What's Up With The Monk?

[hong]

The problem with the monk isn't that it's over- or under-powered, or that it's unbalanced. The problem is that the class abilities, while individually they have roots in the martial arts genre, don't come together to produce a result that's always in line with player expectations.

Consider kung-fu and karate action movie heroes like Bruce, Jackie, Chow Yun-Fat and Michelle Yeoh. What do these people do? They kick butt. They may go about it in a variety of ways, ranging from the comical to the morally ambiguous, but the common thread is that they get into big stand-up fights, and they win.

The D&D monk isn't like that. If you get into stand-up fights, you generally lose, because you don't have the BAB, AC or hit points for the task. Kicking butt in physical combat is the fighter's schtick. The monk's schtick is the invulnerability/mage-killing thing, and while that's useful, it may not be what the monk's player had in mind. Hence the variety of alt.monks ("martial artists") which try to boost the character's buttkicking power without making it overpowering into the bargain.


Hong "need I mention this one?" Ooi

 

[Psion]

If you get into stand-up fights, you generally lose,

I dunno... that describes the protagonist in a LOT of martial arts flicks I have seen.

Anyway, I sort of get where you are going. For me, what I find troubling about the monk is that it is a rather specific archetype that forms the only basis for all unarmed martial arts action. I find this somewhat troubling. You can try to create more generic martial artists by multiclassing monks, but things like alignment requirements and the (often ignored) multiclass restrictions combine to make such characters problematic.

In more martial arts oriented games, I use the "Beyond Monks" martial artist, (or dispense with d20 and use the HERO system, BID.)

 

[hong]

I dunno... that describes the protagonist in a LOT of martial arts flicks I have seen.

Well, they lose when it's dramatically appropriate. Mind you, this also describes most non-martial arts action flicks.

Anyway, I sort of get where you are going. For me, what I find troubling about the monk is that it is a rather specific archetype that forms the only basis for all unarmed martial arts action. I find this somewhat troubling. You can try to create more generic martial artists by multiclassing monks, but things like alignment requirements and the (often ignored) multiclass restrictions combine to make such characters problematic.

Yeah, they shouldn't have put so much effort into trying to recreate the 1E monk. A more generic "unarmed and unarmoured" class would have been ideal, with the 1E monk possibly being turned into a prestige class.

In more martial arts oriented games, I use the "Beyond Monks" martial artist, (or dispense with d20 and use the HERO system, BID.)

Beyond Monks isn't bad at all, true.

What I was trying to achieve with my effort was something that's like a cross between that, and the fighter -- ie you can fight with bare hands, but you can also use swords, spears, staffs, or whatever else you deem appropriate for your character. All of these have featured in martial arts movies. Basically I consider the defining features of the martial artist -- what makes it different from just a fighter -- as the acrobatics and lack of armour, even more so than the unarmed fighting.


Hong "plus I can make Jedi with it" Ooi

 

[Rashak Mani]

Pros and Cons of the Monk:

Cons:

12 Str = Low damage, so get real STR please
Good stats very necessary
HPs a little lower than fighters
Magic items to boost attack and damage more expensiv
Less feats than real fighters.

Pros:

High AC against touch attacks
Multiple attacks
STUN !
Tumble... etc...
Great for Flanking (not much good if you dont have a rogue to take advantage of that)
High Saves = Survivablity vs Mages/Magic

Overall the greatest problem is that the Monk doesnt fill a Niche (tank usually)... and 3rd Ed has made the balanced group much more important than before. Good Str and Wis make for much more deadly monks. Therefore I suggest doing like we do... boost WIS and STR with clerics spells. The stun becomes absurd and AC skyrockets. Stunning a Dire Bear is no mean feat... saved my Barbarian Dwarf.

Is your group balanced ? Tank, Mage, Cleric and Rogue already ? Then go ahead and have a monk... One of the classes missing ? Suggest you reconsider monkying around. Everyone is tired of Monks that survive combat but dont help in combat.

With a good rogue and a good fighter in the group the monk can help boost the combat prowess of the group by taking out mages and flanking tough creatures. When incorporeal undead attack the monks high AC doesnt depend on armor and he can keep those shadows at bay.

Monks just have to be worked a little to make them more useful. Remember they arent fighters and they arent rogues.... get damage boosting equip and feats.

 

[Macbrea]

We have a monk in our party that is quite funny. The DM set up an nights worth of encounters for us dealing with it being a full moon and a bunch of the citzens turning into werewolves all about town. Ten werewolves in all. The monk and the bard were in the tavern and the rest of us were at our houses about town.

Suddenly, one of the citzens started changing into a werewolf. The monk leaped across the room and improved grappled the werewolf, then next round choke holded him. Then corpe de grace him before the rest of the bar could respond. He leaped up and decided to run to the town guard.

Along, the way he encounted the rest of the werewolves about 2 to 3 at a time. By the end of it he had wiped the lot out with the same series of attack. We just kind of watched as he crossed town. The set up stuff was pretty much finished completely in an hour of our monk crossing the town. The gamemaster had no real choice but to award the 8th level monk experience for killing off 10 werewolves by himself.

