| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Eldurin04-04-05, 10:54 AM | Let me start by saying, I HATE POWER THREADS!!! And here I am starting one. Will my hypocrisy never cease? I hate it when people complain about something being over-powered or under-powered because they almost always argue in a manner of comparing apples with pears. Sorcerers are overpowered because they can cast magic bla bla bla, fighters are overpowered, because no one can beat them in combat bla bla bla. Such threads all fail fatally because they fail to appreciate class diversity. Now I would start such a thread with regards to a monk. Someone kick me quickly. I would however try to avoid all the usual flaws in thinking that people make themselves guilty of. The proper question is, I think, does a monk achieve what it is meant to achieve? Having played a monk recently with fairly good rolls, I was appalled at how I struggled to 'keep up' with the other characters. As a fighter a monk has a mediocre armour class with mediocre attacks. As a skilled character a monk has 4 skill points per level, compared to a rogue's 8 and a ninja's 6, a ranger's 6 and a scout's 8. As a scout, a monk has some skill in the city, but is still outdone by a rogue and ninja and outdone in the country by a ranger or a scout. I excelled at nothing. But let's not be guilty of comparing apples with pears. What is a monk's role in the party? His high saves allow him to act efficiently with traps, except he has little skill in dealing with traps. He excels in skills such as balance, tumble and jump, but balance and jump are used for city scouting, whilst tumble is used for combat. Neither is the monk's true calling. Even for distance travelling a monk is outdone. Paladins and rangers' ride skill aid them significantly, especially with animal companions and of course a ranger's endurance keeps him going and going. The monk is the ideal diplomat in areas such as palaces or embassies where no weapons are allowed (and where attacks are a real possibility.) But honestly, how often does this happen, and added to this, a monk traditionally has a lower charisma, as his prime stats are (in order of importance) dexterity, wisdom, and then strength with constitution maybe in fourth place. So maybe I am unimaginative, but in the day to day adventuring of the joe-average party the monk has a difficult part to prove his worth. Multiclassing seems to me to be the only sensible alternative, except a monk is faced with strict multi-classing restrictions. Okay I am venting here. But where else am I supposed to do it? And by all means flame me, because my aim is playing my character efficiently. Which I am kinda struggling with at the moment. The only real advantage I see in a monk is character – a deep and interesting character liberated from traditional stereotypes. |
| danielinthewolvesden04-04-05, 11:10 AM | In my Consensus thread, the Monk came out as 17 out of 30. In other words, in about the low-middle. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=369436 A monk's best usages, tactically speaking are: 1. as the parties "Scout"- moving ahead, but leaving the trapfinding on doors & such to the rogue. great saves, all the rigth skills, and can handle himself in combat. Now, there's the scout class, and the ranger also does a good job here. But in th ewilderness, in 3.0- this critical role was pretty well owned by the Monk. 2. With level one taken as cleric, a Monk can zip around, stabilizing downed party members, when needed. I like this option. 3. But the traditional use is as "mage-killer". He has great saves, and a few immunities., high movement, and Tumble. He can Tumble through enemy lines, get to the enemy wizard, and pummel him down pretty quick. 4. The combo of stunning blow and being the rogues "flanking buddy" means that you can stun opponents, which the rogue can then Sneak attack- or you can Tumble around to their "rea", and agin, the rogue gets SA. |
| Rondulin04-04-05, 11:18 AM | A played a monk with 3.0 rules (3.5 monk is stronger in combat) and above-average rolls and did not have the impression that the other characters in my group where better. A monk is quite good at combat if you considere a BAB (20th level) of +15/+15/+15/+10/+5. That is better than the fighters +20/+15/+10/+5. A high dex is necessary for good AC. Besides you can than take Weapon finesse (unarmed strike). With the high speed you can tumble around enemies and get in to a flanking position. A monk is an allrounder. And every allround seems to be weak if you compare him to a bunch of specialists in their field. |
| Souza04-04-05, 11:18 AM | A monk may be useful on other situations. To rescue someone from prision, get the monk arrested, find the guy you want to save, and then use the monk abilities (no jump limit, high speed) to carry the guy out of prision. The monk can also be the main damage dealer, with 2d10 damage (more when his size increase due to magics) and lots of attacks per turn, but mainly, the mage killer. Uber charge, stun/grapple/trip the wizard, etc. |
| Neodymium04-04-05, 11:47 AM | 3. But the traditional use is as "mage-killer". He has great saves, and a few immunities., high movement, and Tumble. He can Tumble through enemy lines, get to the enemy wizard, and pummel him down pretty quick. 4. The combo of stunning blow and being the rogues "flanking buddy" means that you can stun opponents, which the rogue can then Sneak attack- or you can Tumble around to their "rea", and agin, the rogue gets SA. My monk has pretty much always served these two functions. I'm the guy who tumbles past the badass boss to take out the spellcaster that's buffing him. Back in the days before our party lost our rogue(player missed way too many sessions for no reason), we called ourselves The Tumblin' Brothers(not actually related in anyway). It was really the only thing that the two characters had in common. The rogue was neutral bordering on evil and my monk is exalted, but we were a phenomenal combination in combat. It was like some terrible buddy movie. I was always trying to keep him from coup-de-gracing enemies after their defeat. *le sigh* good times... |
| Thorak04-04-05, 12:13 PM | As mentioned, the Monk has two real advantages. And neither of them are directly suited to melee combat. These are; Speed All high saves, Evasion and Improved Evasion, and Spell Resistance I won't go into huge detail, but these clearly set the monk out as a caster-killer. Stunning fist and all that I don't consider that big an advantage, because while the monk's better at it than most, he's not the only character than can do it. Especially considering the weakness in melee combat. AC is comparable or even slightly better than a combat class', but their HD is low (d8), their BAB is bad (3/4), and they need too many stats to focus heavily on Con to offset the HP gap. Unarmed strike damage only makes the unarmed strikes useable at higher levels, it doesn't make them a good weapon. In melee, the monk loses out both in damage-dealing per hit and per round, and survivability due to lower hp. Combat-wise, I'd rank their combat somewhere close to that of a Rogue, and below everything but bards, wizards, and sorcerors. Like a Rogue, they can be devastating against the right opponent in the right circumstances. Anywhere else, though, and they'll tend to be turned into hamburger. IMHO, most people see the "advantages" of Flurry and the huge unarmed strike damage, and think the monk will be crushingly good in melee. In fact, those don't even offset the existing penalties the class has, namely low BAB and crappy weapon choices. |
| Rastem04-04-05, 12:16 PM | IMHO, the monk serves as an all-around backup much like the bard, but slanted more towards combat situations. Now a lot of people don't like playing a class that's second best at everything, but in a lot of ways a monk is a great aid to any party as the fifth man; again comparable to the bard. The problem is now that a ranger has been altered to be a more savvy survivalist than fighter wearing a woodman's clothes, why would someone not play a ranger as the fifth man? A ranger gets spells, great combat ability, more skill points, and are able to use weapons that are easier to find in magical varieties. So what gives? The answer, of course, always falls down to one of flavor. Despite not being the best at anything, the monk is a uniquely flavorful class that can be taken any number of directions, from asian-themed characters to eerie spirit-warrior types (starting in sorcerer is a great way to do this), to high-wisdom buddha-type characters. It all comes down to flavor, and that's where the monk shines. The monk also doesn't need to rely on anything but himself, having your body be a weapon and a great means of transportation is a great perk. His saves let him survive most any sticky situation and his good pool of hit points soaks up the rest. And, as mentioned earlier, it is the mage who must worry about the monk, not the other way around. A ranger would be hard-pressed to survive a Dominate, but a monk can usually make the save, tumble past the guards, and put some hurt on the wizard with multiple attacks dealing moderate damage each before he can open his mouth again to say "Teleport me the hell out of here"! If playing a character who can handle most any situation with zen-like calm, then the monk is a good choice. Hi-yah! |
| Kolo04-04-05, 12:18 PM | The best monk I ever saw was basically a sniping ultra-range cruise missile. He'd pick a target, run at all speed for it, and then charge for all he was worth. If the target was unlucky enough to survive his charge (aided by an item giving him the pounce ability-full attack while charging, anyone?), he'd either grapple it and squeeze or simply stun and pummel. The secret was apparently to never go for the tank- just run past him (or jump over him or tumble out of the way) and punch the rest of the party into submission. When this wasn't an option, he'd often play the tactics game; trip this guy, disarm that guy, and set them up for attacks by the other members of the party while he grappled/stunned the enemy caster. Disarming especially was a favorite- it was hard for him to get it, but it was worth it. when the enemy is equipped with better weapons, even the playing field. :) And the DM gnawed his way through his fingernails a great deal trying to invent anything that could stop him from cruising straight into his chosen enemy-not even forcecage worked for long due to dimension door. only when used twice did the enemy have any luck, and that's pretty expensive to do. The monk is a very tactical kind of fighter, and he's very much a "support" kind of class. He's got enough abilities to work competently without support from the rest of the party, but at the same time his abilities gear him towards supporting his friend's combat tactics- sorta like the cleric, except with a different focus (and of course without being ridiculously powerful). He's not the kind of guy who holds up well in straight combat, making him a bit misleading as a class choice. |
| Elendur04-04-05, 12:27 PM | Having played a monk recently with fairly good rolls, I was appalled at how I struggled to 'keep up' with the other characters. As a fighter a monk has a mediocre armour class with mediocre attacks. As a skilled character a monk has 4 skill points per level, compared to a rogue's 8 and a ninja's 6, a ranger's 6 and a scout's 8. As a scout, a monk has some skill in the city, but is still outdone by a rogue and ninja and outdone in the country by a ranger or a scout. I excelled at nothing. Maybe if you gave us more specifics about your party. What levels were you playing at? What other characters were there? What kinds of opponents did you face? What kinds of environments were you in? |
| OamuTheMonk04-04-05, 12:35 PM | A monk is a capable athlete--let's see those toughy-tough fighters climb a rock wall, balance on a narrow beam while in melee, or best of all, swim across a moderately fast river in that full-plate. A monk is a specialist combatant. Not so good at swordplay, but once you disarm that other guy (Sai+Improved Disarm=sad enemy fighter), youll find that he is much worse at kung fu. Alternately, dumping him on his butt with improved trip and stunning him on the way down is pretty fun too. A monk is mobile and bulletproof. As the only class where it's worth it to take deflect arrows, you'll find that rushing an opponent archer isn't so scary when you can swat his critical threat to the ground like a twelve year-old's dunk shot. Sundering his +5 composite shortbow with adamantine fists can be a blast too, but you should ask your party's ranger first. A monk is a team player--paired with almost any other class, a monk will give you a team far greater than the sum of it's parts. Rogue=Flanking buddy (as mentioned), but also that rogue's bodyguard when they get over their head, and the rest of the party is 80 feet away. Barbarian or fighter=Cleave enabler. Softening up those lizardmen just so some guy with a bastard sword can slaughter them all when his turn comes around is not a glamourous job, but if you want lizardmen dead quick, it works like a teflon charm. Spellcaster=AoO factory. Again, providing soft cover for some withered crone while she conjures up some fruity roman candle is not a 007-type op, but it is incredibly rewarding getting all those combat-reflexes-fueled AoOs on the goons trying to rush past you to get to her. Ranger=Target stunner. Pretty hard not to catch that arrow in the neck after your nervous system stopped working for six seconds. A monk can save against anything. If your party's being targeted with a dominating gaze or charm person, who would you rather have try to make the save; the monk, or that slavering half-orc with the adamantine greatsword? The monk (for both reasons). After getting hit with that breath weapon, the monk will still be around to pour a potion down your unconcious throat! Hey, you wanna go toe-to-toe with that mummy and his disease infested fists, or shall I, the monk, do it? Well, since you failed your will save against his despairing presence, Regdar, I guess I'll go. |
| solbergb04-04-05, 12:38 PM | Kolo's got it right. In a mixed party, a good monk will find the enemy weakest to his schticks and take them out. Avoiding the primary fighter most of the time. In a single-enemy encounter, a good monk will decide who in the party can hurt it most, and assist them with both tactical tricks and flanking. Plus a monk who is ignored because someone else hurts the BBEG more can do a surprising amount of damage with a flurry, especially if backed with key force multiplier spells like Spikes or Fires of Purity. Most class comparisons ignore the fact that a monk is almost always better than some of the opposition at SOMETHING. The key is to pick the ones you can take out...and take them out. The other thing is that a monk will remain on the battlefield longer dishing it out, because he's hard to neutralize with a single action. He won't blow saves often, he will rarely suffer a full attack unless he wants to and there is almost no situation where his mobility can't extricate him from if he isn't actually dropped. |
