What's Up With The Monk?

[isirga eth]

I did the math...

Inspired by this very concern with the monk's usefulness, I Brian Van Hoosed the rules and made combat probability charts for fighters, rangers, barbarians and monks. Using a typical member of each class at low and high levels, I put them against each other and mathematically calculated their exact chances to hit each other, and the speed with which they won the fight.

Math doesn't lie. And math said that Multiple attacks are a heckuva advantage.

Even with a reduced BAB, the monk made mincemeat out of the other guys because he was making five attacks for every three the others made, at almost the same damage rate. In the end, the monk did MORE average damage than the other guys (not MUCH more, but more anyway).

Now; of course players are not expected to fight each other, and the real issue is whether a class is fun to play AGAINST the monsters...

So I Brian Van Hoosed the rules again, this time cracking and deconstructing the class design rules. Averaging skill points, feats, BAB, hp, special powers, saves and even class limitations, the Monk class is BY FAR the most powerful out there, even counting its obvious drawbacks.

Mathematical, scientific conclusion: Monks are not only useful, they are over-the-top.

Of course, if you see your games as an endless series of powerful monster bashing, the monk is weaker than the wizard or fighter - but gaming is much more than that. Even power gaming requires your character to be powerful in something ELSE besides hack & slash. The monk rules in this sense, and I mathematically confirmed that he CAN fight.

So don't you worry - your monk's cool. Just give him time.

And by the way, the ranger (also considered to be weaker by some) is also mathematically more powerful than other classes.

Power Play munchkin tip: Make a first-level ranger and then be a monk for the rest of your life. Not even a fighter will get that many special powers. Besides, you get a monk who can actually USE a magic sword without a problem, which offsets the weapon use penalties. Also, monk multiclassing penalties do not apply if you change FROM ranger TO monk. Finally, I found no rule forbidding the two-weapon and ambidexterity feats to be used with an UNARMED ATTACK in the off-hand, which results in a very cool combo at lower levels.

Or better yet, if you really feel like munchkining around, start out as a sorcerer and then become a monk at 4th level... jedi knight, anyone?

 

[mattcolville]

Again, you're assuming the monk is unarmed. Big assumption. No reason why a monk can't use a +2 kama at 10th level to circumvent that +2 DR. Suggest to your monks that they buy magic weapons and use them as the need arises.

I am assuming the Monk is unarmed. For a couple of reasons.

When I think of Monks, I think "character that excels at unarmed fighting." Maybe you don't. But you can't excel at unarmed fighting and require a magic weapon to be effective.

On the issue of Magic exotic weapons.

1st; I'm not running an Oriental game. Nor am I running a game in which there's an obvious place for Oriental characters to be from. Yet the Monk is one of the base classes. This was, I feel, a mistake since the monk makes no sense whatsoever in the classical European Fantasy melieu.

2nd; Any exotic eastern weapons would therefore be super rare.

3rd: putting *magic* exotic weapons in my game would break suspension of disbelief. There's *no* way the players could possibly get *themselves* to believe the item had come up for any reason other than; 'The GM knows the Monk needs magic.' That's too munchkin for me. Too much metagame thought. It needs to at least be remotely possible that the item was there, regardless of who was in the party.

But my main complaint is that I think of Monks as characters who *should* excel at Unarmed combat. That's their shtick. Should a Monk be able to do as much damage as a fighter? No. Should they trade in some of that potential for the ability to deliver the damage unarmed? Sure.

 

[mattcolville]

They have evasion, fast movement, good saving throws, ability to survive falls, immunity from diseases, etc., etc.

These are all things had by other classes. When you think of what a well rounded party needs, does Monk fall into your core 4? I can say; 'fighter, theif, mage, cleric.' And if someone wants to play a Barbarian, ranger, or Paladin, think 'Ok, he's the fighter.' Sorcerer? 'Ok, he's the mage.' Druid? 'Ok, he's the cleric.' Bard; 'Jack of all trades.'

But you can't do that with the monk. They don't shine at anything except having weird abilities.

They excel at handling a number of different threats, and being very self-reliant, moreso than the fighter who has less skills and poorer saves.

They excel at moving behind the enemy very quickly and interrupting/incapacitating spellcasters.

Being self reliant isn't much of a virtue in a game designed for 4 players. They're no more useful at 'moving behind the enemy and disrupting spellcasters' than a rogue. In fact, since the rogue gets evasion also, but the Monk never gets sneak attack, the rogue is rather better at this, I think.