 

[ForceUser]

We have a monk in our party that is quite funny. The DM set up an nights worth of encounters for us dealing with it being a full moon and a bunch of the citzens turning into werewolves all about town. Ten werewolves in all. The monk and the bard were in the tavern and the rest of us were at our houses about town.

Suddenly, one of the citzens started changing into a werewolf. The monk leaped across the room and improved grappled the werewolf, then next round choke holded him. Then corpe de grace him before the rest of the bar could respond. He leaped up and decided to run to the town guard.

Along, the way he encounted the rest of the werewolves about 2 to 3 at a time. By the end of it he had wiped the lot out with the same series of attack. We just kind of watched as he crossed town. The set up stuff was pretty much finished completely in an hour of our monk crossing the town. The gamemaster had no real choice but to award the 8th level monk experience for killing off 10 werewolves by himself.

LMAO that is classic! Great story!

 

[Dr Midnight]

What's the deal with the monk? I mean, why not just buy a gun and put your time to better use? And what's with the hair? They either shave it ALL off... or only halfway back. Is it because they can't see the backs of their heads in the mirrors? Can you not see that you still have a half a head full of hair? Don't get me started on their little shoes. Those things have NO arch protection.

 

[Zog]

A previous poster wrote that his 5th level monk had a base attack of +2/+2.

On the other hand, a monk I played up to level 6 (with 1st level in rogue) had a base attack of +9 or +7/+7.
Damage d6 +2, flanking 2d6+2 (if sneak attack applies)
AC of 19, 20 w/dodge.

Magic items: A +1 mace, a +1 ring of deflection, ring of jumping.
Solid skills: +18 hide, +43 jump, +14 tumble, etc.

Really good stats - but I rolled them, and seeing how good they were, decided to play the monk.

As a halfling, with a dex of 20, str and wis of 14, weapon finesse unarmed - he was darn effective.
The one fight in which my character was less than effective was the one-on-one fight with the hill giant. That, um, that didn't quite work very well....

It is difficult to make an effective monk - you really, really need great stats to start with. Some good magic items, the right feat combos, and you can hold your own. If the party spellcasters toss a few buff spells your way, you are ready to ruin some critter's day.
It is, unfortunately, very easy to make a mediocre monk, who is simply less than useful. Monk, like bards, can be very effective if played well. And a waste of space if built poorly. Both of them round out a party of the 4 basic classes very well - but neither stand well as a replacement.

 

[TiQuinn]

I'm noticing two things about the two monks in my game.

A: They suck. This seems primarily due to the fact that they just can't dish out that much damage. Their special abilities are cool, but they're kinda passive. They mostly work along the lines of "it's hard to screw them."

What kind of strength does the monk character have? If it's low, well of course, he's not going to do large amounts of damage! You're also skipping over the fact that at early levels, the flurry of blows allows the monk to make an extra attack on a full round action that fighters do not have. Yes, the attacks are at a -2, however, statistically, it's better to have the extra attack than to have a bonus to a single attack.

B: They suck. This seems in part due to the fact that, without magic, the Monk can't do much against A: incorporeal undead, B: creatures that need magic weapons to hit them. Eventually, the Monk can hit things that require magic, but it's at 10th level. They're right now fighting things like Stone Golems and Shadows that require magic weapons.

The fighter can't hit these things either.......unless you give him a magic weapon.

The monk can't hit these things..........unless you give him a magic weapon. (or he's 10th level...)

Ok, so the first question the party has about your new character. "Are you a front line combatant?" They ask this because they've lost many characters to the fact that they're a party of 6 with 1, often no, fighter /ranger /paladin /barbarian and it makes the going tough. If the answer is no, they want to know "Then what good are you?"

Thief: I'm the thief
Bard: I can buff everyone pretty well. Oh, and I've got a wide array of other useful abilities; some thief, some sorcerer, and I'm handy with a rapier.
Mage: I'm the Mage
Cleric: I'm the Cleric

Anyone else think this is wonky? Is there something we're not doing right?

Yeah, your mage and cleric better have a little bit more to say for themselves than "I'm the mage....I fire magic missile at the darkness! heh, heh!" or "I'm the cleric.....I heal people."

When they come up against the stone golem, why isn't the mage or the cleric casting magic weapon, magic fang, or greater magic weapon on the monk? Why aren't they giving everyone enhancement spells like Bull's Strength and Endurance before battles? It doesn't sound like they're exactly helping matters much.

The monk is as viable a character as any other, but if he's not going to be given the same opportunities as other characters...(wow, that's the 20th magic hoard we've found and still no magical kama???)...or if the party isn't going to back him up, well then ANY character in that situation is going to do badly.

 

[Roland Delacroix]

Consider kung-fu and karate action movie heroes like Bruce, Jackie, Chow Yun-Fat and Michelle Yeoh. What do these people do? They kick butt.

Thats because they have been doing it for years, so are probably higher level. I dunno what HKAT movies you have been watching, but the ones I watch those guys RARELY hit substantially.

Think about it, Jacky runs up, smacks a guy 40 times in a second, then steps back. The bad guy growls at Jacky and steps up to riposte. Hey, thats just like my Monk! I Flurry of Blows, don't hit crap, and look cool! Plus all the leaping and tumbling, Monks are pretty spot on. If they were more fighter types in the DnD sense all we would see is Jacky moving up and dropping guys in a single blow. And thats no fun