| Thelon Fairblade04-04-05, 12:44 PM | Also be aware that there are certain magic items - if allowed by the DM - which allow your monk to effectively enchant his hands as magic weapons. If you have 5-7 attacks, and each one is getting 1d6+1 damage from being a +1 flaming weapon, that adds up quickly. Likewise, spellcasters can buff you with a couple choice spells to make you vastly more deadly... Enlarge Person, Greater Magic Weapon, Mage Armor, etc. Heck, you even benefit from a whopping 4 of the stat boosters, since WIS boosts your AC and your Stunning Fist DC. Also, some campaigns allow the option of (restricted) multiclassing, usually with cleric or fighter. (some allow paladins or psions). And then there are the Martial Style variants, which can grant you access to nonstandard feats at 1, 2, and 6th level, plus a mastery bonus. Pick a combat trick and excel at it. If you choose grapple, get the additional grapple feats; if you choose Stunning Fist, get the additional SF feats (extra stunning, increased DC, etc.). Judicious use of spells and magic items, all very cheap, can super-enhance your in-combat performance (3/day Shield, 3/day Enlarge Person, 3/day Mage Armor, total cost 3600 gp for +8 AC plus size modifiers and reach). Outside of combat, pick a skill to excel in and be content; Sense Motive and Spot are great choices. |
| RadicalTaoist04-04-05, 12:46 PM | You really can't play a monk like a tank without turning it into a total AC-bot. And it takes a deal of effort to reach the safe-tanking ACs (preferably over 60), usually turning your character into a one-trick pony. Fortunately, with Wholeness of Body, a Monk has as much HP over the day as a Fighter, which helps the party save healing resources. If you can get noncore sources (Complete Warrior, with Elusive Target and Improved Toughness, is awesome for monks) you can make a pretty tough monk character. Otherwise, you may want to stick to slaying the magic-using and stealth-using foes with low HP that your party may face. |
| Dag04-04-05, 01:46 PM | I cant believe Im seeing this thread, there is nothing underpowered about 3.5 monks. |
| Tweedledope04-04-05, 01:56 PM | Who do I need to see so I can slap someone? |
| Malfean04-04-05, 02:05 PM | I don't consider the overpowered and i certainly don't consider them underpowered. A monk made at 28+ point build is comparable to fighter in battle. It just a monk can be really crapy if you don't take great care in the way you build him. If you make the wrong feat choices you will end up with a very weak character. Why is every one saying that the monk has fewer HP from the fighter? If he uses his lay hands on ability on himself he actually has more HP than the fighter, doesn't he? |
| solbergb04-04-05, 03:17 PM | The Wholeness of Body feat is very nice when you're in an awkward place such as holding down the deadly enemy in a grapple while his minions try to beat on you. It often buys you a whole extra round, where the rest of the party is free to outnumber the other badguys. It's also good as part of a disengage, when you're standing in a bad spot at "one swipe will kill me" status and you tumble away+heal (preferably near a cleric or under full cover). If you're feeling a bit more aggressive, hitting and running also works, but leaves you a bit more vulnerable. |
| Rondulin04-04-05, 04:44 PM | 1. Go for high dex and take weapon finesse (unarmed strike), to get good an attack bonus and AC. 2. 2nd important stats are con and wis 3. forget str if you don't have good scores. 4. get some enchantment that gives you some bonus damage die (flaming) with that you have good attacks, a good AC and good damage output due to your many attacks. Besides: What everybody seems to forget: the monks BAB isn't that bad (3 attacks at +15 at 20 level is perhaps even better than the fighter's BAB. |
| Yue Ryong04-04-05, 08:16 PM | I play a monk character on a regular basis, and I admit, building and effective one can be difficult. I had to scrap two or three before settling on reasonable solution. Ultimately, all of the biggest weaknesses of the Monk can be solved with the 'Vow of Poverty' Feat from the Book of Exalted Deeds. I'm currently playing a ECL 9 monk, with an AC of just over 40. The Vow of Poverty provides him with an Exalted Bonus on his AC that is only slightly behind the bonus granted by a compable set of equipment worn by a similarly leveled fighter. That, added to the seperate ability scores for AC bonus, and a small Natural Armour bonus has left me with the highest AC in the group. And, I get as many bonus feats as fighter anyway (albeit from a slightly more limited list). On top of that it provides ability bonuses, special abilities, attack and damage bonuses... Actually, I'm beggining to question whether or not it's somewhat overpowered. |
| Lina_Inverse04-04-05, 08:20 PM | monks are definitly underpowered. wether there actully weaker than fighters ill leave to more skilled power gamers. but lets go over there strenghs and weakness. Strenghs Fast,high level monks are very fast.downside:mages are always faster,monks dont get flying. High # attacks per round.downside:no synergy with speed,low BAB makes the 1 extra attack not always worth the to-hit loss. incredible saves+spell resistanse.downside:none really,they even have good synergy with save boosting stats. Weaknesses MAD,monks have an insane case of mad.not as bad as 3.0 psions but needing multible 18s to function is a big deal. low AC,unless you happen to have multible 18s,your AC will forever be pathetic.a 14AC at lvl1 is nothing to write home about. low hp,for a fighter type(which without full casting is what they must be) d8 hitdice is not a good thing. now if you do have multible 18s,a monk can become a force to be reckoned with.and i have seen what a monk with a strengh,dex,wis and con of 18 can do. |
| Lina_Inverse04-04-05, 08:21 PM | I play a monk character on a regular basis, and I admit, building and effective one can be difficult. I had to scrap two or three before settling on reasonable solution. Ultimately, all of the biggest weaknesses of the Monk can be solved with the 'Vow of Poverty' Feat from the Book of Exalted Deeds. I'm currently playing a ECL 9 monk, with an AC of just over 40. The Vow of Poverty provides him with an Exalted Bonus on his AC that is only slightly behind the bonus granted by a compable set of equipment worn by a similarly leveled fighter. That, added to the seperate ability scores for AC bonus, and a small Natural Armour bonus has left me with the highest AC in the group. And, I get as many bonus feats as fighter anyway (albeit from a slightly more limited list). On top of that it provides ability bonuses, special abilities, attack and damage bonuses... Actually, I'm beggining to question whether or not it's somewhat overpowered. VoP is not overpowered.it looks overwhelming untill you check out how much stuff a high level charecter has from equipment. |
| Thorak04-04-05, 08:49 PM | VoP is not overpowered.it looks overwhelming untill you check out how much stuff a high level charecter has from equipment. Like, for starters, the ability to fly. And the ability to offset weaknesses with items that fill the void. And the variability that comes from the vast amount of items out there. VoP is good, don't get me wrong. But it carries distinct drawbacks, not least of which is being Exalted (to a powergamer, it's a great character hook for a roleplayer, but it does limit options even more than being Good), and there isn't a lot of wiggle room; you get the abilities you get, and that's it. |
| danielinthewolvesden04-04-05, 10:22 PM | VoP is not overpowered.it looks overwhelming untill you check out how much stuff a high level charecter has from equipment. AND the fact that you run out of useful "Exalted feats" pretty darn quick, esp if you (as is very common for a Monk) used CHA as a "dump stat". |
| Nephlite04-04-05, 10:32 PM | AND the fact that you run out of useful "Exalted feats" pretty darn quick, esp if you (as is very common for a Monk) used CHA as a "dump stat". Actually since you get a bonus to stats as you level VOP and the fact that you gain a bonus anyway, it is best you if don't dump anything. Than when you get those great bonus all the stats are good(also not as badly overpowered looking) |
| BlaineTog04-04-05, 10:58 PM | fighters are overpowered, because no one can beat them in combat bla bla bla.*chokes on Triscuit* I don't think anyone has every said that with a straight face before. Such threads all fail fatally because they fail to appreciate class diversity.Your wide, sweaping generalization fails completelly to accuratelly depict the truth. Monk's are fine. |
| Willie the Duck04-04-05, 11:29 PM | 1) Dag, Tweedledope, either contribute or don't. I don't care what you think about this type of thread, either say something of substance or don't bother posting. 2) VoP: saying VoP makes monks balanced is like saying Jotenbrund makes fighters balanced. The class needs to work both with core rules and extra books. (besides, much of the rest of the BoED is even better for non-monks, so adding it to the mix doesn't push monks up the ladder. 3) Malfean, wholeness of body is not the same as 2 hp per level. You actually have to use it for it to occur. I believe it is a std action that draws an AoO (correct me if wrong). First of all, that means it only can occur on your turn, and if you wait too long to use it, you may be down before you can. Second of all it takes your action, and the primary argument as to why monks are underpowered is that they don't contribute enough (taking time away to heal certainly won't help that). 4) Rondulin, are you serious? A +15/+15/+15/+10/+5 is in no way better than the fighters +20/+15/+10/+5 (which btw, only occurs at high levels when melee sucks compared to save-or-die spellcasters and full attacks are few and far between, at more reasonable levels it is +4/+4/-1 vs. +8/+3). The first attack is the most important because you get it every round you attack. Averaging the first three fighter attacks into +15/+15/+15, the monk only gets a single +10 more. Given the lower total attack bonus because of unlikely weapon focus, more expensive/rare-to-find magic weapons/fist boosters, and lower str, along with lesser crit range and str bonus to damage instead of str x 1.5, this is not a damage powerhouse I'm looking at. 5) Monks are, in my opinion, optimal for situations that simply don't come up enough. Beyond that, they simply don't contribute enough. a) they are primed for mobility, but mobility isn't as useful in this game as they probably envisioned. The dis-synergy of movement and lots of weak attacks being a serious factor here (yeah, pounce, but that really isn't a reasonable justification given the cost), but also the commonality of ways to mitigate a lack of mobility. Like the sword and board fighter, the highly mobile build too often sees their primary advantage replaced by a feat or magic item (or spell). b)they are versatile, but versatility isn't as good in this game as the designers might have hoped. Like the bard (or ranger, but especially the bard), the monk is often relatively good at lots of things. This makes you a good fall-back if either the primary character of that type goes down, or no one in the group has that ability. But seriously, if you were a party leaving on an adventure, and you had a tank, a mage, and a healer, would you pick the monk/bard, or would you pick the rogue? When versatile classes get too good at being versatile (the cleric being second or third best at tanking, blasting, save-or-die spells, and buffing along with healing is the oft used example), people complain about how broken the class is. c) Monks are relatively survivable, but surviving doesn't matter if you can't contribute to the party's success. Admittedly a monk that doesn't get into a melee slug-fest is most likely the last one standing. They have hp better than most rogues and bards (although lessened MAD can make higher Cons limit this), an AC that can get really good if you play your cards right (and from what I can tell, the high-AC build is the only one monk players consider worthwile to be playing), good saves all around, all three of the save boosting attributes are part of the primary ability distribution, SR, multiple immunities and a minor self-healing ability. That said, what good does surviving do you if the rest of your party dies because you couldn't help out (one of the limitations of sword&board fighters and an argument I put forth about why clerics arent quite as powerful as people claim). d) the things monks are good at don't come up enough. Most of what a monk is good at (aside from climbing around on ledges and jumping chasms and other stuff you don't send the dwarf in platemail to do), is get behind the enemy line (or into the fray, if you like taking risks), and disrupting the other side's plans. Grapple enemy mages, flank along with rogues, trip, disarm, stun, etc. Most of this is only effective (or only has a high success rate) against humanoid-like opponents that generall act like adventuring parties. Once you are up against size large four legged beasts that don't carry weapons, most of these tactics are out the window. Likewise, simple things like critical hit immunity (and thus little benifit for you and the rogue staying in melee to set up flanking), or a rogue on the other side (making grappling the enemy mage a death sentence), can shut down most of these tactics. |
| heretic4404-04-05, 11:59 PM | If worried about not outputting enough damage in combat, Monks are fully capable of weilding an off hand weapon (Kama or Staves are great for this) and declaring their Unarmed Strike as their primary (unfortunatley you cant use it as both), meaning that a Monk who takes the Two Weapon Fighting tree can output 3 Attacks at level 1 moving to 6 at 11th level and as many as 8 at 20th. This also allows you to get some reasonably decent AC bonuses from the Two Weapon Defense set. |
| Neeek04-05-05, 12:08 AM | d) the things monks are good at don't come up enough...disarm Monks actually suck at disarming. Just fyi. |
| Nephlite04-05-05, 12:18 AM | If worried about not outputting enough damage in combat, Monks are fully capable of weilding an off hand weapon (Kama or Staves are great for this) and declaring their Unarmed Strike as their primary (unfortunatley you cant use it as both), meaning that a Monk who takes the Two Weapon Fighting tree can output 3 Attacks at level 1 moving to 6 at 11th level and as many as 8 at 20th. This also allows you to get some reasonably decent AC bonuses from the Two Weapon Defense set. You need to read 3.5 FAQ: it says you can make an off-hand attack for TWF unarmed. I think the Monk heading meant that yu can't normally make off-hand attacks, but it appears with TWF feat/ability you may. Remember though that the penalties stack(-2 at least from TWF) Everyone needs to read the FAQ nore often :D |
| Thorak04-05-05, 12:22 AM | If worried about not outputting enough damage in combat, Monks are fully capable of weilding an off hand weapon (Kama or Staves are great for this) and declaring their Unarmed Strike as their primary (unfortunatley you cant use it as both), meaning that a Monk who takes the Two Weapon Fighting tree can output 3 Attacks at level 1 moving to 6 at 11th level and as many as 8 at 20th. This also allows you to get some reasonably decent AC bonuses from the Two Weapon Defense set. The chief reasons monks deal so little damage is that their BAB is 3/4, without any decent way to change that without begging an ally for a buff. Clerics and Druids, at least, have buffs to boost attack bonus, and the Druid especially has access to Wildshape forms with high enough Strengths to offset the lower attack bonus. Wielding two weapons just reduces your attack bonus that much further. Welcome to whiff-land. |
