What's Up With The Monk?

[Henry]

Low, high, it makes not difference. The Monk is still capable and useful at any of these levels.

Consider the standard 1st level monk with 25 point buy:

S---14
D---14
C---12
I----10
W--14
CH---9


Melee Attack +2, 1d6+2 dmg

AC 14 (15 with dodge)
hp 10

Feat: Dodge

Saves:
Fort +3
Refl +4
Will +4

Skills:
Jump +6
Tumble +6
Heal +6
Climb +6

This is still a quite respectable character, and against typical 1st level enemies faced by a party (humanoids, lvl 1 humans, etc.) he will do quite well. Even at this, he has a better AC than anyone in the party (except perhaps for a fighter in scale and a high dex.) With a little assistance from the party, as all good parties should do, he can be even more powerful. For example, the party wizard adds mage armor to him, and he becomes AC 18 (19 to dodge), and quite the candidate to jump into melee at opportune times in order to assist the party rogue or the party fighter. He also can stabilize the wounded, and go physical places where heavier armored party members cannot, alongside the rogue.

Is he as equally strong as the fighter in toe to toe? No.
Is he a use of magics? No.
Can he sneak attack? No.
Can he heal others with magic? No.

HOWEVER,

Can the Fighter tumble into and out of combat? No. Not unless he's wearing light armor, which a 1st level ftr is unlikely to have.
Can the Cleric avoid attacks of opportunity? No. Again, he faces problems similar to the fighter.
Can the Druid use a stunning blow? No.
Can the Rogue evade a fireball? No. Not at first level.
Can the Fighter subdue an opponent as quickly and effectively as a monk, without killing them? No. A fighter will take AT LEAST a -4 penalty, unless using a sap or special weapon.


The monk has his own strengths, and those are geared toward mobile combat, and defense.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Henry,

You are going to need a better example than that. That character is worthless. Compare him to the 1st level 25 pt. Rogue. The Rogue has the same AC, much more damage when he can flank, and vastly better skills, for the cost of 2 HPs.

Here is the telling question: If you were playing in a balanced campaign (roleplaying and combat, urban and wilderness and dungeon) and you were playing one of the 4 iconic PCs (fighter, cleric, wiz, rogue), who would you WANT as a fifth PC? The monk would be my 11th choice out of the 11 PHB classes. Every other class is more useful to the party IMO.

So maybe those players who have monks that somehow survive to 10th level are now having fun, but from the metagame angle your "useful" defensive skills often mean your fellow PCs have to do more heavy lifting and taking more personal risks to get the job done than if you chose a more effective career path.

I noticed that a lot of examples of useful monks in this thread assume that someone will cast Mage Armor or Magic Fang or both on the monk. In my book if a character requires precious magical resources from other PCs to do their job that is damning evidence something is wrong with the character. Every other character class in the PHB can do their job competently without help. Why can't the monk? Hmm?

 

[Wolfen Priest]

I agree with Ridley's Cohort. Not Ridley, mind you, just his cohort.

Also, when making point-buy example characters, I suggest making them with 32 point-buy, since polls on this site have shown that the vast majority of groups use that character creation system, and an even greater number of those who use point-buy use 32-points.

I would post a(n unbiased) side-by-side analysis of a 32-pt.-buy human monk alongside a 32-pt.-buy human rogue or fighter (or fighter/rogue!), but I'm at work. Anyone else want to?

 

[apsuman]

IMHO,

Until a monk can do measureably more damage with his hands, I would suggest attacking with monk weapons.

Also, unless the WIS is 18 or so, I would seriously consider using leather armor through level 5. You only lose the fast movement.

After level 5 go with no armor.

Monks need to go after items that improve their stats, but that's a no brainer.

Either finding or commissioning the necessary weapons is also crucial. You still get the more favorable attacks with the monk weapons. If you had a Kama +1 you would be doing on average the same damage as an unarmed monk of level 7, plus you get the +1 to hit.

If you had a Kama +2, you would be doing the same average damage (albeit with less range) as an unarmed level 11 monk, and of course you would hit 10% better, or more often, heck! you get the +2 to hit.

And a +3 kama is as good on average) as an unarmed level 15 monk.


At level 6, if you have the STR, improved trip is good -- use it. You can trip with a touch attack, and if you win the opposed STR checks, you still get that attack at +4 since the defender if prone.

So, whoever wanted advise for lower level monks, there you go.

g!

