Why not monks?

[SnowleopardVK]

Everyone I know says monks are weak. I don't know about that. I've been recording my players' progress in our campaign lately, and after the first two sessions the party monk has been responsible for the three attacks that have caused the most damage of any PC or enemy so far. He's landed more successful hits than any other player too, despite them all having made similar numbers of attacks.

I admit, two of his top attacks were flurries of blows, the top one being a critical hit, and the second best one being boosted thanks to a magic weapon spell, so a degree of it was luck and teamwork. Regardless of that though, the monk would still have the best hit, and be tied for second best even if there had been no crit or magic weapon.

I've never played or run a monk at higher levels though. I assume the Paladin and druid are both going to start surpassing him as they get stronger, because... Well because they're a paladin and a druid. The magus may or may not beat him in combat later on, can't say, but of course she'll get spells and he won't.

This was mostly a ramble I think. For now though, the party's strongest member seems to be the monk.

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

I love playing a monk. This is my first monk and so far, he's been awesome.

Honestly, he's the second stronger combatant in our party behind a barbarian, due to magic and the barbarian's rage. We also have a rogue and a cleric (the Barbarian and the Rogue are now level 8, while the Monk and Cleric are level 7). Thanks to the Frost special ability, he's now doing 1d8 + 3 (Str bonus) + 1d6 for frost (x2 or x3 depending on how many hits he gets with FoB). With another 1,100 XP (give or take) his base damage per hit goes up to d10, which the barbarian is doing 2d6 with a greatsword. (We're using the Core Rulebook only).

I'm hoping to save up cash for the Speed special ability, to get another FoB attack. I tend to go first in combat, due to high Dex and Improved Initiative, so I run in pop the guy once, use a Ki point to up my AC for 1 round while he attacks, and then FoB him to death. Granted, between the Monk and the Rogue, we can flank pretty much anything through tumbling, so that helps out too.

 

[RangerRick]

I think most of the forum traffic about class strength focuses on higher levels at least that's what i've seen. So at high levels pretty much anyone with spells leapfrogs the classes that don't because they're way more flexible depending on what you fight and they scale so much better to large encounters (plus there's save-or-die effects in there too.)

At low levels though its often a really different story. When casters can only get off a couple of spells before running dry and fighters have much better rolls to hit because of bab and strength bonuses the fighters can really rule the roost.

In general I think the argument against the monk is that its a striker without full bab progression and subpar damage compared to other strikers unless you've got a bunch of tricks up your sleeve (like a way to get Enlarge on you all the time) plus you've got more AC worries to deal with.

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

I think you're right. At higher levels, I'm going to need to get lots of fancy magical stuff.

However, I think it also comes down to play style. Personally, I could care less about the BAB, because the main thing I use is Flurry of Blows, which isn't based off of Flurry of Blows. We also houseruled getting rid of the -2 penalty to FoB because of contradictory wording. We play a laid back game and it seems like a lot of people who complain about the Monk do NOT play a laid back style. I could be wrong, but that's what it seems like from the discussions.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

I think our monk's plan it to stick with monk up to 6th level, then take 2 fighter levels, then 2 duelist levels. Assuming he hits 20th with this same character that he started with, I believe the plan was Monk/Fighter//Duelist 16/2/2.

Not pure monk all the way, but no arcane or divine classes really. The closest he gets to magic is the ki pool.

 

[Walking Dad]

It has some Multiple Abilities Dependency. So it's effectiveness depends much on the abilities you rolled or the amount of points you get in point buy.

There is some issue with having fluff to be a mobile combatant but relying much on full-attacks.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I think, but could well be wrong, that for a certain style of play monks may be under powered. I tend to think of that style of play as 'min-maxing', which is rather unkind.

I am a bigger fan of folks playing what they want to play, rather than how much damage thy can deal in a single round. So, I will admit a bias.

The Auld Grump

 

[MichaelSomething]

I think you're right. At higher levels, I'm going to need to get lots of fancy magical stuff.

However, I think it also comes down to play style. Personally, I could care less about the BAB, because the main thing I use is Flurry of Blows, which isn't based off of Flurry of Blows. We also houseruled getting rid of the -2 penalty to FoB because of contradictory wording. We play a laid back game and it seems like a lot of people who complain about the Monk do NOT play a laid back style. I could be wrong, but that's what it seems like from the discussions.

There's a difference between weak in the game and weak at the table. Losing the -2 penalty to FOB is a nice boost to Monks. Your DM could also adjust the situation for your party.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

It has some Multiple Abilities Dependency. So it's effectiveness depends much on the abilities you rolled or the amount of points you get in point buy.

There is some issue with having fluff to be a mobile combatant but relying much on full-attacks.

15 point buy with ours. I'd expected him to suffer for it, but that's not the case.

He's put his focus into Wisdom and Dex, followed by Str, then Int, then Con, and a sadly low Cha.

 

[Walking Dad]

Good for him he pulled it of. BTW, "sadly low Cha" is 7?