Why not monks?

[SnowleopardVK]

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

Well yeah, it's 7. I'm always iffy about any ability scores lower than 8 I guess. (Also, the AP they're in relies on charisma based skill checks to get a fairly substantial amount of bonus XP) >_>

Still, it seems to be suiting him well, and the paladin has high Cha anyways so it's not like they have nobody to speak for them.

 

[Angrydad]

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

Once again our minds seem to be on the same track. Generally speaking, my players are not much for the uber min-maxing, though they do like to be good at their class's "hat" so to speak. This means that characters multiclass because it's story appropriate, not because it's going to be the "best" class combo, and I encourage people to take cross-class skills to add flavor to their characters (why not be a fighter who's also a phenomenal gourmet chef?).

 

[Walking Dad]

Once again our minds seem to be on the same track. Generally speaking, my players are not much for the uber min-maxing, though they do like to be good at their class's "hat" so to speak.

I think this is part of the problem. If you look at the monk in the corebook, you don't think:
"Hey I will be good at going quickly in and then remain in one place to make full attacks."
The 'Hong-Kong' monk is more likely to make players think of a nimble combatant, never standing long in one place.
The "hat" of the class could be better described in the character section.

This means that characters multiclass because it's story appropriate, not because it's going to be the "best" class combo, and I encourage people to take cross-class skills to add flavor to their characters (why not be a fighter who's also a phenomenal gourmet chef?).

You rub some of my pet-peeves with this:
[sblock=Off-Topic]Why has a character' effectivity to suffer for gaining flavor?
- Some other systems have 'hobby' skills at a lower cost.

Why has the fighter only two skill points?
- 2+Int skill points was as a bad thing as the d4 HD. The should have removed both.

Why would the armorsmith be a small-shouldered geek if mechanics would rule the fluff?
- All crafts are based on Int. Str adds nothing to your skill.[/sblock]

 

[Angrydad]

I think this is part of the problem. If you look at the monk in the corebook, you don't think:
"Hey I will be good at going quickly in and then remain in one place to make full attacks."
The 'Hong-Kong' monk is more likely to make players think of a nimble combatant, never standing long in one place.
The "hat" of the class could be better described in the character section.


You rub some of my pet-peeves with this:
[sblock=Off-Topic]Why has a character' effectivity to suffer for gaining flavor?
- Some other systems have 'hobby' skills at a lower cost.

Why has the fighter only two skill points?
- 2+Int skill points was as a bad thing as the d4 HD. The should have removed both.

Why would the armorsmith be a small-shouldered geek if mechanics would rule the fluff?
- All crafts are based on Int. Str adds nothing to your skill.[/sblock]

I've always liked the Star Wars d20, where all classes have at least 4 skill points per level instead of the measly two that the martial/spellcaster classes get. Along your point of classes "suffering" for putting cross class skills, I quickly houseruled that cross-class skills cost no more per rank, just that in 3.5 you could only have half as many ranks in the skill, as it wasn't part of your class's core training.

I guess I've also rarely encountered a lack of skill points since my players and myself tend to place a high-ish score in the Intelligence stat, so we get bonus skills anyway.

Finally, along your complaints about some Craft skills being based on Str or other stats instead of Int. Just make a houserule if the DM is willing.

 

[Drathir]

yeah monks "weakness" comes down to pure numbers really. With a need to have High dex/wis/con to survive at low levels and do a passable job of it at high levels they tend to take a back row in damage, also with the DPR equation they tend to fall in pretty low (its a little complicated but its pretty much chance to hit * average damage for every attack, and on monks its like 60-70% on their high attacks).

there's also the fact that a fist fighter fighter can deal... hmm with a 16start strength(cause he wanted damage, assume human half-elf/orc) when we hit lvl 17 or so (giving him a probable 24-26 str we'll assume 24 for sake of better con or something) he deals 1d3+20 or so for best dpr with out going over a +5 weapon (7 str+4 weapon training+5 weapon enhance+4 weapon spec, cuz lets face it he probably has gauntlets) he deals 21-23 damage per hit but has a 95% chance to hit most enemies on his first go and somewhere around an 80% on his second. dropping his chance to hit on second atk to 70% if twoweapon fighting. and since wis is only going to be mediocre as with dex as he's wearing Full-plate well he's got better AC and as a standard fighter his speed doesn't suffer that much, and lets face who cares about speed since the full attack comes only with a 5' step