| Thelon Fairblade04-05-05, 09:04 AM | Monks can excel as assassins. They do well in anti-magic or dead magic areas. They are remarkably hard to catch off guard (WIS bonus to AC isn't lost unless helpless; can choose to give up bonus feats for Uncanny Dodge). They are great anti-archers (fast, Deflect Arrows), as well as the oft-touted anti-magic role. They work just fine against beasties, since they can tumble opposite the beastie to be a flanking buddy still. Trip, grapple, and disarm might be harder or worthless against four-leggers, sure, but you are more likely to set up that full attack flurry action against them. And, again, buffing doesn't *require* an ally to spend his turn... all characters are expected to have magic items to enhance their effectiveness. The cheap limited-use items I mentioned before mean the monk can buff himself before each fight. (For noticeably more cash, you can make one of the buff's a "Quickened" spell, so you get 2 buffs with 1 action.) Need reach? use Enlarge. Need AC? use Shield or mage armor. Etc. I think the monk is a perfectly balanced class. Somewhat restricted, from the point of view that most "Class abilities" are set in stone. But still versatile with an average 4 skill points and 3 bonus feats (all gained at low level). And nothing prevents the monk from using weapons that are better than his hands, as necessary. An Elven monk can use a longsword for the first several levels, for example, or a longbow for that matter. Take a feat and pick up some exotic Oriental/"monk-y" weapon like a naginata, or get the ubiquitous Spiked Chain and COmbat Reflexes... |
| Eldurin04-05-05, 10:49 AM | I was charmed by the insightful responses of the various posters. Oh of course here and there, there was the mandatory bald denial that helps no one, but I think I really benefited from this thread. (New slob attending PAA - power gamers anonymous): My previous experience of monks were based on high-rolling and power gaming – hack and slash all the way, which makes for an easy game, thoroughly aimed at hack and slash. Also monks (and paladins) require high rolls in various stats to play efficiently. So here I am, faced with a new half-elf, reformed from power gaming and actually into sensible roll-playing, faced with rolls of STR 14, DEX 16, CON 12, INT 11, WIS 16 and CHA 10. Yeah – and put this character into a group with a fighter, a ranger, a ninja, a cleric and a sorcerer. Pretty much a backup character, which kinda sucks. (Playing lower levels ; 1-5) (The ninja stealing everything I wanted to do, and doing it better than I would have.) It might be cool to take some of the mage slayer feats from CA to play a mage-killer. But anyways, I think you all helped. I don’t have BeD, and I don’t really plan to get it either. So I can’t comment on what that would do for a monk. |
| Malfean04-05-05, 02:24 PM | 3) Malfean, wholeness of body is not the same as 2 hp per level. You actually have to use it for it to occur. I believe it is a std action that draws an AoO (correct me if wrong). First of all, that means it only can occur on your turn, and if you wait too long to use it, you may be down before you can. Second of all it takes your action, and the primary argument as to why monks are underpowered is that they don't contribute enough (taking time away to heal certainly won't help that). Most games feature 2-6 battles per day. Between these battles there is no shortage of time for the monk to use his wholeness of body ability. That gives him greater endurance from the fighter in terms of "keeping on fighting". Ofcourse no sane player will use it in middle of the battle. So actually it is pretty close to 2 Hp per level. |
| Garath04-05-05, 02:57 PM | can choose to give up bonus feats for Uncanny Dodge How can you get Uncanny Dodge as a Monk (without multi-classing)? I have never seen the rule about substituting for bonus feats. As an aside, I have never understood why monks don't have this ability. It fits perfectly with class flavor. I would certainly rather have this than immunity to disease, which almost never comes up. |
| mikeym04-05-05, 05:47 PM | 3) Malfean, wholeness of body is not the same as 2 hp per level. You actually have to use it for it to occur. I believe it is a std action that draws an AoO (correct me if wrong). First of all, that means it only can occur on your turn, and if you wait too long to use it, you may be down before you can. Second of all it takes your action, and the primary argument as to why monks are underpowered is that they don't contribute enough (taking time away to heal certainly won't help that). I've been playing in a very low magic game with no magical healing, and I've found that wholeness of body is extremely useful for long-term healing. Other classes recover 1 HP/level/day, while the monk effectively recovers 3HP/level/day. Even with complete bedrest the monk still heals HP twice as fast (2 HP/level/day vs. 2 HP/level/day). Of course, this is only an advantage in campaigns with very restricted magical healing, but in those campaigns it can be a very big advantage. |
| Neeek04-05-05, 05:51 PM | Of course, this is only an advantage in campaigns with very restricted magical healing, but in those campaigns it can be a very big advantage. Wholeness of body *is* magic healing. If that's allowed, then it's not that low on magic healing. |
| Willie the Duck04-05-05, 08:48 PM | Most games feature 2-6 battles per day. Between these battles there is no shortage of time for the monk to use his wholeness of body ability. That gives him greater endurance from the fighter in terms of "keeping on fighting". Ofcourse no sane player will use it in middle of the battle. So actually it is pretty close to 2 Hp per level. Not at all. there is a massive difference between having healing ability you have to use and having actual extra hp. Otherwise, the cleric with the wand of clw at his belt could be said to have and extra 275 (avg.) hp at his disposal. Healing up between battles is nice, especially if you don't have a cleric, bard, paladin or rogue with a wand, but it isn't the same as entering a battle with an extra 2 hp per level and having those hp available to you without expending an action to tap them. When you have those powers, you want to be able to use them to gain back hp at least equal to as much as you might lose in a round, or else you will have wasted the round healing. with the exception of the heal spell, the only person who can do this is a maxed out cha, mid-to-high level paladin (spending a round to regain 4-8 times your level in hp is actually a good deal). a monk's paltry 2 per level really is only good as a post-battle first aid kit (better than what a barbarian or fighter has at their disposal (although their higher hp totals make the healing less vital), but still nothing vs a paladin or cleric. yes, mikeym, in a low magic world (in which I expect you mean few all out clerics, wizards, druids, sorcerers and few wands potions and scrolls), people might actually prefer monks, rangers and bards to fighters and rogues, but that is a rather specific case (they'd prefer something with fast healing even more). |
| Lina_Inverse04-05-05, 11:05 PM | I've been playing in a very low magic game with no magical healing, and I've found that wholeness of body is extremely useful for long-term healing. Other classes recover 1 HP/level/day, while the monk effectively recovers 3HP/level/day. Even with complete bedrest the monk still heals HP twice as fast (2 HP/level/day vs. 2 HP/level/day). Of course, this is only an advantage in campaigns with very restricted magical healing, but in those campaigns it can be a very big advantage. this is well outside the core rules.and thus isnt a factor in balence disscussions. |
| mikeym04-06-05, 04:04 AM | this is well outside the core rules.and thus isnt a factor in balence disscussions. Could you explain this a little bit more? I always took "core rules" to mean using only the three main books, not the campaign world itself. I think one of the major problems with D&D 3.0 and 3.5 is that they rely on campaign assumptions to balance the classes. It seems ok that a caster will be overpowered in a campaign with no other magic, but it seems unreasonable that, say, a fighter and a rogue are only balanced at a very precise level of magic, any more or less magic and they're unbalanced. Getting back to the topic, I think that monks are way underpowered. Just to compare, a multiclass fighter/rogue can have better BAB, HP, skill points, and feats, and is dependent on fewer stats. Monks get better saves and a few abilities. In my opinion, for any role (scout, tank, jack-of-all-trades, etc.) there's a class or multiclass combo that's superior to the monk, which means the monk is underpowered. |
| Lina_Inverse04-06-05, 05:55 AM | Could you explain this a little bit more? I always took "core rules" to mean using only the three main books, not the campaign world itself. I think one of the major problems with D&D 3.0 and 3.5 is that they rely on campaign assumptions to balance the classes. It seems ok that a caster will be overpowered in a campaign with no other magic, but it seems unreasonable that, say, a fighter and a rogue are only balanced at a very precise level of magic, any more or less magic and they're unbalanced. the core rules is the SRD along with the assumptions set out in the DMG.those assumptions are a part of the core rules. therefore,a caimpaign without the level of magic set out in the dmg.is outside the core rules,and outside any considerations of balence. its the same as saying fighters are broken when your dm only rolls epic weapons/armor for all treasure. |
| Thelon Fairblade04-06-05, 09:30 AM | Regarding Uncanny Dodge, there are alternate Monk Styles listed in both Dragon Magazine and Unearthed Arcana. Along with these styles are some variant monks. One of the variant monks is the Vigilant Monk: Vigilant Monk [Monk Variant] Lose: Bonus feats at 2nd and 6th; still mind Gain: Detect Chaos (as paladin detect evil), Uncanny Dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge (as barbarian) |
| Malfean04-06-05, 10:17 AM | Not at all. there is a massive difference between having healing ability you have to use and having actual extra hp. Healing up between battles is nice, especially if you don't have a cleric, bard, paladin or rogue with a wand, but it isn't the same as entering a battle with an extra 2 hp per level and having those hp available to you without expending an action to tap them. I didn't say that it is the same as having 2 extra hit points per level. I just said that the arguement, that the monk has fewer hit points than other melee combat classes is not true, that's all. That is because he can heal 2 hit points per level. This doesn't mean that he has health like a barbarian's(1d12), but his health is certainly better the fighter's(1d10). When you have those powers, you want to be able to use them to gain back hp at least equal to as much as you might lose in a round, or else you will have wasted the round healing. with the exception of the heal spell, the only person who can do this is a maxed out cha, mid-to-high level paladin (spending a round to regain 4-8 times your level in hp is actually a good deal). a monk's paltry 2 per level really is only good as a post-battle first aid kit (better than what a barbarian or fighter has at their disposal (although their higher hp totals make the healing less vital), but still nothing vs a paladin or cleric. I never said that he will use his healing power in the middle of the battle. I never compared his healing powers with that of a cleric's or paladin's. |
| Thorak04-06-05, 10:58 AM | I didn't say that it is the same as having 2 extra hit points per level. I just said that the arguement, that the monk has fewer hit points than other melee combat classes is not true, that's all. That is because he can heal 2 hit points per level. This doesn't mean that he has health like a barbarian's(1d12), but his health is certainly better the fighter's(1d10). Except he likely has a lower Con, since he needs a decent Wis. And healing is inferior to actual health. Because you have to live long enough to use the healing. |
| Citris04-06-05, 11:36 AM | I think one of the major problems with D&D 3.0 and 3.5 is that they rely on campaign assumptions to balance the classes. It seems ok that a caster will be overpowered in a campaign with no other magic, but it seems unreasonable that, say, a fighter and a rogue are only balanced at a very precise level of magic, any more or less magic and they're unbalanced. Ok, I have very little experience with d20 RPGs, but how is relying on campaign assumptions a problem? This isn't a videogame where the setting is set in stone, so the game developers need to balance the characters. It's up to the DM to balance the situation with the players he's with. Now I'll go lurk and get some playing experience before I voice any more opinions. |
| sorvikcorsair04-06-05, 11:52 AM | A played a monk with 3.0 rules (3.5 monk is stronger in combat) and above-average rolls and did not have the impression that the other characters in my group where better. A monk is quite good at combat if you considere a BAB (20th level) of +15/+15/+15/+10/+5. That is better than the fighters +20/+15/+10/+5. A high dex is necessary for good AC. Besides you can than take Weapon finesse (unarmed strike). With the high speed you can tumble around enemies and get in to a flanking position. A monk is an allrounder. And every allround seems to be weak if you compare him to a bunch of specialists in their field. Haven't gotten through all 40+ posts yet but you forget that a fighter can 'speed' his weapon giving +20/+20/+15/+10/+5, and if he is two weapon fighting with two weapons that have speed... R- 18/18/13/7/3 L- 18/18/13/7 -correct me if wrong here, don't do alot of two weapon combat... Even still that gives him how many more attacks? And you must remember by level 20 fighters have armor/shield that is magic, no crits, no touch attack, +5 etc. As a monk player you must get your ac from magic items, no armor with bonuses. You have many bonus feats that let you negate AoO, but when you are being hit by two +5 swords for 8+ attacks in a round? You are not going to be standing long. |
| Elendur04-06-05, 12:09 PM | Sounds like the original poster's issue is his monk's role is being filled by the ninja. At low levels the really cool monk features haven't kicked in yet, so I can see why he might be feeling left out. I'm not sure how the ninja is balanced, not being core, but I'll assume it is. So really this is just about finding a role in a large party. This is definitely something the DM should address. If I were his DM, and I felt he was being underutilized, I might try to throw in some things that showcase his unique talents. You need to beat someone up but not kill them. No one can deal non-lethal damage as easily as the monk. Maybe it's a political situation, where the prince is cursed with lycanthropy or something, and you need to capture him. You need to grapple someone. This should happen a lot with casters and archers, and the monk is the best one for the job. A chase sequence where speed is important. An obstacle that involves jumping or falling down something. These are the bits that make the monk cool. When the pit trap goes off and everyone falls on their butt except the monk. When others can't use their equipment(rust monster, ooze) but the monk isn't phased. If these little moments aren't coming up in your campaign, you aren't gonna have fun. We are talking about have fun during an actual game, right? Not some theoretical numerical analysis? |
