What's Up With The Monk?

[Psion]

Playing a monk like a knight is sucide, but poison is still a less than lawful thing to do, or at least less than good. The only class that gets any ability that deals with poison is assassin, which requires evil.

You are stuck on old 1e and 2e definitions. Like things like class/level restrictions, there is a good reason many nonsensical bits of the system were left behind.

Why is poison evil? It kills people? So do fireballs and swords. Just as with those items, in the realm of D&D, it's not the tool that is evil, it is the actions and intentions behind the use of those tools.

Of course assassins are evil. They kill people for money. And poison is a convenient way to kill well protected targets with guile. But just because it is a good tool for assassins does not make it "evil."

And to show a clear counterexample, the poison spell does not have an evil descriptor. A good divine spellcaster can use it. The protector of the sacred glade can call upon the power of the snake spirit to defend the glade from being overrun by evil... no prob!

So much for good evil. Now to law.

First, the SRD section on law. Law implies "trustworthiness". Okay, good enough. That plays into what I was saying about the sneaky knight a while back... secretly poisoning his enemy does not show trustworthiness or honor.

But if you are a monk who lives close to nature and your monastery is in danger of being overrun by barbaric hordes, it's not the same situation. Plain shuriken are not a weapon you use against charging hordes. There is no guile there. The monks can and will use whatever means necessary to defend themselves.

It is a typical assumption that a lawful character like a monk or paladin lives by a code that would prohibit certain activities that are looked down upon by the essence of the code. And I would expect for a paladin, poison would be one of them. But for a monk? Not necessarily.

All that a monk's lawful state implies is a life of rigor, living their life by certain strict tenets. Those tenets may or may not include anything referring to poison. Their code is much more likely to concern themselves with diet, touching dead creatures, and which way they sit when they eat.

There is NOTHING implicit about poison that should be considered to be inhenerntly evil or chaotic.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Christian,

Good stats help the monk out enormously. Low level monks have very severe suckage when using 30 or fewer points for stats.

Most character classes are functional with 2 decent stats. A monk needs 4. That cuts both ways.

Monks are quite effective is you roll excellect stats. They are weak if your stats are average.

 

[Christian]

RC-I'm sure you're right, and that's a very good point. I wouldn't have even considered playing a monk without the kinds of rolls I got. In fact, the cause & effect works both ways-when I saw the rolls, I though, "Hey, that would work for a monk! Let's try it!"

Let's see ... (mumblety-mumble) ... You'd need 41 point-buy to get his stats. (!!) 39 if you made him an elf or if you didn't care between a 10 and an 8 Charisma. (37 with both-still well above anything you'll see in a point-buy campaign.) And the 12 Con was still a real pain-he'd have done much better with a 14, but I didn't have one to give him.

Str, Dex, Con, Wis, all crucial for a monk. Makes life difficult in character creation, unless you're rolling & roll well ...

 

[Hakkenshi]

I think the main weakness people see with the monk is that they insist on using point buy

Seriously though, unless there are SEVERE restrictions needed in our campaigns, my group and I never use point buy. I think it's a stupid system that creates entirely too many Half-Orc fighters with Int and Cha of 6. I don't believe in point buy, but of course that's just me. And my group

I'm 100% with Psion on the poison issue. I'd like to know how paralytic and sleep-inducing poisons would be so morally abhorrent to a monk. Picture this: if a monk is willing to take potions, buff spells, or even drink massive quantities of alcohol (yes, I saw Drunken Master ) to give himself an advantage over opponents, why then is poison an issue? Why is it that you can use Stunning Fist (which stuns) but not stunning poisons???

(Oh, and Psion, I may have to steal your mosswalkers of the great swamp idea )

Now just as an example, I have played an Azer monk in a 7-player gladiator campaign, starting out at class level 2 while others were level 6. And I NEVER was truly overshadowed, despite my lower damage, HP and level. In fact, thanks to my Evasion ability I was one of the sole survivors of a battle involving a large number of Shocker Lizards

 

[Hakkenshi]

What cracks me up is people who willfully ignore what I'm talking about. I'm not comparing the Monk to the other classes except insofar as the other classes each contribute to the success of the party. Monks don't. I don't care that Fighters are better at dishing out damage, and Clerics are better at healing. I care that Monks aren't that good at anything. They're not even particularly good at being Monk-like.

