What's Up With The Monk?

[Hakkenshi]

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.

That's silly. No one says the fighter is the undisputed master of armed combat at level one: he's just starting out. Start at higher levels, such as around level 12 or 16, and you'll see that the monk is much better at grappling, including the Escape Artist skill that barbs don't have as a class skill. And real damage makes one HELL of a difference if you're fighting anything that's immune to subdual (I can only imagine your unarmed fighter trying to choke a golem "Why won't you DIE?!").

Oh yeah, and I'd love to see the combat character that has a higher touch AC than the monk. You can't without magical items, which, if evenly spread out as they should be, benefit the monk as well.

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.

I'm curious to know to whom you're comparing the monk to make him seem so ineffectual. A rogue is the only other character that has a similar (possibly better) chance of *escaping* a grapple, and little chance of engaging in one. When a monk is grappling a character for several times 1d10, 1d12, or even 1d20+ damage in a round, I don't see what there is to complain considering that the target character is tied up as well.

The monk is definitely the best of the base classes at unarmed combat. I don't think anything in the system really goes against this.

If you're not happy with the monk's performance, try picking up Improved Grapple in OA, which is a WotC book too, after all. Or any of the other feats in there.

Oh, and as they are in the PHB, I don't see why the base classes couldn't be Oriental. Just change what weapons you use, how you dress, and voilà! It's not like OA substantially changes the classes that much.

 

[Zerovoid]

That's silly. No one says the fighter is the undisputed master of armed combat at level one: he's just starting out. Start at higher levels, such as around level 12 or 16, and you'll see that the monk is much better at grappling, including the Escape Artist skill that barbs don't have as a class skill. And real damage makes one HELL of a difference if you're fighting anything that's immune to subdual (I can only imagine your unarmed fighter trying to choke a golem "Why won't you DIE?!").

Oh yeah, and I'd love to see the combat character that has a higher touch AC than the monk. You can't without magical items, which, if evenly spread out as they should be, benefit the monk as well.



I'm curious to know to whom you're comparing the monk to make him seem so ineffectual. A rogue is the only other character that has a similar (possibly better) chance of *escaping* a grapple, and little chance of engaging in one. When a monk is grappling a character for several times 1d10, 1d12, or even 1d20+ damage in a round, I don't see what there is to complain considering that the target character is tied up as well.

The monk is definitely the best of the base classes at unarmed combat. I don't think anything in the system really goes against this.

If you're not happy with the monk's performance, try picking up Improved Grapple in OA, which is a WotC book too, after all. Or any of the other feats in there.

Oh, and as they are in the PHB, I don't see why the base classes couldn't be Oriental. Just change what weapons you use, how you dress, and voilà! It's not like OA substantially changes the classes that much.

But, as people have said, a fighter has better BAB than the monk, and probably better strength. So, the monk will usually fail their grapple checks against these guys. How then is the monk a better grappler?

This is the same problem I have with the monk having Improved Trip, etc... They are worse than the fighter classes, because they don't have a good BAB.

Instead of getting alot of attacks that will have a hard time hitting, and don't stack properly with normal BAB when multiclassing, why didn't the designers just give them a fighter type BAB progression?

 

[Psion]

But, as people have said, a fighter has better BAB than the monk, and probably better strength. So, the monk will usually fail their grapple checks against these guys. How then is the monk a better grappler?

I can think of a few ways.

First, grapple checks are touch attacks. A monk will more than likely have a much higher AC against grapple checks, because they are likely to have a higher dex, and add wisdom and monk bonuses too. The figther might actually be worse off if he is wearing armor due to dex limitations.

Second, a monk inflicts REAL damage in unarmed combat and can (IIRC) use their faster iterative attacks.

Third, escape artist is a class skill for monks.

 

[Hakkenshi]

Beats me, since I'm not one of the designers

Personally, I think the Unarmed Base Attack Bonus is the silliest thing they've thought of. They could have simply given the monk a -2 (or even -4) penalty when using non-monk weapons.