| Willie the Duck04-06-05, 12:35 PM | I didn't say that it is the same as having 2 extra hit points per level. I just said that the arguement, that the monk has fewer hit points than other melee combat classes is not true, that's all. That is because he can heal 2 hit points per level. This doesn't mean that he has health like a barbarian's(1d12), but his health is certainly better the fighter's(1d10). the monks health is 1d8 with four dependent attributes, the fighters health is 1d10 with 2-3 dependent attributes. In what way is that having more health? a fighter with a potion of cure serious wounds or a ranger that slotted his spells with cures is ahead here. I never said that he will use his healing power in the middle of the battle. so it is an after the battle, or healing during battle at great expense in terms of actions/AoO, healing ability. Just like cure light wounds. Much less useful than actual hp. I never compared his healing powers with that of a cleric's or paladin's. Maybe you should have, because that is what it is like. It is a small reserve of healing ability one can tap into by expending one's actions. The fallacy you are making is comparing it to hp you already have on tap, which it is nothing like. |
| Thorak04-06-05, 12:54 PM | You need to grapple someone. This should happen a lot with casters and archers, and the monk is the best one for the job. How so? It's an option for one of his bonus feats, but he's got a 3/4 BAB, and tends to have a lower strength than Fighters and Barbarians, at the least. And opposed grapple checks are BAB, Strength, and size. A monk is about as good at grappling as a rogue who takes Improved Grapple. The only difference is the damage dealt on a successful Grapple check, which isn't that big a deal because the Fighter or Barbarian could just as much be playing stabby with their enchanted shortsword. They have better access to Grapple, but they are worse than most classes who bother taking Improved Grapple are. |
| Malfean04-06-05, 02:35 PM | Except he likely has a lower Con, since he needs a decent Wis. Yeap you are right that's why if you read my first post you will see that i say a good monk will need the 28-32 point buy. Anything less than that makes the monk weak compared to other classes. |
| mikeym04-06-05, 02:36 PM | Ok, I have very little experience with d20 RPGs, but how is relying on campaign assumptions a problem? This isn't a videogame where the setting is set in stone, so the game developers need to balance the characters. It's up to the DM to balance the situation with the players he's with. That's just my opinion. I didn't buy the core books just so I could play Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms. If I'm stuck with the assumptions in the DMG, I couldn't even play in Tolkien's universe because there's way too little magic and too few magic items. I think the fact that the setting isn't set in stone means that the characters should be _more_ balanced so that they'll be balanced in different settings. I have two problems with the idea that the DM can balance the situation. First is that it's not always possible for the DM to balance things out if the imbalances are too great. Second is that the DM will end up being very limited in what he can do. When I DM it's annoying that I have to do a lot of extra work to contrive situations where the monk character can be useful. Also, it just seems wrong that some classes are so much more powerful than others. When I was playing a monk, it was very pretty lame that I spent a lot of time optimizing my character and still ended up worse in non-roleplaying situations than the roleplayers who didn't optimize their characters at all. |
| Malfean04-06-05, 03:16 PM | In what way is that having more health? a fighter with a potion of cure serious wounds or a ranger that slotted his spells with cures is ahead here. Yes and a monk with a potion of cure serious wounds is also ahead from the fighter in terms of hit points. so it is an after the battle, or healing during battle at great expense in terms of actions/AoO, healing ability. Just like cure light wounds. Much less useful than actual hp. Actually it is slightly better than cure crictical wounds Keep in mind that in most cases the monk wll be able to make full use of his ability. Lets say he makes 3 battles per day. After the first two battles he will probably have lost at least 40 hit points, which will allow him to make full use of his healing ability. The only occasion where he won't be able to use this ability is when the party are facing "bosses" who will be the only encounter of the day. Maybe you should have, because that is what it is like. It is a small reserve of healing ability one can tap into by expending one's actions. The fallacy you are making is comparing it to hp you already have on tap, which it is nothing like. We are comparing the monks health to other fighting classes, not his healing abilities with the clerics. I think you are wrong; it might not be the same but it is something alike. The only occasion which is different is when you face such a difficult encounter that removes all your hit points ( a rare thing). And in this case if you are a fighter you better hope that the 20-30 extra hit points you have (when compared to a monk) are enough. |
| Malfean04-06-05, 03:24 PM | Haven't gotten through all 40+ posts yet but you forget that a fighter can 'speed' his weapon giving +20/+20/+15/+10/+5, and if he is two weapon fighting with two weapons that have speed... R- 18/18/13/7/3 L- 18/18/13/7 -correct me if wrong here, don't do alot of two weapon combat... Even still that gives him how many more attacks? And you must remember by level 20 fighters have armor/shield that is magic, no crits, no touch attack, +5 etc. As a monk player you must get your ac from magic items, no armor with bonuses. You have many bonus feats that let you negate AoO, but when you are being hit by two +5 swords for 8+ attacks in a round? You are not going to be standing long. You are putting magic items into the mix. There many magic items that can improve a monk's abilities but if you start comparing them this way we will never end. Keep in mind that a fighter with two weapon fighting will not have the bonus of his dexterity unless he doesn't wear armor. In addition he must invest heavily in dexterity so he won't have high scores in his other stats. |
| Thorak04-06-05, 05:26 PM | Yeap you are right that's why if you read my first post you will see that i say a good monk will need the 28-32 point buy. Anything less than that makes the monk weak compared to other classes. They're balanced for 24-point buy. And monks are, indeed, balanced for that. The difficulty is that people expect monks to actually hold their own in melee combat. When they don't. Their chief combat abilities are unarmed damage, Flurry, high AC, and speed. Unarmed damage offsets their otherwise crap weapon list and that unarmed strikes aren't enchantable as cheaply or easily as normal weapons, Flurry offsets their already reduced BAB, their high AC offsets their lower HP, and speed, while useful, cannot be used at the same time as Flurry, making those two mutually exclusive. Using a monk for melee combat is like using a rogue for melee combat. You can do it, sure. And in the right conditions, they can perform really well. Keep throwing them in the front lines, however, and they'll get spanked for it. It's simply not what the class is designed to be good at. If you want to maximize a class, you play to it's strengths. For a monk, those are speed, magic resistance, and their sundry little extras like Abundant Step that most monk players, those with the melee-focus I'm talking about, see as near-useless tag-ons to the class. The class is very much a skirmisher, and one that's ideal for taking down enemy spellcasters. In fact, I'm of the opinion that Flurry is the worst thing to happen to monks. Because to Flurry, you need to stand there and be willing to take the hits. Which monks aren't too good at. Also, consider; an enemy's AC tends to rise as it's CR rises. And the number of enemies decreases for the same CR as their relative power increases. So there are essentially two extremes for encounters; a lot of piddly enemies, or 1-2 big thumpers. The monk would be awesome against the piddlies, due to his AC and many attacks. But to do so, he needs to Flurry. Which means one of two things; the piddlies surround him, and he's getting attacked by 8 enemies at once, or they spread out, and he can't Flurry and hit more than one or two at a time. Smart piddlies do this, and use ranged weapons. Sure, the monk can take out one or two a round, but he can't Flurry usefully. And for the big thumpers, the monk can Flurry, but their AC will be huge. He'll have a pretty crap chance of landing a hit, and really can't take the hits that'll be dished out in return. If I were playing a monk (and I have played a melee monk, that's where much of this comes from), I'd be aiming for Spring Attack, and quite possibly using a non-monk weapon like a two-bladed sword or something, exotic not being a drawback since I probably need proficiency with martials too. But definitely Spring Attack. Nothing would get a full attack on me, and I could dance around being nigh-immune to AoOs from movement. For added fun, scrap Strength almost entirely, get a high Dex and Wis, with as good a Con as I can spare, and get Weapon Finesse, and use Stunning Attack as much as possible. Whipping in, Stunning the enemy, and whipping back out could be devastatingly good. But again, this isn't front-line melee combat, this is very much tactical skirmishing, along the lines of rogues looking for sneak attack opportunities. |
| Paladin200404-06-05, 06:43 PM | :rant: The monk in my campaign is by far the most powerful character, he has a higher AC than the tankand does more damage than the barbarain (and we play 3.0) although the player did get good role, imho Monks are best played when you get good roles, because then, they excel espcially with the wisdom bonus to AC and he doesn't need weapons or armour which is a real plus, espically with rust monsters :evillaugh Also , i wouldn't normally call balance or climb a pure scouting skill :headexplo , Hehe, :teach: :rant: i've had them climb up vines before because they got scared of the sheild guardains hitting them (They were programmed to focus on one and kill that one then moe onto the next) Also i've had them balance across beams and climb along walls to get to archers although it does depend on what encounter they get, Lol (/end rant) lol |
| Eikcuf04-06-05, 06:55 PM | Besides: What everybody seems to forget: the monks BAB isn't that bad (3 attacks at +15 at 20 level is perhaps even better than the fighter's BAB. Don't forget haste 4 atks at +15 versus the fighters 20,20,15,10,5 Monks BAB total 60 / 75(haste) Fighters BAB total 50 / 70(haste) this proves overall that in a flurry the monk has a better BAB |
| Nephlite04-06-05, 07:10 PM | Don't forget haste 4 atks at +15 versus the fighters 20,20,15,10,5 Monks BAB total 60 / 75(haste) Fighters BAB total 50 / 70(haste) this proves overall that in a flurry the monk has a better BAB Don't Monks or Fighters can both TWF(GTWF, etc) too to get extra attacks. Remember TWF stacks with unarmed. |
| Mace_in_the_Face04-06-05, 09:38 PM | Don't forget haste 4 atks at +15 versus the fighters 20,20,15,10,5 Monks BAB total 60 / 75(haste) Fighters BAB total 50 / 70(haste) this proves overall that in a flurry the monk has a better BAB Thats looking at it the wrong way. While I like both fighters and monks, against a big baddie with a ccrazy high AC, the Fighter is better. Even if the Monk FoB adds up higher, it is more spread out: great for a weaker AC enemy (with lots of HP!) but not so good against the walking tank. You have to look at who the monk/fighter is going up against. Personally, I like monks for a ton of reasons. I play them as kind of diplomaty, escpecially if without a bard: cooler heads prevail, and my monks have cool heads. I like their tumble (love it, in fact) and their feats let them be, as people have said, natural mage killers (an even more potent combination is a Monk/Jordain [Forgotten Realms] cross-class). However, even when not doin that, they are a good all around character IMHO: like the bard, only more fighty, less magicy. They can quickly go from offensive to deffensive (helping the rog->saving the wizard) because of their speed, and are great scouts, again due to their speed, agility, and saves If you're willing to loose your monkly progression, some great cross-classes are open to monks: Shadow Dancers, Assassins, Jordain (FR), and others. But, as I said, you loose your monkly progression And don;t forget their lv 20 Lawful Outsiderness! Woohoo! |
| Thorak04-06-05, 11:10 PM | Don't forget haste 4 atks at +15 versus the fighters 20,20,15,10,5 Monks BAB total 60 / 75(haste) Fighters BAB total 50 / 70(haste) this proves overall that in a flurry the monk has a better BAB No, it doesn't. Total BAB is useless. It's chance to hit. If the enemy has an AC of 30, and the monk is Flurrying and not hasted (and discounting all other bonuses for the purpose of the example so we're just talking BAB), he has a cumulative chance to land a hit of; +15/+15/+15/+10/+5 That's 25%/25%/25%/5%/5%. For a total chance to hit of 85% The Fighter has; +20/+15/+10/+5 50%/25%/5%/5%. For a total of 85%. And we haven't considered that the Fighter will tend to have a higher Strength, has access to Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus, and that he deals more damage per hit than the monk does. You can't compare BAB without comparing it against an AC. The only time a monk's BAB is better is if the AC is so high even the Fighter needs a 20 to hit, or when their AC is so low anything hits. And even in both those cases, the Fighter deals more damage per hit. And, if we're talking mobility, the monk's BAB really sucks. Any time they don't make a full attack, they only get a +15 to the Fighter's +20. That's a BIG difference, especially considering how few enemies will just sit there and let you full attack. If your DM is playing them intelligently. |