Sorry mattcolville, that wasn't specifically aimed at you. What I meant is that I saw a lot of messages along the lines of "the rogue can do this, the fighter can do this, the barbarian can do this, and the monk isn't as good at those things."

Which of course is ridiculous.

However, I do think that this

Monk aren't unarmed combat masters. I think they should be, but they're not. Monks don't belong in a medieval fantasy game. They belong in an oriental game, which D&D is not.

is hogwash (no offense), mainly because I don't agree with two points here:

1) That monks are not the masters of unarmed combat. Name one class that does better. If you use Trip and Grapple to their full effect, there's none that come close.

2) That D&D is a medieval fantasy game. It's a fantasy game to be sure, but comparing to the Middle-Ages (unless you're specifically running a MA game) isn't quite right. After all, druids and barbarians don't necessarily belong in all of medieval Earth.

And of course, if I wanted to be technical, during the MA, the Orient *did*, in fact, exist. Just not in the same part of the world.

 

[mattcolville]

However, I do think that this is hogwash (no offense), mainly because I don't agree with two points here:

1) That monks are not the masters of unarmed combat. Name one class that does better. If you use Trip and Grapple to their full effect, there's none that come close.

That's not an argument. I'm the only person in my family that can do Bessel Functions. . .that doesn't mean I'm a master of it. "They can do it better than anyone else" and "they're really really good at it" aren't the same thing.

2) That D&D is a medieval fantasy game. It's a fantasy game to be sure, but comparing to the Middle-Ages (unless you're specifically running a MA game) isn't quite right. After all, druids and barbarians don't necessarily belong in all of medieval Earth.

You can disagree all you want, but 'Medieval Fantasy' is the brand strategy of D&D. I was told, in a big meeting at WotC, that if a product wasn't Medieval (then given a definition) *and* fantasy (then given a definition) that it didn't belong in D&D. Of course, two months later, the psionicist's handbook came out, so that was clearly bunk.

But the point is, if you had to choose "which book does the Monk belong in, the Generic Fantasy Core Book, or the Oriental Book" you'd pick the Oriental book every time. And any argument made to the contrary could just as easily apply to the Samurai or the Shukenja.

The designers put it in there *in spite* of the fact that it didn't belong. Monks, Bards, Half-Orcs, these are some of the sacred cows of D&D. Things everyone wanted from 1st ed. that were done wierdly or badly. Monks and Half-Orcs show this in their presentation. Monks hang out at the fringes of the 'functionality' meter while Half-Orcs are designed to be Barbarians. While they encourage you to do other things with it, you're going very strongly against the design when you make a Half-Orc wizard.

And of course, if I wanted to be technical, during the MA, the Orient *did*, in fact, exist. Just not in the same part of the world.

Again, by which argument, Samurai should be in the PHB.

 

[LokiDR]

You are stuck on old 1e and 2e definitions. Like things like class/level restrictions, there is a good reason many nonsensical bits of the system were left behind.

.....

And to show a clear counterexample, the poison spell does not have an evil descriptor. A good divine spellcaster can use it. The protector of the sacred glade can call upon the power of the snake spirit to defend the glade from being overrun by evil... no prob!

.....

All that a monk's lawful state implies is a life of rigor, living their life by certain strict tenets. Those tenets may or may not include anything referring to poison. Their code is much more likely to concern themselves with diet, touching dead creatures, and which way they sit when they eat.

There is NOTHING implicit about poison that should be considered to be inhenerntly evil or chaotic.

Poison isn't really what this thread was about, but if a monk can do it, a fighter can do it just as well. This is only one possible loophole with monks at range.

