What's Up With The Monk?

[Gizzard]

The fireball hit for 26. Every person in the web that also got fireballed took 8 from the buring web.

OK, so the Fireball is by far and away the most dangerous thing that happened. It killed two party members (assuming the dog counts as a member.)

People who made their saves took 21; thats the Bard. The Centaur must have made his save, then taken 5 from the Monk since he lost 26 of 32. (I thought the Centaur went down? Did he get a potion? Is 26 of 32 correct?)

I guess the Mnk/Ftr did not get hit by the Fireball. He took d6 from the Pit assuming he used Tumble and Slow Fall. The rest of the 45 damage is due to the enemy Monk. Is this correct?

So the Monk did 45+5-d6 or just less than 50 points in the fight? Thats not too bad. Not as good as the Fireball, but not too bad either.

 

[LokiDR]

The centaur had been wounded by a previous fight, and was at 10 under full. The mnk/ftr doesn't have slow fall as he is only monk 2. The pit did minimal damage, I think about 7. So about 50 for the monk sounds a little high, but in the right ball park.

 

[Hakkenshi]

I'm fully prepared to admit that a monk shouldn't stand toe-to-toe trading hits with a fighter or barbarian (I hope not too many of you lost characters testing this ), but I really can't understand the "unability to hit" complaint. I have NEVER seen this happen consistently unless the player was having a very unlucky streak.

Still, around fifty points of damage WITHOUT counting the Fireball (which was, after all, part of the encounter somehow) is pretty darn good. Given the outcome of the fight, I think we should all be glad the monk doesn't perform any better!

 

[LokiDR]

I am not ready to jump on the monk loving bandwagon quite yet. I saw the monk do a passable job, primarily due to items (cloak) but also due to abilities like movement. I am ready to say that monks, as a blanket statement, don't suck unless they are badly played/designed.

 

[Hakkenshi]

I am ready to say that monks, as a blanket statement, don't suck unless they are badly played/designed.

That's good enough for me.

I still think spellcasters (especially clerics) are too powerful in the long run. I just think monks are in general a class with great potential, which is seldom used to its fullest effect.

And for the record (out of the blue), if I was playing monk and the party found Boots of Cheat (as they are now called ), I'd much rather the Full Plate-wearing Spd 20' Fighter wear them, so he can take the heat off my character

 

[LokiDR]

That's good enough for me.

I still think spellcasters (especially clerics) are too powerful in the long run. I just think monks are in general a class with great potential, which is seldom used to its fullest effect.

I think that wizards can be much more dangerous than clerics, since they have the offensive punch. I am still not seeing this great effect of your though. Given the chance, I would change the monk class BAB in a heart beat.

 

[Hakkenshi]

I think that wizards can be much more dangerous than clerics, since they have the offensive punch. I am still not seeing this great effect of your though. Given the chance, I would change the monk class BAB in a heart beat.

I think that Harm and Implosion are pretty destructive, but the debate isn't wizards versus clerics (or at least it shouldn't be, here of all places).

If you change the monk BAB to fighter, you make the class broken. Period.

If you change other things, it can be balanced, but as it is giving it fighter BAB makes it way overpowered. That's like giving a rogue fighter BAB and d8 HD. Way too good. I'm still not convinced rogues aren't one of the best classes, and (for me at least ) the same goes for monks. But YMMV (and it does, apparently ).

 

[LokiDR]

If you want to look at implosion, you also have acces to miracle. You could just use that

In a combat, the rogue gets a whole lot of sneak attack. The monk larger damage dice. I would think if you really wanted the monk to out-shine the rogue in combat (which seems to be what people wanted/expected of the class) you should give them better BAB. This would have to change the unarmed BAB for extra attacks, but that isn't such a bad thing, IMO. I would just want the monk to live up to the fighter role they seem to be stuck in.

 

[Hakkenshi]

I guess I have no problem with it because I don't see it as being stuck in a fighter role. But then I'm not most people

 

[Villano]

Through this little experiment, we've seen that the monk can do a respectable amount of damage.

Now, how well did he do on the other 2 aspects of combat, hitting and avoiding being hit? Both topics have been mentioned as complaints with the class (low BAB, and low AC due to its dependence on stats instead of armor).

So, did he miss more often than he connected? And did he get taken down after only 2 or 3 hits?

BTW, is Regdar still on these boards? I'm surprised that we've had 14 pages of discussion on whether or not the monk is a good class and he hasn't popped in once to say, "Be a fighter."