That's why monks are "weak" since they will deal 2d10+(6-12 high strength with anywhere between +1-5 depending on if you sacrificed awesomeness for utility of brass knuckles) gives you 8-32ish damage with a 70-95% chance on first atk

although personally i love monks they're fun, just thought I'd through the numbers for high levels out there, some of them might be just a little off since i had no paper and i only checked 4 cr 16-18 monsters for an average AC but still. But yeah that's why people call them weak, fighter deals better damage overall (as averages are 21 fighter vs 20 monk while fighter has a +5 higher atk bonus assuming same offensive gear and similar str, meaning 25% better hit rate)

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

I think this is part of the problem. If you look at the monk in the corebook, you don't think:
"Hey I will be good at going quickly in and then remain in one place to make full attacks."
The 'Hong-Kong' monk is more likely to make players think of a nimble combatant, never standing long in one place.
The "hat" of the class could be better described in the character section.

I guess this is just a difference in expectations, then, because I have never looked at the Monk in 3/3.5/Pathfinder and compared it to a 'Hong Kong' monk, even though that's the depiction in the PF Core Rulebook. It could just be that a practitioner of Shaolin kung fu isn't the first thing that pops to mind when I hear the word 'monk.'

The 'Hong-Kong' monk is more likely to make players think of a nimble combatant, never standing long in one place.

It's funny that you mention this. I just watched 'Ip Man,' starring Donnie Yen. Great movie. Anyway, I would consider the character of Ip Man to be 'monk-iike,' but if you've watched it, yes he moves around, but there are several instances of where he simply stands in one place, surrounded by enemies, to rain down blows on some fool.

Honestly, and I have no idea why, but the first thing that does spring to mind is Friar Tuck. He's not even a monk, so this is kinda weird.

I'm playing an Elven Monk, which I've read some people say is like a 'Super Trap' if the Monk class is a 'trap.' He isn't even really a 'martial artist.' He's an angry young (relatively) man whose village was killed/tortured/imprisoned by Drow and he uses that anger to punch the group's enemies to death.

 

[Walking Dad]

Sorry, I played 3.X and AD&D 2e before. Friar Tuck didn't spring my mind.

I never saw Ip Man using his increased movement and teleporting abilities
which are also implying movement for the character class.

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

Sorry, I played 3.X and AD&D 2e before. Friar Tuck didn't spring my mind.

I never saw Ip Man using his increased movement and teleporting abilities
which are also implying movement for the character class.

Okay, I can't actually argue with that. However, I've never seen an actual monk do those things, either, so I guess that's my I never pictured the D&D/PF Monk as a "kung fu" kinda guy. Given the description of the Monk from the PRD:

"A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet.'

it sounds more like the Monk should be a practitioner of Muay Thai than something like Kung Fu or Wu Shu. I've never seen a Muay Thai guy do those things either, except maybe Tony Jaa, but he just defies physics in general.

I have no issue with someone wanting to play the Monk like a kung fu fighter in the movies. I just don't envision the Monk that way. To me, you could skin the Monk as a boxer, a wrestler (if you focus on grappling), a Muay Thai fighter, a Brazilian Ju Jitsu fighter or pretty much any other fighting style you want and it works mechanically. As long as you have fun, that's the important part.

 

[Wycen]

Perhaps a Pathfinder monk is better, though from the 5 sessions I observed before our PF game imploded I'd say they could be but our player and DM couldn't be bothered to read the rules, but my opinion of the 3.x monk is that they are a good support or "get out of trouble alive" character, but not a great combatant.

Ever since hearing the term I've called Flurry of Blows, Flurry of Misses, because it just doesn't live up to the hype.

 

[Walking Dad]

...
Given the description of the Monk from the PRD:

"A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet.'

it sounds more like the Monk should be a practitioner of Muay Thai than something like Kung Fu or Wu Shu. I've never seen a Muay Thai guy do those things either, except maybe Tony Jaa, but he just defies physics in general.

Actual book text:

Role: Monks excel at overcoming even the most daunting perils, striking where it’s least expected, and taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities. Fleet of foot and skilled in combat, monks can navigate any battlefield with ease, aiding allies wherever they are needed most.

Looks like a lot of moving around to me...

... As long as you have fun, that's the important part.

I would have fun with the ability to move and use the main combat class feature.