The reason why poison has always been considered dishonorable and evil, by every civilized culture, is that it allows an oppent to kill you without showing any prowess, exactly what the monk is against. The poison spell you mention is availible to all clerics and druids, and they have no restiction to lawful. The lack of "evil" in the descripter means little. In any case, they must touch the monster they are facing, and in such show their honor as well as the power of their diety. Unless the PC made the poison, it is something external, also out of concept for most all monk concepts.

For the record, I don't like 2e, and I never played 1e. I am going strickly off 3e alignment. Aligiment is always a big issue to argue about, so there doesn't seem to be much point in this line much further. I think we understand the other's point, but neither are going to change our minds.

 

[Psion]

Poison isn't really what this thread was about, but if a monk can do it, a fighter can do it just as well.

Did I ever say anything to the contrary?

A fighter can do it IF their ethics allow them too... likewise the monk. My point is only that there is no "alignment" to poison.

he poison spell you mention is availible to all clerics and druids, and they have no restiction to lawful.

I certainly never implied it was inherently lawful either, so I don't know the point of this part. In fact that statement drives home my position... that poison is not assigned an inherent alignment per the D&D system.

Unless the PC made the poison, it is something external, also out of concept for most all monk concepts.

Who said he didn't? The theoretical monks I purported would do such a thing.

However, the implication that "external" is a requirement is, again, an attempt by you to pidgeonhole monks.

As for what is "in concept" for monks, I think that is entirely a GM call. I think there are several realms in which it can be in concept for a monk:

- A monkish warrior type character teach using finesse, patience and skill to gain an advantage over brute strength. That can include using poisons and drugs. Perfectly in concept.
- Martial arts styles are often conceived as emulating certain creatures. An order whose art from snakes or spiders could use venom as one of their attacks.

So if you think that poison is clearly out of concept for monks, I think you aren't considering all the possibilities.

I think we understand the other's point, but neither are going to change our minds.

I'm not trying to convince you how to handle it in your game. I can perfectly see how a given game, the codes of honor would find such things abhorrent. My only point is that there is nothing about the game -- not one thing beyond your personal feelings on the issue -- to make it compulsory.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

1) That monks are not the masters of unarmed combat. Name one class that does better. If you use Trip and Grapple to their full effect, there's none that come close.

Barbarian. Fighter.

With better strength and BAB, they are very effective at Grapple and Trip if they spend a feat or two. They also can pick up a reach trip weapon.

They can pick up unarmed combat feat if they really want. With higher strength their damage with fists is about the same as a monk when we look at low level characters. Subdual vs. normal damage usually is not a big deal: when your enemies are unconscious, you have won.

Ranger maybe. TWF is the same as flurry when unarmed. Pick up Unarmed Fighting and a good strength. Having a better BAB helps a bit.

I am being a little tongue in cheek, but I think you assertion "there's none that come close" is actually open to challenge. It is quite possible to challenge a monk unarmed: grapple him, choke him unconscious. A strong, raging barbarian has a reasonable chance of winning with no feats to back him up. Not great, but it is quite possible if the barbarian successfully starts the grapple. He will have a +1 or +2 BAB advantage and probably a +4 or +5 or better Str mod advantage when raging. The barbarian will win an opposed grapple check 75% of the time, and he has twice the HPs. The monk has the edge, but it is not nearly as big of one as you might think.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Oh, and the house rule we use...

The Monk AC Bonus +1 is the highest damage reduction the monk can penetrate with his fists.

So at 1st level, a monk can beat DR +x/+1. At fifth level, the monk can beat DR +x/+2. At tenth level, the monk can beat DR +x/+3. At fifteenth, the monk can now get past DR of +x/+4. And at 20th level, the monk can get around DR +x/+5. This ONLY affects damage reduction.

The Ki Strike is altered to be an actual + to fists. Thus, at tenth level, all of the monk's unarmed attacks are made as a +1 weapon, to hit and to damage.

So far, it has worked pretty well. It also means that a monk can almost always damage the creatures that the party runs into -- sometimes better than anyone else in the party.

This seems to address the need of low-level monks to have a niche. Not only do they kill mages, but they are also great for killing gargoyles!

What kind of bonus is the Ki Strike? (i.e. what does it stack with?)