As for the grappling thing, I still think a monk with Weapon Finesse unarmed makes a very comparable grapple check versus whatever fighter. On top of that, he has the only way of dealing actual damage with a grapple check, and it quickly becomes much, much more. Using OA is a sure way to have monks be all that they can be D), since most feats in that book are specifically designed for the class.

HOWEVER, I still think the monk works, and frequent in-game experiences have proven this for me. As I've said, on the other hand, I would have made the monk differently. Here is my idea of a less wacky monk:

Fort Ref Will
Level BAB Save Save Save Special
----- ------------ ---- ---- ---- -------
1 +1 +2 +2 +2 Unarmed Strike,
Stunning attack, Flurry of blows, Wisdom bonus to AC
2 +2 +3 +3 +3 Evasion
3 +3 +3 +3 +3 Deflect Arrows feat
4 +4 +4 +4 +4 Slow fall (20 ft.),
Empty Hand
5 +5 +4 +4 +4 Purity of body
6 +6/+1 +5 +5 +5 Slow fall (30 ft.),
7 +7/+2 +5 +5 +5 Leap of the clouds
8 +8/+3 +6 +6 +6 Slow fall (50 ft.)
9 +9/+4 +6 +6 +6
10 +10/+5 +7 +7 +7 Acrobatics (+5)
11 +11/+6/+1 +7 +7 +7 Diamond body
12 +12/+7/+2 +8 +8 +8
13 +13/+8/+3 +8 +8 +8 Slow fall (any distance)
14 +14/+9/+4 +9 +9 +9 Void Hand
15 +15/+10/+5 +9 +9 +9 Mettle
16 +16/+11/+6/+1 +10 +10 +10
17 +17/+12/+7/+2 +10 +10 +10 Timeless body
18 +18/+13/+8/+3 +11 +11 +11 Acrobatics (+10)
19 +19/+14/+9/+4 +11 +11 +11
20 +20/+15/+10/+5 +12 +12 +12 Perfect self


All standard monk abilities are as described in the PHB. Speed and AC Bonus remain the same, as does Unarmed Damage.

Weapon and Armour Proficiencies: The monk is proficient in all monk weapons as defined in the PHB, plus the quarterstaff, shortspear, longspear and javelin. When using any weapon but a monk weapon or unarmed strike, the monk receives a –4 penalty to attack rolls, regardless of the Weapon Proficiency feats he may have purchased.

AC Bonus (ex): When the monk receives a class AC bonus, he becomes able to penetrate Damage Reduction as though his unarmed strike possessed an enchantment bonus equal to his class AC bonus. Note that this does not confer any other advantages of an enchantment bonus (i.e. bonuses to attack and damage).

Empty Hand (ex): The monk may elect to use his Dex or Wis modifier instead of
Str as a bonus to attack rolls. At any time, he may choose which ability modifier to use out of the three. In addition, the monk receives a bonus equal to his Wis modifier (if positive) to all grapple checks.

Acrobatics (ex): The monk receives the listed bonus to all Balance, Climb, Jump and Tumble checks.

Void Hand (ex): The monk may apply his Wisdom modifier (if positive) to his damage rolls when using a monk weapon or unarmed strike.

Mettle (ex): Whenever the monk successfully saves against a spell or effect that would deal only half damage on a successful Will or Fortitude save, he takes no damage instead.

Feel free to tell me what you think. I've tried to make the monk less spread out, and more "combat effective", which seems to be the gist of everyone's beef with the monk. More to the point, I've made it so that the shriveled 150 year-old monk standing on top of a mountain has a chance of actually being better than the young whippersnapper who comes to challenge him.

Of course, because of Timeless Body, the old guy wouldn't be so shriveled, but...

 

[LokiDR]

. . .

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'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.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying what I have to try to keep monks down. I want them to be just a viable as any other class. My qualms about monks and poison come from the three places: the lawful alignment requirement of the monk class, all the historical groups the monk is based on, and how the monk described in the PH.