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I agree with Ridley's Cohort. Not Ridley, mind you, just his cohort.


I would post a(n unbiased) side-by-side analysis of a 32-pt.-buy human monk alongside a 32-pt.-buy human rogue or fighter (or fighter/rogue!), but I'm at work. Anyone else want to?

If you were blessed with a visit with the Dimpled One, I am sure you would change your tune.

32 pts.

Human Rogue 1
14 Str
14 Con
16 Dex
12 Int
12 Wis
10 Cha
8 HPs, AC 15, +2 to hit melee, +3 to hit ranged, d6+2 (short sword), +1d6 for sneak attack
40 Skill Points
2 Feats: Improved Initiative, Combat Reflexes?
+2 Fort, +5 Refl, +1 Will
Initiative +7

Human Monk 1
14 Str
14 Con
14 Dex
10 Int
16 Wis
10 Cha
10 HPs, AC 15 (16 w/ Dodge), +2 to hit melee or +0/+0 for flurry, +2 to hit ranged, d6+2 (fists), 1 Stun Attack (DC13)
16 Skill Points
2 Feats: Dodge?, Mobility? (going for Spring Attack)
+4 Fort, +4 Refl, +5 Will
Initiative +2

The first thing to notice is that the Rogue is vastly superior outside of combat. The Rogue has 2 1/2 times as many skill points to work with.

So the monk should be able to distinguish himself in combat, right? The monk just isn't any better than the Rogue. The Rogue has an excellent chance of getting off a sneak attack at the start. He can also tumble in just as well or better than the monk. The monk's only real advantage is the savings thows are useful if some starts throwing spells at you.

Notice that I have not really minmaxed the Rogue. I could make him a Halfling and he could scout with a +12 Hide, and plink at enemies from range with a light cross bow with a +5 to hit, d6 damage. Such a Rogue is also likely to get a sneak attack both during surprise and the 1st round of combat. Handy that.

 

[Carnifex]

Or, carrying a +2 Nunchaku or an Amulet that would cost more than my entire party has seen in their adventuring careers.

Why on earth do you have to be high level to get a +2 Nunchaku? In a standard money-and-magic rich D&D campaign, getting the 8,000 to commission one of these would admittedly not be a cheap option for low-level characters, but would quickly come within a characters reach.

And, if you do have a campaign where it is incredibly hard for a monk to get a +2 nunchaku, then your fighter will be equaklly useless against creatures with DR as the monk, unless he is somehow getting the resources for a +2 weapon when the monk isnt' - which would be more than a little unfair on the monk. It's be said before and I'll say it again - many complaints about the monk can be resolved easily just by using magical monk weapons. D6 damage ain't great but its on average only 1 point less than a fighter would inflict with a longsword - it's not that bad.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

... +3 to hit ranged...

...

I could make him a Halfling and he could ... plink at enemies from range with a light cross bow with a +5 to hit, d6 damage.

How does he get an extra +2 with a crossbow? Don't halflings only get that bonus with thrown weapons?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

How does he get an extra +2 with a crossbow? Don't halflings only get that bonus with thrown weapons?

+1 for the extra Dex. +1 for Small size.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

Ah, yes. Stupid me. I'm pretty dang convinced the the monk does suck at this point, and I'm convinced that they probably are worse than bards, at least rules-wise. I guess most likely the vast majority of gamers probably want them to suck a little, myself included.

The idea of an unarmed kung-fu master being able to best an armed and able combatant (all other things being equal) is, frankly, a little ridiculous. Even in a fantasy world.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

And, if you do have a campaign where it is incredibly hard for a monk to get a +2 nunchaku, then your fighter will be equaklly useless against creatures with DR as the monk, unless he is somehow getting the resources for a +2 weapon when the monk isnt' - which would be more than a little unfair on the monk. It's be said before and I'll say it again - many complaints about the monk can be resolved easily just by using magical monk weapons. D6 damage ain't great but its on average only 1 point less than a fighter would inflict with a longsword - it's not that bad.

You are not likely to have the 8000 gp cash for a +2 weapon until 7th or 8th level unless you sell all your worldly possessions. In the meantime, Magic Weapon and GMW are more more easily available than Magic Fang or GMF. You can't count of a Druid being handy.

Honestly, though, I do not think the DR issue is a big deal for monks. The big picture issue is that fighter types have much better access to good quality weapons, and they will consistently deal out more damage, even the Rangers and Paladins.