| solbergb04-07-05, 12:17 AM | Most games feature 2-6 battles per day. Between these battles there is no shortage of time for the monk to use his wholeness of body ability. That gives him greater endurance from the fighter in terms of "keeping on fighting". Ofcourse no sane player will use it in middle of the battle. So actually it is pretty close to 2 Hp per level. Uh...gee I must be insane then. I most often use Wholeness of Body for these purposes: 1. I've got someone grappled and need to hang on another round without taking an action away from the party healer. (they still can't get free unless they beat my grapple check....there is a certain look the DM gets on his face when the monster you've been locking out of the fight has gotten your hp low by its own efforts or allies...and you heal a big chunk of it back while maintaining your grip...) 2. I've sprung the ambush and my action now is to tumble back to the party with reach weapon out (for my Hold the Line and Combat Reflexes)..and heal the damage I took springing the ambush. 3. "top off" my hitpoints when a cure spell has put me near the total where it is too big for cure minors but too small to be worth another cure spell. The burn on the CLW wands has gone down considerably since I got this ability. It's an edge. It is about like getting a cure serious on demand, and is best done on turns where the important thing you are doing isn't attacking. I do not of course recommend wasting a combat action just healing if there is anything better that can help the team. But since it takes the rest of the party 2-3x as long as you to move anywhere, I find that the occasional std action comes up often enough that this feat gets used almost every adventure. |
| solbergb04-07-05, 12:34 AM | And we haven't considered that the Fighter will tend to have a higher Strength, has access to Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus, and that he deals more damage per hit than the monk does. You can't compare BAB without comparing it against an AC. The only time a monk's BAB is better is if the AC is so high even the Fighter needs a 20 to hit, or when their AC is so low anything hits. And even in both those cases, the Fighter deals more damage per hit. And, if we're talking mobility, the monk's BAB really sucks. Any time they don't make a full attack, they only get a +15 to the Fighter's +20. That's a BIG difference, especially considering how few enemies will just sit there and let you full attack. If your DM is playing them intelligently. Ok. A monk who actually wants to make use of his abilities will be as strong as a fighter. Too many are str dependent (grapple, trip, full str per hit with flurry, hitting at all with a flurry, several mobility skills). I believe that many who believe monks are weak are giving them less strength than a tactical fighter (who will have 13+ int, 13+ dex for feat access, which is similar to the 14 wis, 14 dex that most monks have). Then they are compounding the problem by spending level 1-10 cash on defensive items, which a monk (with great saves and mobility) doesn't really need instead of offensive items which raise strength and get multiplied by the flurry. The iconic monk in the PHB is every bit as strong as the iconic fighter. (and ranger, and paladin). It isn't an accident. As for greater weapon focus/spec, sure with a pure fighter. I've yet to see one...they almost always PRC or dilute with a bit of barb for rage or ranger for skills or whatever. Where a monk will sometimes hold out for the higher level abilities (typical exit points for monk are 11 (greater flurry), 12 (saves/bab/abundant step, or never (to maximize SR and a few other high level abiliites). I don't buy the argument that there is any real difference between the monk attack capability in a full attack and an equivalent fighter. The monk attacks more often and hits nearly as hard. When typical high level buffs are cast (on both people..fighter with greatclub, monk with nunchucks, both get spikes and fires of purity, say) then the extra attack means more than the bigger weapon and weapon spec. Plus there will be buffs running that boost attack rolls further, there will be flanking, stunning, tripping etc set up by other party members. Maybe I would have trouble hitting stuff with my monk if I was all by myself. When teamed with the fighter or rogue, he's on one side, I'm on the other, and the spellcasters are pumping us up with attack mod buffs, or weakening the target AC with debuffs. I actually don't miss much and I certainly don't miss any more than any other fighter, even when "playing up" and attacking EL+3 encounters (which means I'm fighting at EL+4 or EL+5). If the hitter is missing, the team should be helping. Unless you aren't the hitter in which case you should be helping. The "hitter" varies from fight to fight. What IS true about monks is that unless you devote a bunch of feats into it, they don't do single hit attacks as well as a barbarian or fighter power attacking. They have a lot more in common with the TWF ranger in behavior without as easy an option to take a double-weapon and power attack on the single hits. The tradeoff is that when they do a single strike, it is almost always accompanied by something like a grapple, trip, stunning fist or whatever. It also will arrive wherever it is needed, the mobility advantage of the monk is pretty significant (and even when the fighters start to fly under their own power, monks now dimension door...) |
| Josh_Kablack04-07-05, 02:06 AM | I used to think the Monk was underpowered, then I realized that I was using it wrong. The correct use for Monk is to only ever take levels 1 and 2, and to only take it on top of something with high attributes and no armor, like a Druid in wildshape. There's also a decent argument that in a game without PrCs or non-Core rules, Monk 1&2 are worth considering after you already have BBN2/Ftr2 & Rgr2 - compared to the third level of any of those classes, the first level of Monk is acceptable, provided you can take the BAB hit. |
| Thorak04-07-05, 08:58 AM | Ok. A monk who actually wants to make use of his abilities will be as strong as a fighter. Too many are str dependent (grapple, trip, full str per hit with flurry, hitting at all with a flurry, several mobility skills). I believe that many who believe monks are weak are giving them less strength than a tactical fighter (who will have 13+ int, 13+ dex for feat access, which is similar to the 14 wis, 14 dex that most monks have). Then they are compounding the problem by spending level 1-10 cash on defensive items, which a monk (with great saves and mobility) doesn't really need instead of offensive items which raise strength and get multiplied by the flurry. Congratulations, with a 14 wis and dex you have now crapped yourself out of 4 points of AC, and will have a relatively crap Stunning Fist. All to try and catch up with the Fighter at doing what a Fighter does, and not quite making it. The iconic monk in the PHB is every bit as strong as the iconic fighter. (and ranger, and paladin). It isn't an accident. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, either. How many people play characters identical to the iconics when they start? As for greater weapon focus/spec, sure with a pure fighter. I've yet to see one...they almost always PRC or dilute with a bit of barb for rage or ranger for skills or whatever. Where a monk will sometimes hold out for the higher level abilities (typical exit points for monk are 11 (greater flurry), 12 (saves/bab/abundant step, or never (to maximize SR and a few other high level abiliites). The Fighter will crush the monk a heck of a lot harder if we use PrCs. The point of the comparison is that the Fighter, as poor as it is for a 20-level class, still beats the pants off of monks at melee combat. If I can PrC, I guarantee I can vastly outperform the monk. Especially since all the Fighter loses out on is extra bonus feats, while getting class abilities that are generally better than feats and often at a higher rate, while most of the monk's good abilities are directly tied to monk level. I don't buy the argument that there is any real difference between the monk attack capability in a full attack and an equivalent fighter. The monk attacks more often and hits nearly as hard. When typical high level buffs are cast (on both people..fighter with greatclub, monk with nunchucks, both get spikes and fires of purity, say) then the extra attack means more than the bigger weapon and weapon spec. Plus there will be buffs running that boost attack rolls further, there will be flanking, stunning, tripping etc set up by other party members. And given all that, the Fighter has a + attack bonus advantage. Assuming the same Strength, which isn't a given. Higher BAB, and Greater Weapon Spec (and the monk having WF). Damage? Flaming Shocking Icy Greatsword +5 of Wounding. That's 5d6+5 damage, with 1.5x Str. If we've only got an 18 to start, boosted by +4 over levels, and with a +6 item, the Str mod will be +9. So +13 damage from Str. Toss in Power Attack, for the extra 6 points of BAB. That's another +12 damage. Average; 47.5 damage a hit, and I ain't even out of core, or considering Greater Weapon Specialization. Monk, unarmed with an Amulet of Natural Weapons or GMF or what have you; 2d10+5, +9 from Strength. Average of 25 damage a hit. A Flaming Shocking Icy Nunchaku +5 of Wounding, to equalize the enchantments on the weapon, average; 4d6+5, +9 from Str. Average is 28. Do you see yet why the Fighter is so much better? Even if I tossed in a quarterstaff for the monk, he only averages 32 damage using it two-handed. The monk hits more, but does far less damage, because the Fighter can Power Attack to drop his attack bonus, and thus deal more damage very easily, not to mention having a better base damage die to begin with. The Monk can't Power Attack as easily, having a lower attack bonus to start with. It doesn't matter what boosts you have, the Fighter will always have the advantage. Because of BAB, and his feats. Even if they have the same Str. What IS true about monks is that unless you devote a bunch of feats into it, they don't do single hit attacks as well as a barbarian or fighter power attacking. They have a lot more in common with the TWF ranger in behavior without as easy an option to take a double-weapon and power attack on the single hits. The tradeoff is that when they do a single strike, it is almost always accompanied by something like a grapple, trip, stunning fist or whatever. It also will arrive wherever it is needed, the mobility advantage of the monk is pretty significant (and even when the fighters start to fly under their own power, monks now dimension door...) The problem with Grapple and Trip is that they are BAB and Strength based. The monk will be crap at one, and is likely to be crap at the second, or have serious weaknesses if he's not. Stunning Fist, while great, has a serious weakness; you need to hit with it. We had a competition set up for a monk-fighter duel, and the fighter I built, who wasn't set up just as a monk-killer, had less than a 5% chance of succumbing to a Stunning Fist. Because the monk could barely hit him, and even with a maxxed Wis, he had a significant chance (greater than 50%, I can't recall exactly) of passing the save. Meanwhile, he had a much better chance to hit the monk, enough mobility to match the monk, better ranged combat and the feats to back it up, better Charging ability, better melee ability, etc, etc. Even considering that Fighters are considered weak. I've done the comparisons. The monk always loses out. Unless you decide to set things up in such a way as to weight the comparison, like ignoring the effects of feats the Fighter will get while considering the effects of the monk's class features. |
| Lina_Inverse04-07-05, 12:03 PM | They're balanced for 24-point buy. And monks are, indeed, balanced for that. The difficulty is that people expect monks to actually hold their own in melee combat. When they don't. Their chief combat abilities are unarmed damage, Flurry, high AC, and speed. Unarmed damage offsets their otherwise crap weapon list and that unarmed strikes aren't enchantable as cheaply or easily as normal weapons, Flurry offsets their already reduced BAB, their high AC offsets their lower HP, and speed, while useful, cannot be used at the same time as Flurry, making those two mutually exclusive. its 25point buy for one.and the game is in no way near balenced at it as casters can get full benefit from there main stat(haveing one) while fighter types cant. unarmed damage < armed damage.disadvantege flurry,doesnt stack with speed.less than full attack on a better BAB. high ac.........AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA right sure,a point buy monk as the AC of a chain shirt,and has to shell out alot more gold than the fighter to improve it.monks.have.horrible.AC. speed if you use this its like geting to-hit penalty,oh and it doesnt stack with flurry.oh and mages are faster. a class isnt a mobility specilist,unless it can outmobility a core wizard.that means 60speed at level one,flying at level 5,and teleporting at level 9. |
| Lina_Inverse04-07-05, 12:03 PM | I used to think the Monk was underpowered, then I realized that I was using it wrong. The correct use for Monk is to only ever take levels 1 and 2, and to only take it on top of something with high attributes and no armor, like a Druid in wildshape. monks belt does the trick. |
| Malfean04-07-05, 12:04 PM | Does improved natural attack apply to a monk? If it does then the monk isn't so bad in dealing damage. Though still worse than the fighter-barbarian. |
| Wolfrngr04-07-05, 01:31 PM | I'm just going to throw my thoughts out and see what you think: 1. Flurry of Blows -- its great if what you're fighting has a low ac--also a fighter who goes into exotic weapon master can essentially duplicate this now. 2. Great saves--I know people keep saying they are wizard killers, but don't most wizards try to have something that doesn't have a save memorized? I mean Ice Storm has proven quite effective on dealing with those pesky rogues and I'm pretty sure there a few more targeted spells with no save which brings me to: 3. AC -- Need great dex/wis to have a good ac and can't get the easy magic enhancements and armor special abilities. It just doesn't pace most monsters ability to hit. 4. Great skills -- well they do have great skills, unfortunately rogue has more and can actually find/disarm trap, get sneak attack, and fight just about as well w/ weapons. 5. The ability to get around dr -- this is nice. 6. SR -- gotta love it, one of the best things about the class. 7. Monk Diplomat -- what if your party is swarming w/ people w/ high diplomacy? I've made a fighter/rogue/barbarian -- long story -- that is more than the equal of the monk except for saves (will of course stinks) and spell resistance (I don't have any). |
| Thorak04-07-05, 01:33 PM | its 25point buy for one.and the game is in no way near balenced at it as casters can get full benefit from there main stat(haveing one) while fighter types cant. Sure they can. Fighters and Barbarians need Strength to get full benefit. Every class needs Con and Dex, because every class will get hit at some point. Combat classes already have their tendency to get hit more often covered by their increased hit die. flurry,doesnt stack with speed.less than full attack on a better BAB. Uhh, Flurry does stack with speed. high ac.........AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA right sure,a point buy monk as the AC of a chain shirt,and has to shell out alot more gold than the fighter to improve it.monks.have.horrible.AC. Let's ignore 25 point buy, and go with a stunning-and-AC monk build. 16 dex and 18 wis to start, with +4 to Wis over levels by level 20, and a +6 item, for totals of 22 Dex and 28 Wis. Add in an Amulet of Natural Armor +5, Ring of Protection +5, Bracers of Armor +8. Total AC is now 43. Human Fighter with Mithral Full Plate +5, 16 Dex, +5 Heavy Shield, +5 amulet of NA, ring of protection +5. AC of 41. Seems to me that the monk is 2 points ahead. Any extra items the Fighter tacks on the monk can alse wear, so they're irrelevant. Monks don't have horrible AC, they only have a horrible AC if you don't get Bracers of Armor, and focus on Strength/Con instead of Wis/Dex. a class isnt a mobility specilist,unless it can outmobility a core wizard.that means 60speed at level one,flying at level 5,and teleporting at level 9. When the mage can Charge 180' and still make an attack, let me know. When we're talking about mobility, we're talking about mobility in combat. Maneuvering potential. Mages are good at going from A to B, but monks are better at tactical movement, especially since they don't need to rely on casting spells to do so; they can move and still attack. |