I think it's possible to take the Monk and, without compromising his Monky-ness, make him about as good a fighter as a ranger. Which is to say; not as bad-ass as a pure fighter, but pretty good and someone who can sub for a fighter if you don't have one. Without the Monks ability to be *something* both unique and effective, I see the class as lacking.

 

[Corinth]

Would it help if the monk could use any of his class-based melee weapons with his unarmed BAB?

 

[Shard O'Glase]

These are two great abilities of a Monk. But, unless your Monk is of a race with Darkvision then stealth is useless underground because of light issues. Our group has run through the standard module series (Sunless Citadel, Forge of Fury) and though I put points into Hide and Move Silent I really havent had much chance to be the party scout.

Mobility is nice; though RP considerations constrain you here. I took the Bushido code from OA as a guide for what my character believes - and that means that you lose honor if you flee from a fight. At least I can tumble around and attack from the most advantageous spot; but, as anyone will tell you, a Monk is not intended to go toe-to-toe with big angry creatures like Trolls. Regen 5 will teach you quickly how little damage a Monk actually does turn by turn. :-(



Hmmm, at 5th level I am +5 or +3/+3 on a Flurry. Thats with a BAB of 3 and a STR bonus of +2.

Can you break down your +9? Even if you are Rogue1/Monk 6 your BAB is still 4 so you'd need 5 points of plusses to get +9.

Not that it matters a lot; our half-orc Barbarian is +11 with his non-magic Great Axe at 5th level. Thats +5 BAB, +5 STR, +1 Focus. No buffs, no magic. A Monk is not going to get close to that level of prowess - and he is not meant to - as his starting BAB of zero implies.

Lets see +4 bab, str 18 maybe even 20 if 1/2 orc = +8-+9 3rd level take weapon focus unarmed strike for +9-+10 or if flurry of blows +7-+8. Add in a str boost item and bang even more +to hit. again we return to my point. Don't whine about lack of combat effectiveness when the core melle combat stat is your 3rd priority in stat distrribution. Sure the barbarians and fighters will still usually do more damage, but the difference won't be oh he hits o with +11 for 1d12+7 and I hit on +3/+3 for 1d6+2. Instead it will be he hits with +11 for 1d12+7 and I hit for +8/+8 for 1d6+5. Barb is still better but the monk doesn't look like a sucker now though. And the monk gains a much wider range of special abilities and funcitonal class skills.

The bab of a monk is worse yes, but until high levels we are talking about a difference of 1-3 which means basically no real difference. If I was making a front line monk then my highest stat would be in str and every level based stat increase would go to str. Would the fihgters still be better at front line fighting, yes but that is all they could do. I'd be an adequate substitute in front line fighting and have a wide range of other abilities to fall back on. In all honesty I think the fighter sucks because he is so fighting focused in any but the most hack and slash games he has a lot of twiddling his thumb time. So play a monk and be a decent front line fighter and a solid out of combat player.

 

[Henry]

These are all things had by other classes. When you think of what a well rounded party needs, does Monk fall into your core 4? I can say; 'fighter, thief, mage, cleric.' And if someone wants to play a Barbarian, ranger, or Paladin, think 'Ok, he's the fighter.' Sorcerer? 'Ok, he's the mage.' Druid? 'Ok, he's the cleric.' Bard; 'Jack of all trades.'

But you can't do that with the monk. They don't shine at anything except having weird abilities.

Matt, I believe you are missing the point here: no class has ALL of these things at the same time. And for one class to have them all, they are GOING to shine. In numerous games I have played, Monks excelled at being "special forces" to the fighter's "grunt front line." No mere fighter can dodge effectively in and out of combat as the monk can - a rogue doesn't pack the punch of a monk unless sneak-attacking, and no other class can evade damage as effectively as a lightly armored monk.

Being self reliant isn't much of a virtue in a game designed for 4 players. They're no more useful at 'moving behind the enemy and disrupting spellcasters' than a rogue. In fact, since the rogue gets evasion also, but the Monk never gets sneak attack, the rogue is rather better at this, I think.

On the contrary, if a rogue and monk have equal levels of magic, the monk will be slightly more effective in mobile skirmishes, because a monk's powers are independent of the ability to get sneak attacks, and they will have (due to the wisdom AC ability of the monk) slightly better armor class to deal with counterattacks.

I think it's possible to take the Monk and, without compromising his Monky-ness, make him about as good a fighter as a ranger. Which is to say; not as bad-ass as a pure fighter, but pretty good and someone who can sub for a fighter if you don't have one. Without the Monks ability to be *something* both unique and effective, I see the class as lacking.