The law says poison is illegal. Lawfull alignment means not wanting to creat chaos. Using poison would lead to this chaos in any civilized region.

Monks are based on groups like the Shao Lin monks. The tenants of these monks said that use of poison was not allowed. Monks aren't based on the historical ninja, who favor poison.

Monks adventure to prove and better themselves. Use of poison does not prove your prowess or your courage. Poison does not better you.

This is all IMHO. We obviously view the use of poison and how monks in general work. I think this will be last post on the poison issue. I think your concept of a poison using monk almost fits a LE monk, but not entirely for the reasons above. It is an interesting question, but not really on the point that monks still suck by and large at low levels.

 

[LokiDR]

Ok, I have a challenge for all you monk lovers out there. I am running a game in a home brew low magic world. The PCs are most likely going to be trying to raid a catacomb. If some one can post a monk 7 using only core book and splat books, stanard money, I may change my idea. I think my players will slauter it, but I want to see if you people are on to something here. This challenge is for a monk without OA feats. I obviously don't play monks well, so post tatics if you could.

The party is a centar ranger/fighter 4, human wiz 6, human bard/barbiarian/rogue/royal explorer 6, monk/fighter 5, human rogue 5.

I can post the results of the fight after the next game session, on the 17th.

 

[LokiDR]

HOWEVER, I still think the monk works, and frequent in-game experiences have proven this for me. As I've said, on the other hand, I would have made the monk differently. Here is my idea of a less wacky monk:

.....

Feel free to tell me what you think. I've tried to make the monk less spread out, and more "combat effective", which seems to be the gist of everyone's beef with the monk. More to the point, I've made it so that the shriveled 150 year-old monk standing on top of a mountain has a chance of actually being better than the young whippersnapper who comes to challenge him.

Of course, because of Timeless Body, the old guy wouldn't be so shriveled, but...

I think the switch to a complete fighter BAB puts the monk a little over the top, but that might be a good thing Removing the SR is hard loss to high level monks, but they can get items just the same as fighters. Overall, by giving them many more abilites than a fighter of the same level, I think it is too much.

 

[wolff96]

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

Sorry I didn't notice your question earlier.

The Ki Strike bonus is a weapon enhancement bonus. As such, it doesn't stack with Magic Fang, Greater Magic Fang, Magic Weapon, or Greater Magic Weapon.

If you cast (for example) Greater Magic Fang on the monk with a caster level 15, then the monk makes all attacks with +5 attack/damage until the spell runs out.

 

[LokiDR]

Sorry I didn't notice your question earlier.

The Ki Strike bonus is a weapon enhancement bonus. As such, it doesn't stack with Magic Fang, Greater Magic Fang, Magic Weapon, or Greater Magic Weapon.

If you cast (for example) Greater Magic Fang on the monk with a caster level 15, then the monk makes all attacks with +5 attack/damage until the spell runs out.

Ki strike only allows you to strike as if you had a magic weapon, not an actual bonus to hit and damage, right?

 

[Psion]

The law says poison is illegal.

Again: whose law? The order and regimen the monk follows may have NOTHING to do with what the local magistrate is concerned with.

Further, most ancient legal systems probably wouldn't distinguish between killing via poison and weapons. If those are tool you are not supposed to have or use, or that you use in comission of a crime, it would treat you the same. I am not aware of any historical "poison purges" that would give it the same status you seem to claim it has.

Lawfull alignment means not wanting to creat chaos. Using poison would lead to this chaos in any civilized region

You claim not to be a big follower of 1e/2e alignment systems, but this is blatantly 1e/2e thinking. Once again, 3e, unlike 1e/2e, doesn't assign alignment to mere objects, and doesn't revolve around the hackneyed "creates chaos" sorts of arguments. The 3e alignment definitions revolve entirely around defining a character and their system of beleifs and values, not any of this "creates chaos" garbage you would have seen in the pages of a double digit issue of dragon.