter, while the martial artist is more pragmatic. I think that's why WotC chose to call it a monk in the first place instead of a martial artist. I think your class ought to be ADDED alongside the monk, which could be the supernatural variant more along the lines of WotC's version.

 

[hong]

I had already seen your martial artist, hong (I was one of those few who DIDN'T miss reading it in the posting frenzy ), but to me, it's too much of a fighter with unarmed combat feats. Which is fine, really, because as it is right now, it's next to impossible to build a good pugilist.

Hmm. Are you sure that was MY martial artist you were looking at? I haven't got that many unarmed combat feats at all -- in fact, looking over the list, there are exactly 3 out of 25-odd that require Improved Unarmed Strike.

The thing with the monk is that I like the idea of a more mystical fighter, while the martial artist is more pragmatic. I think that's why WotC chose to call it a monk in the first place instead of a martial artist. I think your class ought to be ADDED alongside the monk, which could be the supernatural variant more along the lines of WotC's version.

Bingo! I have no problems with the mystical mumbo-jumbo at all, in fact, I'm all for it. The martial arts schools and PrCs I've written up so far for Asgard tend to be like this.

What I was trying to avoid was more feats that try to emulate specific maneuvers or combat techniques. IMO, D&D combat is too abstract to handle that level of detail. Better to go for the mystical stuff, which also gives you a lot more room to make things up as you go.

 

[Hakkenshi]

Hmm. Are you sure that was MY martial artist you were looking at? I haven't got that many unarmed combat feats at all -- in fact, looking over the list, there are exactly 3 out of 25-odd that require Improved Unarmed Strike.

Sorry, I meant bonus feats in general. Yes, you're right there's a wide variety of feats you allow in your list, and it allows for a bow-wielding martial artist, which is always to the good.

I really can't say I'm a big fan of having bonus feats as special abilities. I guess that's why I'm not crazy about playing a fighter

Uncanny Dodge, of course, is where I entirely agree with you. Makes sense for a martial artist (and even for a monk).

And I think that if I had one thing to change about the monk, it's that it depends too much on physical stats to depict an old mountain hermit who defeats powerful opponents by the strength of his Ki. Although, at venerable age, he's likely to have high AC, he won't be taking anyone down quickly, and his HP will have suffered a bit.

Still, I think this can't be resolved very easily, which is why I stick with the standard monk

 

[apsuman]

Well, to address this issue, we were limited to 32-point-buy, which is the main reason why I disagree with you. Also, there were two feats I had this gruntish brute take that were pretty much optional (and needless); I could've taken (and indeed thought about taking) the feat Great Fortitude instead of Sunder, in which case his Fort save would be +12. Not likely to be stunned, really.

Second, The whole reason I gave him spiked chain was so that spring attack wouldn't work. The monk (indeed any monk) would run up for a spring attack, and boom: AoO at +20. That's an automatic hit (vs. his [dodge enhanced] AC of 20). Two more of those and the monk is likely dead.

I thought that spring attack would ignore AOO, or is it because he leaves one threatened area 10' away and moves to another, 5' away?

g!

 

[hong]

Sorry, I meant bonus feats in general. Yes, you're right there's a wide variety of feats you allow in your list, and it allows for a bow-wielding martial artist, which is always to the good.

I really can't say I'm a big fan of having bonus feats as special abilities. I guess that's why I'm not crazy about playing a fighter

Well, I'm a big fan of bonus feats, because they allow lots of flexibility. If I was designing 3.1E or 4E, I'd make all the classes have bonus feats like the fighter, but with different sets of feats to choose from. Right now the fighter is extremely customisable, but you can't really say that about the barbarian or paladin, or even the cleric and sorc.

Uncanny Dodge, of course, is where I entirely agree with you. Makes sense for a martial artist (and even for a monk).

Yep, I don't know why they left that out. (Well, I do know why; it's because they were trying to recreate the 1E monk. But I digress. )

And I think that if I had one thing to change about the monk, it's that it depends too much on physical stats to depict an old mountain hermit who defeats powerful opponents by the strength of his Ki. Although, at venerable age, he's likely to have high AC, he won't be taking anyone down quickly, and his HP will have suffered a bit.

Still, I think this can't be resolved very easily, which is why I stick with the standard monk

True, the martial artist will still need better stats on average than a fighter. What I've done to address this issue is to make feats that swap around attribute bonuses so that low stats don't matter so much. Consider Weapon Finesse, which lets you add your Dex bonus to attacks instead of Str. There are a couple of feats that let you use Wis instead of Str for damage, or Wis instead of Con for hit points and Fort saves. You could make more along these lines.

And because I'm perfectly happy with the quasi-mystical thing, I don't have to torture myself thinking up "realistic" rationales for these feats.