What's Up With The Monk?

[Villano]

My Experience

When 3E came out, I thought that the monk was the coolest class. Unfortunately, one of the classes big weaknesses came out when I tried to create one. I mostly play in point buy games, and the monk needs high scores in too any abilities. It was a choice of good attacks and low AC or vice versa.

I ended up playing clerics, fighters, samurai, and rangers (at least with them, you only need 1 or 2 high stats).

Eventually, I join an online RttTotEE game. It only lasted a short time. We never made it past the dragon at the moathouse before the DM quit.

Anyway, the game was 4th level and very high point buy, so I ended up with 14 str, 18 dex, and 18 wis. Plus I was a halfling, so I had an AC bonus. I took dodge and moblity, figuring that I should make myself harder to hit since I didn't have that great of HP.

The result? Nobody could hit me, but I couldn't hit anything either. I could only delay attacks until a fighter or whatever would show up and finish off the enemy. I was reduced to mage bodyguard and was bored out of my mind.

In retrospect, I should have ditched my mobility and taken a weapon finesse (although it still wouldn't have helped against damage reduction).

IMO, monks need a specialty. They can't deal damage or cast spells, open locks, socialize, or heal, and if you need someone sneaky, you're better off with a rogue.

The problem is finding out what that specialty should be. Perhaps focusing on their ki may be the, well, key. Either give the monk a selection of bonus feats, like Ki Shout, or allow them to focus their ki power so many times a day for certain effects (healing, ability boosts, and, at later levels, possibly energy attacks).

Oh, well, just a suggestion.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Again in a straight up fight, the fighter will and should win. But the fighter can't back up the rouge in stealth missions/ and still hang in the thick of a mellee fight, the fighter can't chat up npcs with diplomacy, can't tumble in to avoid attack of opportunity and many other cool tactics.

At low levels, a balanced rogue character can do all those things better than a monk. The HP difference will be effectively nonexistent if the rogue pumps up his Con and leaves the Wis at 10 (if you are using point).

Consider:

1st level Monk (32 pts.)
14 Str
14 Dex
14 Con
12 Int
16 Wis
8 Cha
10 HPs

1st level Rogue (32 pts.)
14 Str
14 Dex
16 Con
12 Int
12 Wis
10 Cha
9 HPs

The only notable edge the monk has in saving throws. The Rogue will equal or outclass him at everything else.

From a purely coldblooded minmaxing metagame perspective, playing a low level monk is a selfish choice because your defensive advantages mostly help you while your weak offense definitely hurts everyone.

Defense minded-characters can work well, but they usually do not help the party as a whole unless they fit into a clearcut niche. A heavy armored grunt is easy to work with, frex.

Contrast the monk with the real utility class: the ranger. The ranger has good offense, good skills and scouting ability, give him a wand of CLW and some scrolls and he is a backup spellcaster/healer. The ranger can do it all. He is just a little soft on defense (AC weak, saves are okay) but he has HPs.

 

[Hikaru]

THE MONK SUCKS BECAUSE HE CAN'T DO AS MUCH DAMAGE AS A FIGHTER!

....except, he's not supposed to.

But a Sacred Fist can.

Sacred Fist are better than Monks in many ways: better HD, BAB, damages... They don't have the speed of a Monk, nor the good For saves and several other abilities, but they've got evasion, Blindsight (which is a mix of tremor sens, scent...), can wear light armor...

 

[Olive]

Actually it is the opposite. Forsakers are very underpowered. When I first saw it I thought it was great (and I still love the idea) but then I made a drow forsaker to test it.

You would think a drow forsker would be great, it does have an amazing SR. For a while it is very good but once the party gets to mid-high (12-15) levels they start feeling the pain of no magic items.

By the time you get to epic levels... uggg.... you'd be better of going with an epic commoner.

i'd actually probably agree. after posting that i went and looked at my copy of MotW, and you're gonna need all of that stuff in a game where the DM is giving out magic as recommended by the DMG...

Also, just a quick note, people keep mentioning that the quarterstaff should be a monk weapon. well, using OA rules it is. I personally think that the OA rules make monks make more sense as I understand them... but they don't get spears AFAIK, which is wierd considering all the longspear use i see in martial arts films...

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Re: My Experience

When 3E came out, I thought that the monk was the coolest class. Unfortunately, one of the classes big weaknesses came out when I tried to create one. I mostly play in point buy games, and the monk needs high scores in too any abilities. It was a choice of good attacks and low AC or vice versa.

.

actually in the core point buy with higher stats costing more the monk is one of the better choices. Under even 25 point buy you can make a decent many above average stat character, and the monk gain extra bennies for each of those stats. While one stat characters are motivated to foolishly spend extra points in stats past 14 even though the bonus doesn't increase inline with the cost, monks have a good rules mechanic reason to bump up str,dex,con,wis so they never seem to fall into that trap.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

At low levels, a balanced rogue character can do all those things better than a monk. The HP difference will be effectively nonexistent if the rogue pumps up his Con and leaves the Wis at 10 (if you are using point).