| amoeba04-07-05, 01:58 PM | Let's ignore 25 point buy, and go with a stunning-and-AC monk build. 16 dex and 18 wis to start, with +4 to Wis over levels by level 20, and a +6 item, for totals of 22 Dex and 28 Wis. Add in an Amulet of Natural Armor +5, Ring of Protection +5, Bracers of Armor +8. Total AC is now 43. Human Fighter with Mithral Full Plate +5, 16 Dex, +5 Heavy Shield, +5 amulet of NA, ring of protection +5. AC of 41. Seems to me that the monk is 2 points ahead. Any extra items the Fighter tacks on the monk can alse wear, so they're irrelevant. Monks don't have horrible AC, they only have a horrible AC if you don't get Bracers of Armor, and focus on Strength/Con instead of Wis/Dex. When the mage can Charge 180' and still make an attack, let me know. When we're talking about mobility, we're talking about mobility in combat. Maneuvering potential. Mages are good at going from A to B, but monks are better at tactical movement, especially since they don't need to rely on casting spells to do so; they can move and still attack. even with +4 bonus from levels to wisdom and a +6 item to wisdom, the monk's ac is only 2 more than the fighter's. Meanwhile the fighter can take that +10 and put it in to say strength and making that +2 ac advantage pretty much negligible as well as further enhancing any opposed roll checks. and the wizard can easily charge 180' and make an attack with phantom steed. flying and for even longer distances if they are high enough level. |
| harmyn04-07-05, 02:30 PM | ...Uhh, Flurry does stack with speed. Not really no. You can't run the amazing 180 feet AND make an attack in the same round. In fact, to get use out of the awesome Flurry of Blows you have to stand there and get into full round HtH combat. Something most folks think is a bad idea. ...Let's ignore 25 point buy, and go with a stunning-and-AC monk build. 16 dex and 18 wis to start, with +4 to Wis over levels by level 20, and a +6 item, for totals of 22 Dex and 28 Wis. Add in an Amulet of Natural Armor +5, Ring of Protection +5, Bracers of Armor +8. Total AC is now 43. Human Fighter with Mithral Full Plate +5, 16 Dex, +5 Heavy Shield, +5 amulet of NA, ring of protection +5. AC of 41. Seems to me that the monk is 2 points ahead. Any extra items the Fighter tacks on the monk can alse wear, so they're irrelevant. Monks don't have horrible AC, they only have a horrible AC if you don't get Bracers of Armor, and focus on Strength/Con instead of Wis/Dex. I'm not sure if you've spent the same amount here, but I don't have my DMG handy so I will wait and check the shopping prices later. ...When the mage can Charge 180' and still make an attack, let me know. When we're talking about mobility, we're talking about mobility in combat. Maneuvering potential. Mages are good at going from A to B, but monks are better at tactical movement, especially since they don't need to rely on casting spells to do so; they can move and still attack. Spells Man Spells. Amoeba in the previous post used some examples. Also Don't forget that if outdoors the wizard only needs to go up about 50 feet to neutralize the monk quite nicely. Guess you should never fight the wizard in really tall chambers or the outside. Just a few random thoughts. |
| solbergb04-07-05, 02:46 PM | That doesn't mean it's a good idea, either. How many people play characters identical to the iconics when they start? They do not, but they make fighters stronger than Tordec too. The relative strengths of the iconics are useful. If you add str to a fighter, ranger or paladin, beyond what the iconic has you should also add it to a monk, or you are making a weak melee character because you have a mental image of the monk different from what the designers intended. The Fighter will crush the monk a heck of a lot harder if we use PrCs. The point of the comparison is that the Fighter, as poor as it is for a 20-level class, still beats the pants off of monks at melee combat. If I can PrC, I guarantee I can vastly outperform the monk. Especially since all the Fighter loses out on is extra bonus feats, while getting class abilities that are generally better than feats and often at a higher rate, while most of the monk's good abilities are directly tied to monk level. You keep saying that. I don't see it in play. The fighter IS better at long range combat and at single-hit combat. Which he has to do more because he spends more time moving than the monk. Anyone dazed, stunned, entangled or otherwise hampered will find himself the target of a monk flurry before he gets to react. And given all that, the Fighter has a + attack bonus advantage. Assuming the same Strength, which isn't a given. Higher BAB, and Greater Weapon Spec (and the monk having WF). Damage? Flaming Shocking Icy Greatsword +5 of Wounding. That's 5d6+5 damage, with 1.5x Str. If we've only got an 18 to start, boosted by +4 over levels, and with a +6 item, the Str mod will be +9. So +13 damage from Str. Toss in Power Attack, for the extra 6 points of BAB. That's another +12 damage. Average; 47.5 damage a hit, and I ain't even out of core, or considering Greater Weapon Specialization. I am always amused by people who compare classes only at level 20. But I can play that game. Sure. Now lets spend the same cash on the Monk. Your fighter is at +36/31/26/21 doing 35.5 per hit+wounding or you have +30/25/20/15 doing 47.5 per hit+wounding. Heck, lets add in the greater weapon spec, that puts it at 39.5 or 51.5 per hit and one point of constitution damage per hit. The monk with the same weapon, only a nunchuck instead of a greatsword, no weapon focus (we'll take improved crit to match the longsword just to make the comparison more fair although the numbers below ignore crits and auto-misses) and the same strength and belt of strength does: 29/29/29/24/19 4d6+14 or 28 per hit plus a point of constitution. On an AC20 target, average damage is: 157+4 con for fighter (no power attack) 198+3.85 con for fighter (power attack 6) 140+5 con for the monk. Advantage fighter...but not much of one if the enemy doesn't have an odd constitution, as most APL20 monsters have 20 hit dice, and many do in fact have 40-50. Actually most monsters will just be dead (as 150+4 points of con translates into 230 points of damage on a level 20 enemy) with overkill not mattering. On an AC30 target: 134+3.4 con for fighter (no power attack) 131+2.55 con for fighter (power attack 6) (at this level the fighter is better off not power attacking) 116+4 con for the monk. Advantage fighter if he hits 4 times, monk if he hits 3 times, and it is 50/50 which hits more. The monk is superior to the power attack 100% of the time, because of the wounding property. On an AC40 target: 75+2 con for the fighter 51+1 con for power attack 6 with fighter 50.4+2 con for the monk Advantage fighter..they're hitting at the same rate and the fighter hits harder. Neither is doing very much though at this level. The wounding propoerty (at 20-40 points per 2 con) is in fact doing all of the real damage, and they're equal with that. On an AC50 target: 22+.55 con for the fighter 16+.2 con (power attack full..does 80 points or nothing, usually nothing) 7+.25 con for the monk At this level, neither are doing meaningful damage at all. So you see...bottom line. Yes the fighter is a touch better at full attacking. No, it will not be MEANINGFULLY better....the damage is 10-20% more and will usually not be the difference between a standing opponent and a dropped one. Both degrade at similar rate as armor class increases. You can track the hit rates by the con drain. In the low-mid AC's the monk hits more often, which means some buffs (wounding, bardsong, prayer, spikes, fire of purity, all the flaming/frosty/etc properties) work better and more value is added by adding them to the monk. In the higher AC's the monk can still hit, but the lower damage/hit starts to tell. On the other hand a 20th level fighter only doing 75+con-2 per round is going to need a lot of help to kill an enemy. Do you see yet why the Fighter is so much better? Even if I tossed in a Basically the power attack is only useful at levels where the monk hits all 5 times, which means it only evens out the extra attack. Each buff added to both helps the monk more. And the monk tends to end up next to enemies in a position to flurry due to mobility at lower levels, while the fighter gets a few more full attacks because he can take return full attacks better. It is a wash. (at higher levels the fighter can fly and the monk has the cash for AC) The problem with Grapple and Trip is that they are BAB and Strength based. The monk will be crap at one, and is likely to be crap at the second, or have You keep saying that. It isn't true. Grapple is BAB based. Trip is not. The fighter must spend 2 feats on tripping to be as good as the monk, and invest in intelligence. He also has to get combat reflexes which the monk also gets for free. As for grapple...the fighter must spend 2 feats on that too, or be worse than the monk until level 13, and only equal to level 16. The fighter WILL be worse than the monk in the low levels, where grapple works best, unless he devotes the feats...and how many low level fighters actually take improved unarmed strike and improved grapple? I ran into a grappling fighter at level 8. We were identical in grapple checks, number of attacks etc. The fighter slowly pulls ahead...but not enough to matter. At level 20, there will only be two categories of grapple targets. Easy and impossible. A -1 in relative ability (fighter didn't spend the feats) is meaningless. A -5 is almost meaningless, when the grapple checks are either +10-20 (for the primary caster/rogue targets) or +50-60 (for fullbab, strong and large enemies) or just impossible. The fighter and monk in the above example (18 str, 4 stat bumps, +6 item) and equivalent feats, has +33 for fighter, +28 for the monk. Both will dominate non-fighter types. Both will be incapable of grappling spell-protected or very large enemies. Versus each other...the fighter who used two of his feats will be better. But not enough better that the d20 swing will make it a lock. And the monk will do more damage when he does win, unless the fighter also bought very expensive armor spikes to keep up. serious weaknesses if he's not. Stunning Fist, while great, has a serious weakness; you need to hit with it. We had a competition set up for a Well you know, you get a LOT of stunning fists a day. And things just are not that hard to hit with a primary attack, at any level. Only low iterative attacks usually miss. Then there is always trip to help out. monk-fighter duel, and the fighter I built, who wasn't set up just as a monk-killer, had less than a 5% chance of succumbing to a Stunning Fist. Because I do not dispute that a monk toe-to-toe with a fighter that has grapple defense feats and a way of coping with being tripped will likely win if the monk just stands there. The difference being if the monk DOES get the advantage, the fighter dies. If the fighter gets the advantage, the monk disengages. There is really no level where a fighter can force a monk to fight, and the equipment spent on making up the mobility disadvantage (at minimum boots of flying and cloak of montebank) is then spent by the monk on other things, and of course item slots aren't consumed either. But this duels aren't really the point. The point is...I assert that a monk does a decent job of filling the party role of "do melee damage" if he can full attack. He is not a weak-sister at this. He's quite solid, and gets better if he gets any help at all from teammates on either the attack mod or damage per blow hit. He's cheaper to support than a TWF guy (who has similar dynamics) and he has no more MAD than a tactical fighter (who takes int instead of wisdom) or a TWF fighter (who needs much more dex than a monk does). He can be a mobile fighter without spending a ton on equipment. He WILL have far better saves than the fighter. The combination of mobility and superior defenses versus spells should mean that he gets more flurries...at least enough more to counter the slightly larger damage a fighter gets in full attack and noticably more damage he can do in single attack. Now if you never spend money on monk offense, and you dump strength on your monks, you'll have just as pathetic a warrior as if you dump strength on your fighter and never upgrade his weapons. |
| Nephlite04-07-05, 02:46 PM | Not really no. You can't run the amazing 180 feet AND make an attack in the same round. In fact, to get use out of the awesome Flurry of Blows you have to stand there and get into full round HtH combat. Something most folks think is a bad idea. Well, Flurry is useful when you aren't fighting a highly armored guy who has high bab. Speed is useful when they have high bab so they can't multi attack you. I'm not sure if you've spent the same amount here, but I don't have my DMG handy so I will wait and check the shopping prices later. Not to nit pick, but when you conjoin two complete thoughts and you are in agree meant yu should use "and" not "but". I'll show you how it sounds: "I'm not sure if you've spent the same amount here, and I don't have my DMG handy so I will wait and check the shopping prices later." See what it I did, replaced and for but. And look it makes good sense, and didn't lose its meaning. Why did I do this? Because (like those ABC commercials) You need to know! (star flys by) |