I will say one thing: in a party without a fighter-type, a cleric-type, a rogue-type, and a wizard-type, ANY of the other classes will be forced into role they are unsuited for. A bard in a party of nothing but bards cannot shine; a wizard in a party of druids cannot shine as well. a party must be well-balanced in order for the other classes to show off their abilities. Note that the same arguments made here about a monk also have by other posters applied to a bard: "he's too weak", "he's not a rogue," "he's a healre wanna-be" etc. All this misses the point that as the role they are suited for, that of mobile melee combat, monks are fantastic.

As for monks being traditionally unarmed, I take disagreement with you. Precedent in history and legend has been set for whole orders of monks who are built around armed combat - the kama and nunchaku sprang from martial variants of common farm tools orginally, anyway! Hwa Rang Do, for instance, offers training in over ONE HUNDRED weapons. Finally, keep in mind that the grand-daddy of D&D monks, the 1978 AD&D Monk, was a weapon master. They did improved damage with melee weapons, due to their extensive physical body knowledge. So, the precedent was there in D&D, even from the beginning.

(I had a friend of mine who favorite character to play in 1st edition AD&D was a monk with a halberd - it was his trademark! Anytime he was allowed to play a monk, he would do so - and along comes the 5'5" asian monk with his European-bladed halberd. )

 

[Hammerhead]

Re: I did the math...

Inspired by this very concern with the monk's usefulness, I Brian Van Hoosed the rules and made combat probability charts for fighters, rangers, barbarians and monks. Using a typical member of each class at low and high levels, I put them against each other and mathematically calculated their exact chances to hit each other, and the speed with which they won the fight.

Math doesn't lie. And math said that Multiple attacks are a heckuva advantage.

I'm curious as how you came to your conclusions. Perhaps you can post some numbers, or abbreviated versions of the characters you used.

 

[isirga eth]

let's see...

Edit: FORGET this stupid post, uploaded by mistake

 

[TiQuinn]

These are all things had by other classes. When you think of what a well rounded party needs, does Monk fall into your core 4? I can say; 'fighter, theif, mage, cleric.' And if someone wants to play a Barbarian, ranger, or Paladin, think 'Ok, he's the fighter.' Sorcerer? 'Ok, he's the mage.' Druid? 'Ok, he's the cleric.' Bard; 'Jack of all trades.'

Ranger? Paladin? Barbarian? Sorry....if it's just a four person game we're talking about, they're second fiddle to the fighter. You don't want to give up all those feats. Might as well play a fighter.

Sorcerer...sure. Just don't play a wizard. They don't get enough spells and they die when there's not enough fighters around to protect them.

Druid? In place of Cleric? Sorry....useless in a dungeon. Needs to memorize healing spells instead of trading for them.

Bard? In a four person group? Fuhgeddaboutit. That'd be a waste.

So I guess you're just stuck with Fighter, Sorcerer, Thief, and Cleric.

I'm being a tad facetious, but I think you're glossing over some of the drawbacks other classes have when relegated strictly to a four person group.

Being self reliant isn't much of a virtue in a game designed for 4 players. They're no more useful at 'moving behind the enemy and disrupting spellcasters' than a rogue. In fact, since the rogue gets evasion also, but the Monk never gets sneak attack, the rogue is rather better at this, I think.

Rogues don't receive the bonus movement rate or the jumping prowess of a monk. Monks can also withstand more damage than a rogue, in the chance that someone does get an AoO on them as they move past them. Rogues are great....unless they can't get their sneak attack. There are plenty of circumstances that will prevent rogues from using that ability.

You mention the bard as being useful for his jack of all trades capabilities, and I personally think the Monk fits this category even better. They have good fighting ability, good staying power (saves, HP, AC, evasion), and fast movement. They get multiple attacks faster than other classes....right from 1st level if they use their flurry of blows ability. They have access to weapons that allow them to use their unarmed BAB. They get good number of skill points per level with a nice assortment of class skills.

I think the monk is a very viable option. Yes, you can point to various other classes that have this ability or that ability, but the monk brings these together into one package. Yes, they can't hit creatures that need damage reduction until 10th level, but as I pointed out, neither can a fighter. A fighter needs a magical weapon. Well, monks can get magical weapons also....and still use their unarmed attack bonus. In the games that I've been in, monk PCs have been awesome....able to hold their own on the front line, chase down spellcasters or rogues trying to run away, and withstand magic attacks far better than their fighter counterparts.

 

[mattcolville]

Would it help if the monk could use any of his class-based melee weapons with his unarmed BAB?

It might. I've thought about that, but I'm at work and don't have my book here so I can't run the numbers on it.