What's Up With The Monk?

[Gizzard]

A high Wis monk is a stunning fool.

I think this comment is all too appropriate. ;-)

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I was going to make a monk like aspumens to show that they could be competent fighters, and in anything but gladitorial pit fights might own the fighter shown in the above thread. I would of made a combo boots item of striding and springing/elven kind as well though and maybe a monks belt instead of boots of speed, and change other items to different slot duplicates.. And while ready attack works wonders, you have to see the person for your readied aciton to work. With a monks movement especially when fighting some guy in full plate he can easily make an attack, get out of sight hide and then attack again, maybe next time wait a minute or two, anytime the fighter is stunned maybe drop a full attack, or make off with the dropped weapons the fighter leaves behind when stunned.

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. I've always said the fighter actually sucks, he may be the best in his field but he sucks so bad at everything else he either needs more skills or should be even better in a fight.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

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

The monk isn't supposed to be a good stand-up fighter. The monk doesn't fill the fighter's niche the way the Ranger or the Paladin or the Barbarian can.

The monk fills a similar niche to a Rogue or a Cleric. A backup party member.

It's just that a Rogue and Cleric can both do things that a Monk can't do.

What can a Monk do that no other class can do? Survive.

A monk makes the perfect patsy.

...they could be anything. Put a sword in their hands and give them an illusory suit of armor. Or make them wear robes and put a pointy hat on their head. Or make them wear a mask and behave all sneaky-like. While the enemies waste their ammo on the Monk, the rest of the party can be safe.

A monk makes a perfect first rank. Send 'em out, do what you can, have the bad guys waste their energy, and then send 'em back to guard the other wusses.

You think a Rogue can do that? They get braught down with the first wave. A cleric? Yeah, like *they're* doing any significant damage. A Fighter? Right, with all that armor? A Ranger? He can't move fast enough. . Barbarian? Well, sure if you want everything to know you're coming. Wizard/Sorc/Bard? Forgetaboutit.

They're backup for anything but healing and massive damage, too

 

[apsuman]

Still, when people are arguing (sensibly, I think) that a good way to make a Monk is to ignore his two prime attributes and not worry about losing out on the basic Monk abilities - well, I think that shows better than anything that there is something seriously wrong with the Monk as-is.

Well, no.

It has been my experience that PC monks tend to try to max out DEX and WIS to max out effective monk abilities, but fail because they completely ignore other attributes.

IF you were trying to decide to put a (relatively) high score into DEX, you get AC and if you weapon finesse a +to BAB. However, if you were to put that score into INT and a lesser score into DEx, you lose only 1 or 2 points of AC but get a buttload of skill points. You could probably have more monk like skills (including the DEX based ones) maxed out and higher than if you had the scores the other way around.

If stunning is very important to you put a high score in WIS, if you are not going to stun often, then put a good score into WIS for the AC, and place that other score into STR, INT, or CON where it might do you more good more often.

g!

 

[apsuman]

One thing that bugs me about these high-STR Monks is that they have even less Monk flavor than regular Monks. I look at that guy and think - could I make a Barbarian who does this same trick just as well? Give him the rocket Boots and the Spring Attack feat chain, then use his base 40' move to bounce in and out of combat. (Of course, the Barbarian would probably rather just stick in combat and dish out damage.)

Well, yes and no.

I was trying to pick a situation where with the standard monk abilities would allow you to do some things that were "un-monkly".

The barbarian woud have to spend a feat (improved trip) that the monk gets for free. Also, it would imply that your barbarian is not using one of his best abilities, rage. Also, the high HP of the barbarian suit them to stand there in the fight.

Finally, I listed the monk skills, he coud have hidden and ran out from nowhere to attack his opponent. Somethin ght barbarian would not have done as well.

g!

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

With an Int of 6, all your character can do is attack. Melee attacks and ranged attacks. That's about it.

In a one-on-one "fight", your character would angrily follow the monk out onto the rope bridge and then howl in frustration as the monk cut the ropes. Your character would stop for the pile of bird seed with the anvil hanging over it. Your character would charge into a solid rock wall that had been painted to look like a hole with the word "MUNK" written above it with an arrow pointing at the fake hole. And he would not learn from that experience.

Heck, a monk with spring attack could run out, tie your guy's shoelaces together, and then run away, and you'd be hopping up and down because you hadn't mastered the concept of laces and the cleric who tied your shoeleaces for you was back at the inn waiting to see how your one-on-one fight went.

-Tacky

Hehe that's hilarious - consider it quoted for my sig

 

[Orco42]

also tho, i've heard lots of people say that they regard the forsaker as totally overpowered, so maybe the problem isn't that monks suck, but that forsakers should suck more!

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.


As for monks I would go with a monk/psi-warrior.

 

[mattcolville]

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

I'm the guy who started this thread, and I've never said anything like this. Monks suck because they don't excel at anything critical to the party's success.

Also, what the hell are they doing in the core rules? They belong in the oriental book, unless Wizards swaps out the picture of what'shername and replaces it with Friar Tuck. . .in which case I'd still be saying WTF? but for different reasons.

 

[Hammerhead]

Remember that the rather poor 15th level monk that I used as an example above?

Well, the problem wasn't with the Monk class. I redesigned him, and he's now pretty good.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Survival is useful in a lot of situations. Even survival of one person.

If your party flees, the Monk can guard your flank.

Someone's unconcious body laying accross the room? GO MONK!

There's nobody else I would send into a dangerous situation first.

The Monk: the pioneer and the buttguard of the core classes.

(also, I'm pretty sure *someone* said the monk sucked because he wasn't a good fighter. The "I can't do anything party-useful" is more valid, but still, they *can*. )