| solbergb04-07-05, 03:14 PM | I'm just going to throw my thoughts out and see what you think: 1. Flurry of Blows -- its great if what you're fighting has a low ac--also a fighter who goes into exotic weapon master can essentially duplicate this now. If you stick with monk the flurry penalty goes away. EWP is two more feats and sticks you with a -2, which eliminates a big chunk of the vaunted BAB advantage. If a monk can hit it at all, the 3 primary attacks from the flurry can hit it just as easily. If he can't hit it, he should be using his time on something else, which he can do, since he has more tricks than just flurry. 2. Great saves--I know people keep saying they are wizard killers, but don't most wizards try to have something that doesn't have a save memorized? I mean Ice Storm has proven quite effective on dealing with those pesky rogues and I'm pretty sure there a few more targeted spells with no save which brings me to: The spells that end you for a fight are the save or XXX spells. One action, you're dead regardless of AC and hit points. This is especially true at high levels, but even at low levels hold person and glitterdust are big will-save stoppers. At higher levels the L13+ monk gets effectively two saves against the save-or-be-turned-into-need 10,000gp or more to raise spells. One for spell resistance, another for saves. A monk is DELIGHTED when someone hits him with a force orb (or attempts to..his touch AC is pretty high). It is one less finger of death he has to save against. An ice storm will barely be noticed by a monk. 18 points of damage and half movement? *pfft* Might slow down the 20 speed fighter in fullplate. A monk won't even notice. 3. AC -- Need great dex/wis to have a good ac and can't get the easy magic enhancements and armor special abilities. It just doesn't pace most monsters ability to hit. This is absolutely true in levels 1-12. After that what a monk needs is kind of fixed in price. Attribute boosters cap at 36k. +8 bracers are 64k. When this is pocket change....the monk AC catches up Fullplate is +8 AC for 1650gp. It's why fighters do better in the lower levels. The Chain Shirt brigade (archers, TWF rangers, rogues) doesn't do as well, and needs to spend more cash to keep an advantage over the wisdom bonus and 1/5 level AC bumps. Monks and barbarians tend to have similar AC until the second 10 levels...then monks catch up to the light armored guys and then catch up to the full plate guys....as they max out with +5s and can't add more dex etc. The secret is though that the monk tactical feats (grapple, trip, stunning) take away enemy attacks so you don't NEED as much armor class. And while they are of limited use at level 20, they work great in level 1-10. Which shows a fine understanding by the game designers of how the game is really played. At level 6, my monk had an AC equal to 18 higher than any humanoid who charged him, because they only had a 10% chance to get past his AOO's that let him trip them out of range or grapple them in range. Granted to do that I had to spend one of my "real" feats on hold the line. At level 14, I watched a "real" stunning fist monk stun the enemy barbarian (causing her to drop her weapon) in the surprise round, then stunned the enemy cleric (whose spellpowered blasphemy failed to penetrate spell resistance) in the round when the rest of the party was dazed. Neither stunned enemy survived to do anything meaningful later. So yes a monk has less AC for a good chunk of his life. But he should be using his mobility and tactical feats to compensate (never take a movement AOO because of tumble+high speed, never take a full attack unless you don't respect the enemy or he's hampered, etc) 4. Great skills -- well they do have great skills, unfortunately rogue has more and can actually find/disarm trap, get sneak attack, and fight just about as well w/ weapons. Rogues dominate on skills and they should. On the other hand a monk doesn't need search, disable device, open locks or (if he's decently strong and grapples) escape artist. Which tends to even it out. As for fighting. Versus soft targets a rogue will do more damage than anyone, if he's built to get a lot of attacks. Vs hard targets he's useless (high AC, or unsneakable, or no way to get the flank). This happens FAR more often than tactical feats (stunning fist, trip, grapple) are nerfed by enemy abilities. Many rogues have serious mobility issues too...they can't make good use of tumble because they can't handle the half-speed and still get to where they want to go. Their AC is at least as sucky as the monk, and their hit die is less. Which means - rogues are better out of combat. Monks fill many of the rogue roles, but are usually better incombat. A monk/rogue team is a scary, scary thing, they complement well (they can both scout together, and the monk will set up many, many, sneak attacks) 5. The ability to get around dr -- this is nice. 6. SR -- gotta love it, one of the best things about the class. Yeah, silversheen and bless weapon oil and you're good to go on most stuff. SR is just an extension at higher levels of the lower level good saves. You encounter both higher relative DC's and simply more save/die or no-save/die effects at higher levels, the SR just keeps the monk as durable as he was versus magic at the low levels. Just as dim door is the higher level version of the low level speed boost+grapple advantage. I also don't really see a monk as a diplomat...he has no reason to have a decent charisma. At most you toss a couple points into it to compensate for a LOW charisma, so you aren't any more odious than a normal person. I've made a fighter/rogue/barbarian -- long story -- that is more than the equal of the monk except for saves (will of course stinks) and spell resistance (I don't have any). Interesting. Certainly the way to do a core-only skirmisher if you don't want to be lawful. AC is similar but caps sooner. Better at single hit damage. Better long range damage. Probably worse at full attack damage, but maybe better if he's got the flank. The fort and reflex saves will be somewhat behind the monk, the will save will stink. The mobility will be fair...the barb land speed and rogue skills help. The BAB will be a touch higher, but you won't have the 1-2 extra fullbab attacks from flurry. How did you get all the feats you need for the tactical stuff? (combat reflexes, combat expertise, improved trip, imp unarmed strike, imp grapple is like all your feats to level 9-12 depending on whether you are human, and I assume you want power attack in there somewhere) |
| Thorak04-07-05, 04:02 PM | Not really no. You can't run the amazing 180 feet AND make an attack in the same round. In fact, to get use out of the awesome Flurry of Blows you have to stand there and get into full round HtH combat. Something most folks think is a bad idea. I assumed the original comment was regarding the Speed weapon enchantment, for some reason. They do not, but they make fighters stronger than Tordec too. The relative strengths of the iconics are useful. If you add str to a fighter, ranger or paladin, beyond what the iconic has you should also add it to a monk, or you are making a weak melee character because you have a mental image of the monk different from what the designers intended. You don't have a clue what the designers intended. And if they intended the monk to be good at melee, they failed. I guarantee I can make a Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Cleric, Ranger, or Druid that will beat the pants off a Monk in melee, either in comparison against a given target, or in a duel situation. I'd give even odds on a Rogue. When more than half the PC classes are better than you at something, that something is not a strength of the class. You keep saying that. I don't see it in play. The fighter IS better at long range combat and at single-hit combat. Which he has to do more because he spends more time moving than the monk. Anyone dazed, stunned, entangled or otherwise hampered will find himself the target of a monk flurry before he gets to react. See my point regarding damage in the previous post. I am always amused by people who compare classes only at level 20. But I can play that game. [snipped for space] So you see...bottom line. Yes the fighter is a touch better at full attacking. No, it will not be MEANINGFULLY better....the damage is 10-20% more and will usually not be the difference between a standing opponent and a dropped one. Both degrade at similar rate as armor class increases. You can track the hit rates by the con drain. In the low-mid AC's the monk hits more often, which means some buffs (wounding, bardsong, prayer, spikes, fire of purity, all the flaming/frosty/etc properties) work better and more value is added by adding them to the monk. In the higher AC's the monk can still hit, but the lower damage/hit starts to tell. On the other hand a 20th level fighter only doing 75+con-2 per round is going to need a lot of help to kill an enemy. See? Fighter deals more damage in a full attack. And if we're not in a full attack, the difference is even greater, because the monk has more attacks than the fighter in a full attack. As for why we compare at 20; that's to compare peak performance, and also because people often say the Fighter's a great class to level 10, but then rather underpowered. I'd be willing to work up a level 10, or even a level 5 comparison, and I believe the Fighter would still spank the monk. You keep saying that. It isn't true. Grapple is BAB based. Trip is not. The fighter must spend 2 feats on tripping to be as good as the monk, and invest in intelligence. He also has to get combat reflexes which the monk also gets for free.[quote] Trip is BAB based. Note the melee touch attack. That's based on BAB. As for spending 2 feats; he's a Fighter. He has feats up the yinyang. The one time I've built a level 20 Fighter, I started picking up ranged and mounted feats just to fill out the feats he got, because I ran out of melee feats that were useful. [quote]As for grapple...the fighter must spend 2 feats on that too, or be worse than the monk until level 13, and only equal to level 16. The fighter WILL be worse than the monk in the low levels, where grapple works best, unless he devotes the feats...and how many low level fighters actually take improved unarmed strike and improved grapple? Smart ones. There's tons of enemies that grapple. You pretty much either need a decent Grapple check, or a Ring of Freedom of Movement. I'd rather not rely on getting a specific item. Well you know, you get a LOT of stunning fists a day. And things just are not that hard to hit with a primary attack, at any level. Only low iterative attacks usually miss. Then there is always trip to help out. It doesn't matter whether you get a lot. It matters that you miss a lot. By the time you land one, you're probably dead. I do not dispute that a monk toe-to-toe with a fighter that has grapple defense feats and a way of coping with being tripped will likely win if the monk just stands there. The difference being if the monk DOES get the advantage, the fighter dies. If the fighter gets the advantage, the monk disengages. There is really no level where a fighter can force a monk to fight, and the equipment spent on making up the mobility disadvantage (at minimum boots of flying and cloak of montebank) is then spent by the monk on other things, and of course item slots aren't consumed either.[quote] You're ignoring mounts. A Light Warhorse, or the magical equivalent, either in item or cohort form, with Horseshoes of Speed, has a movement rate of 90', matching the monk. Throw in Rideby Attack, and the Fighter never stays close enough for the monk to get more than one attack. And he can make a Ride check to nullify the one attack the Monk gets against the horse, if he tries to go that route. Throw in a ranged weapon and Mounted Archery, and the monk's goin bye bye. Even if he runs, the Fighter can keep up. [quote]But this duels aren't really the point. The point is...I assert that a monk does a decent job of filling the party role of "do melee damage" if he can full attack. He is not a weak-sister at this. He's quite solid, and gets better if he gets any help at all from teammates on either the attack mod or damage per blow hit. He's cheaper to support than a TWF guy (who has similar dynamics) and he has no more MAD than a tactical fighter (who takes int instead of wisdom) or a TWF fighter (who needs much more dex than a monk does). He's a weak sister compared to 2/3 of the other character classes. While he can deal damage in combat, that doesn't mean he's good at it. Compare him to a rogue; the rogue can deal devastating damage when flanking. Nobody claims they're good in melee, though. For a reason. Many of which are true for the monk, as well. |
| solbergb04-07-05, 05:55 PM | . He's a weak sister compared to 2/3 of the other character classes. While he can deal damage in combat, that doesn't mean he's good at it. Compare him to a rogue; the rogue can deal devastating damage when flanking. Nobody claims they're good in melee, though. For a reason. Many of which are true for the monk, as well. Oh please. A fighter can match the monk feat for feat because he has so many. A paladin can not, he loses feats for weak spellcasting Ditto Ranger...he gets feats but not the tactical ones. A rogue is toast against a monk one vs one because he needs help to do any real damage and because all of the monk tricks work well on rogues. The paladin and ranger won't have the counters to the monk tactical stuff. In a single blow, the barbarian is best at dealing damage, because his stackable rage strength lets him power attack for more and still hit. Against the favored enemy, the ranger is best at dealing damage, because either as an archer or as a TWF guy his damage is multiplied by a lot of attacks. Against smitable opponents the paladin is best at dealing damage, especially if he can do a lance charge and multiply it. Against sneakable opponents WITH help the rogue is best at dealing damage That doesn't make them stronger than the fighter or the monk at dealing damage. It just makes them different. The fighter will do a bit better when his feats come into play. The monk will do a bit better when his class abilities come into play. If the fighter took similar feats to a monk, he'll be a slow, spell vulnerable monk who does a touch more damage. *shrug* ALL of them (except rogue) will do sufficient damage against any target to count as "the party melee damage dealer". The rogue will do so only versus some enemies. Dead is dead. If the enemy has 100 hp it doesn't matter if you do 105 or 125, especially if you do about 30 per blow. And every single one of the other fighter types have a harder time getting into position to do damage, and are FAR more vulnerable to spells. Melee damage dealing is a strength of a class if it does enough damage consistently to kill the enemies. Spellcaster "melee" are hampered by the need to buff. Rogues are hampered by the need for special conditions to do damage. The five warrior core classes....just start doing damage from the first round. And are only "weak" at dealing damage if the player forgot to give them a decent strength attribute and didn't buy them any weapon or strength upgrades. |
| solbergb04-07-05, 06:26 PM | Trip is BAB based. Note the melee touch attack. That's based on BAB. It doesn't matter whether you get a lot. It matters that you miss a lot. By the time you land one, you're probably dead. ROFL. Ok....you are claiming monks can not hit with a TOUCH attack? And thus they'll be bad at TRIPPING? I have not missed with a touch attempt at grapple or trip with anything but a "1" or something like displacement coming into play since I was about level 3. Being a couple of BAB behind the fighter doesn't mean you miss touch attacks while the fighter magically hits them. And when you get 2-3 attacks at your top BAB, the chance of connecting with a touch attack on a hard target (such as a monk) is pretty much identical to the fighter who gets one attack at higher and two attacks at lower. As for the "it matters that you miss" on stunning fist...what exactly are you fighting that ANY fighter type misses with a primary attack any significant percentage of the time? Because really...I just don't miss very often with my monk. So I am wondering what world you are playing in that 3/4 BAB+strength+circumstance bonuses (eg, charge, flank) plus any party buffs (eg, prayer) aren't sufficient to hit reliably on the first blow? The only venue I can think of like that is dueling. And in that venue grapple (even at a -5 disadvantage) is a lot better than swinging away at 5% chance to hit. |