Consider:

1st level Monk (32 pts.)
14 Str
14 Dex
14 Con
12 Int
16 Wis
8 Cha
10 HPs

1st level Rogue (32 pts.)
14 Str
14 Dex
16 Con
12 Int
12 Wis
10 Cha
9 HPs

The only notable edge the monk has in saving throws. The Rogue will equal or outclass him at everything else.

From a purely coldblooded minmaxing metagame perspective, playing a low level monk is a selfish choice because your defensive advantages mostly help you while your weak offense definitely hurts everyone.

Defense minded-characters can work well, but they usually do not help the party as a whole unless they fit into a clearcut niche. A heavy armored grunt is easy to work with, frex.

.

I almost never use the rogue in class balance discussions because he is signifigantly better than most other classes. I think the monk is perfectly balanced with the fighter/ranger/barb/bard/and low level arcane casters. Divine casters are always too powerful, and so is an effectively built rogue. As you pointed out the rogue can sorta hang in a fight, and yet still rules in out of combat and utility purposes. Considering his edge in skills he should be more online with the wiz/sor in fighting techniques, but nope he sometimes even outdoes the fighters.(I don't like nerfing classes so I'm more for boosting the skills of other classes so they are more able to function in out of combat scenarios) But I digress, for the monk I completly disagree with the idea that defense is a selfish choice. If anything not having defense is the selfesh choice as you frequently don't contribute as you stare slack jawed in a hold spell, or you draw resources from the party in heals and disels so you can contribute and fullfill your role in the party.

Further more at low levels a wiz/sor is almost as good at fighting as a monk, or even a fighter. Because they all suck massively. Low levels basically only prove that yes they all do suck at fighting and the difference of suckage isn't that much yet. Levels do make the suckage spread increase until fighters don't suck and actually rock and wiz/sor still do suck. But level 1-1 comparisons virtually mean nothing because at that level you really don't see much of a differnce in any classes combat skills.

 

[Gargoyle]

I almost never use the rogue in class balance discussions because he is signifigantly better than most other classes. I

Hey! Let's not turn this "The monk got the shaft" thread into a "the rogue is broken" thread!

 

[Gizzard]

Divine casters are always too powerful, and so is an effectively built rogue.

Hmmm, maybe this is why we disagree. I think the Monk sucks and you think the Monk is just right and everyone else is overpowered. ;-)

<edit to add content>

Actually, I agree with Shard that 1st level comparisons are not the best; everyone sucks more or less equally. As I said in a post long long ago (and far far away), I really felt outclassed at third level. By 5th, I have a much needed d8 damage dice (what other fighter type uses a d6 weapon for his first 3 levels!) and my more useful Skills are starting to get enough points in them that I can rely on them.

But still, I think that at 5th the Barbarian and Fighter are much much better in combat. And thats why the other party members keep looking askance at the Monk. "Why arent you a Fighter?", they think when I distract a monster instead of just killing it.

As enemy spellcasters become more and more of a threat, my narrow special ability to destroy them will be more appreciated. But for now, this Monk is looking for some sort of role to fill.

 

[hong]

I would argue that survival is pretty crucial to a party's success.

*someone* is going to have to gather what gold they can and run back and get everyone raised.

*someone* is going to have to act as a main target while the weaklings do what they excel at.

*someone* is going to have to take the brunt of the enemy forces and still be able to get away when needed.

You will note that the examples you give are either supporting-cast functions (the meatshield) or irrelevant in most sessions, unless the party has suffered a near-TPK. If what you want is a character to perform such supporting-cast functions, you should hire an NPC to do them; just like hiring a cleric rather than forcing someone to be the party medic.

This just gets back to the point made earlier: whatever it is that the monk does well, it isn't what a lot of PLAYERS want the monk to do. Being nothing more than a meatshield or errand boy is not conducive to spotlight time, which is perhaps the single most important concern in a cooperative pursuit like roleplaying. That's the problem the monk has.

 

[apsuman]

I happen to think that monks are very fun to play.

If you have one and are not having fun then you are doing SOMETHING wrong.

However, there are times in a monk's advancement that he shines a little more brightly. Level 1-5 are tough, but they are tough for a sorcerer too. Improved Trip and d8 damage help.

Earlier when someone propsed a comparison at level 10 I said no for a reason, basically I think that is one of those spots where the monk shines a little less. Personally, I like level 13, where you get SR, but that's just me.

Although they are less dependant upon it, magic items are a necessity for all classes, and the DMG was not really chock full of monk magic. Also, Feats can make the class, and spring attack is not the only way to go.

g!