| Thorak04-07-05, 10:22 PM | ROFL. Ok....you are claiming monks can not hit with a TOUCH attack? And thus they'll be bad at TRIPPING? I have not missed with a touch attempt at grapple or trip with anything but a "1" or something like displacement coming into play since I was about level 3. Being a couple of BAB behind the fighter doesn't mean you miss touch attacks while the fighter magically hits them. You still likely have a lower Strength, unless you're crapping out on Con, Wis, or Dex. Which causes problems in other areas. As for the "it matters that you miss" on stunning fist...what exactly are you fighting that ANY fighter type misses with a primary attack any significant percentage of the time? Just for fun; A Wyrm Black Dragon has an AC of 39, at CR 20. Even assuming it has no items or spells buffing that, the level 20 monk you statted out a few posts back has a +29 to hit. 50% miss rate. The Fighter has a +36 to hit. 15% miss rate. With the first attack, of course. To me, 50% is a "significant percentage of the time". Other CR 20 creatures; Pit Fiend; AC 40 Balor: 35 Tarrasque: AC 35 And if we went to lower levels, there's a whole host of critters around CR 11 that have ACs in the high 20s, putting them about 10 points lower than this. And I bet your attack bonus will be more than 10 points lower, since you won't have nearly the gear we're assuming at level 20. So it's not great at level 20, and gets worse as you go back. Plenty of critters even a Fighter will have trouble hitting. Because really...I just don't miss very often with my monk. So I am wondering what world you are playing in that 3/4 BAB+strength+circumstance bonuses (eg, charge, flank) plus any party buffs (eg, prayer) aren't sufficient to hit reliably on the first blow? One where the DM doesn't always throw low AC critters at us? And now your next-to-last post; Oh please. A fighter can match the monk feat for feat because he has so many. A paladin can not, he loses feats for weak spellcasting Ditto Ranger...he gets feats but not the tactical ones.[/quote] Gosh, it's unfair for the Fighter to use his class feature? As for paladins and rangers, I avoid the former because they're basically anti-evil for the most part, thought they make great mounted warriors (and I could go back and point out how a mount with a wee bit of gear can keep up with a monk), and Rangers I don't consider because they are almost as much a tactical fighter as the monk, just one with more options and flexibility, because they at least have a full BAB and fewer restrictions on weapons, armor, and what have you. A rogue is toast against a monk one vs one because he needs help to do any real damage and because all of the monk tricks work well on rogues. Feint, hide, bluff. If you're not considering how a rogue's skills affect things, you're not being fair to the rogue. In a single blow, the barbarian is best at dealing damage, because his stackable rage strength lets him power attack for more and still hit. Which is why I use fighters, because they're not the best at dealing damage, and still outperform monks easily. Against the favored enemy, the ranger is best at dealing damage, because either as an archer or as a TWF guy his damage is multiplied by a lot of attacks. Against smitable opponents the paladin is best at dealing damage, especially if he can do a lance charge and multiply it. Right, these guys have specific focuses. I wouldn't claim paladins and rangers are ideally variable warriors either, but they're more flexible than a monk. That doesn't make them stronger than the fighter or the monk at dealing damage. It just makes them different. The fighter will do a bit better when his feats come into play. The monk will do a bit better when his class abilities come into play. If the fighter took similar feats to a monk, he'll be a slow, spell vulnerable monk who does a touch more damage. *shrug* And I never claimed the monk was bad or weak. I said their strength wasn't toe-to-toe combat; their role is as a skirmisher and mage killer. And if the Fighter took similar feats to the monk, he'd still have over half his feats left to take other stuff. So he'd be a slow, spell vulnerable monk who deals more damage, is very capable at ranged combat, and who uses a mount to get around that slowness. Or some such thing. Fighters have so many feats they're practically forced to take multiple paths of feats. And every single one of the other fighter types have a harder time getting into position to do damage, and are FAR more vulnerable to spells. Right, I said early on that the two most important advantages monks have is mobility and anti-spell protections. [quote]Melee damage dealing is a strength of a class if it does enough damage consistently to kill the enemies. Spellcaster "melee" are hampered by the need to buff. Rogues are hampered by the need for special conditions to do damage. The five warrior core classes....just start doing damage from the first round. And are only "weak" at dealing damage if the player forgot to give them a decent strength attribute and didn't buy them any weapon or strength upgrades.[quote] If you take this view, then melee damage dealing is a strength of 7 of the 10 core classes. And I still say the monk suffers in other regards; BAB, HP, and ability score placements. |
| Elessar04-07-05, 10:55 PM | Erm. Perhaps I'm speaking out of turn since I've only ever seen monks played, never actually having played one myself. However, it was always my impression that as far as outright melee fights go, comparing a monk to a fighter is like comparing a bard to a fighter (or a higher level fighter to a higher level cleric, hehe.) A monk is useful as a combatant, but not the same way other classes are... and he's not meant to be played as a meat-shield. I've seen them played rather effectively, when played wisely. So in answer to the original poster, if you're having trouble figuring out the monk's role, why not look under the monk's role section in the PHB? It says the monk "functions best as an opportunistic combatant, using her speed to get into and out of combat quickly rather than engaging in prolonged melees." So if you were engaging in prolonged melees, there's your problemo. The monk excels, with her increased speed, and doing damage here, there and everywhere all over combat. She sows confusion against multiple enemies by using class features and bonus feats designed to do just that, using stunning fist on one enemy one round, then moving way on the other side of the battlefield to help out her ally by using improved disarm on his weapon, then zipping off to target and control another problem. This ability is further supported with Abundant Step, which lets the monk, once per day, get out of a truly sticky situation (or get to a particularly hard to reach part of the battlefield). The monk can also be used as a mage-killer, using her tumble skill to get through the front line and get at the back line casters. What if the casters decide to focus their efforts on the monk? That's what evasion, improved evasion, still mind, and eventually diamond soul are for. And once the monk gets there, the penalties for flurry of blows aren't so dire in comparison to the lower armor classes of mages. That's extra damage in the bag. Maybe I'm trying to sell this too hard, but just shooting out ideas based on what I've seen of the monk. The way my friend plays the class, the monk isn't the stalwart bastion of raw hitpoints, BAB, and damage potential that the fighter is. Of course not. That would be completely ignoring the suite of abilities the monk has. |
| fractal04-08-05, 05:51 AM | If you take this view, then melee damage dealing is a strength of 7 of the 10 core classes. This is potentially a reasonable statement. Fort Saves are a strength of 7 of the 11 core classes. (The same 7, fancy that.) |
| solbergb04-08-05, 12:28 PM | Just for fun; A Wyrm Black Dragon has an AC of 39, at CR 20. Even assuming it has no items or spells buffing that, the level 20 monk you statted out a few posts back has a +29 to hit. 50% miss rate. The Fighter has a +36 to hit. 15% miss rate. With the first attack, of course. To me, 50% is a "significant percentage of the time". Other CR 20 creatures; Pit Fiend; AC 40 Balor: 35 Tarrasque: AC 35 And if we went to lower levels, there's a whole host of critters around CR 11 that have ACs in the high 20s, putting them about 10 points lower than this. And I bet your attack bonus will be more than 10 points lower, since you won't have nearly the gear we're assuming at level 20. So it's not great at level 20, and gets worse as you go back. Plenty of critters even a Fighter will have trouble hitting. One where the DM doesn't always throw low AC critters at us? As I showed above, the fighter and monk are hitting AC40 at the same rate at level 20 in a full attack. Almost exactly. Each hits twice. (fighter is at like 80%/55%/30%/5%=2.15 hits monk is 50%/50%/50%/25%/5% (2.25 hits) At AC35, the monk hits more (95%/80%/55%/30%=2.55 hits for fighter, 75%/75%/75%/50%/25% = 3 hits for monk) So what's the big deal? As for CR11 creatures, I fought those at level 8. My attack mod at 8 was +11/11/6 for unarmed strike in flurry, +13/13/8 when using "spikes". When fighting CR11 at level 8 I am fighting one monster. Which means I have flanking because I have other party members. If it isn't huge, it might also be grappleable or tripable. I usually had either bless+prayer or recitation running or a +2 bardsong. Which means my attack rolls were in the high teens and I averaged about 2 hits per round. Which was better than the fighter, if we had one, whose attack rolls were only 1-2 points higher than mine and only had two attacks. (haste would have been nice, we didn't have a lot of arcanists in my region). If fighting CR11 creatures at level 11, where I'd be expected to handle them one vs one more often, the attack mod is +15/15/15/10 without any outside buffs or flanking. Ac's in the high 20s aren't a big deal. I'll hit 2-3 times under most circumstances. So again...I don't see why your monks always miss. For every high AC monster there's a magical beast, animal, ooze, humanoid without massive defensive equipment (most spend on offense since they only live one encounter) incorporeal (most have crap AC), construct (even the huge constructs can be tripped or grappled their BAB sucks and they're weak for their size) whatever. MOST opponents at CR11 don't have AC in the high 20s. Low 20s is much more typical. Which means most of the time I rarely miss. Right, these guys have specific focuses. I wouldn't claim paladins and rangers are ideally variable warriors either, but they're more flexible than a monk. And I never claimed the monk was bad or weak. I said their strength wasn't toe-to-toe combat; their role is as a skirmisher and mage killer. And if the Fighter took similar feats to the monk, he'd still have over half his feats left to take other stuff. So he'd be a slow, spell vulnerable monk who deals more damage, is very capable at ranged combat, and who uses a mount to get around that slowness. Or some such thing. Fighters have so many feats they're practically forced to take multiple paths of feats. Ok. I think what is going on here is not that you don't like monks, but you just don't like warriors. You claimed a monk was not as good at melee as 2/3 of the classes, then you decide you don't like those classes either *shrug*. And I'm not so sure you can really keep up with the monk class abilities with a fighter and really have many feats left. We'll leave stunning fist out of it. Grapple = 2 feats + 13 dex (15+ is better cause it works when enlarged) Trip = 2 feats +13 intelligence Improved Flurry = 2 feats (TWF, improved TWF or EWP, weapon focus then exotic weapon master) plus 17 dex Combat reflexes = feat This guy probably starts with 14-16 str, 14 int and has to put a statbump into dex unless he's rolling dice for stats. He's got 3 stats plus con at 14+...just like a monk. Now you do get combat expertise which you might want anyway, imp unarmed strike wich might work ok with the TWF stuff. But by my count that is 7 feats. Which is all the fighter bonus feats up to level 12. The fighter gets only 4 more feats by level 20, and he also can't make as good use of the feats because he's slow and spell vulnerable. Since I spotted your +36 attack fighter greater weapon focus and spec in the prior examples, he's out of feats, and he and the monk are now even on what other things they can do (they have the basic feats from race and leveling, that's it). Right, I said early on that the two most important advantages monks have is mobility and anti-spell protections. Melee damage dealing is a strength of a class if it does enough damage consistently to kill the enemies. Spellcaster "melee" are hampered by the need to buff. Rogues are hampered by the need for special conditions to do damage. The five warrior core classes....just start doing damage from the first round. And are only "weak" at dealing damage if the player forgot to give them a decent strength attribute and didn't buy them any weapon or strength upgrades. If you take this view, then melee damage dealing is a strength of 7 of the 10 core classes. And I still say the monk suffers in other regards; BAB, HP, and ability score placements. I do in fact consider melee damage dealing a strength of barbarian, ranger (if TWF), fighter, monk and Paladin. Rogue too if it is a soft target. Primary spellcasters CAN do melee damage, but it is rarely the best use of their time unless there isn't an actual warrior at the table. I base this view on what people actually do in a combat. If you are a fullbab class, monk or rogue, you usually focus on damaging the enemy. The difference is the monk tends to be also able to fill battlefield control role, as can some builds of fighters, where the rogue, paladin and ranger tend to mix in magic (rogue via UMD) when their main schtick doesn't work. Being able to place melee damage anywhere on the battlefield is why monks are magekillers. BAB is compensated for by touch attacks and flurry, the MAD isn't any worse than a tactical fighter or paladin or ranger, and the hp is identical to the ranger. Which means it is a solid middle-of-the-road warrior class, and thus isn't "weak" unless you just hate melee classes and consider them "weak". Which is a whole nother conversation and thread. |
| harmyn04-08-05, 01:36 PM | ....Let's ignore 25 point buy, and go with a stunning-and-AC monk build. 16 dex and 18 wis to start, with +4 to Wis over levels by level 20, and a +6 item, for totals of 22 Dex and 28 Wis. Add in an Amulet of Natural Armor +5, Ring of Protection +5, Bracers of Armor +8. Total AC is now 43. Human Fighter with Mithral Full Plate +5, 16 Dex, +5 Heavy Shield, +5 amulet of NA, ring of protection +5. AC of 41. Seems to me that the monk is 2 points ahead. Any extra items the Fighter tacks on the monk can alse wear, so they're irrelevant. Monks don't have horrible AC, they only have a horrible AC if you don't get Bracers of Armor, and focus on Strength/Con instead of Wis/Dex.... I have checked the DMG. I now do have issue with this. How you chose to equip them for this--- Monk Wisdom +6 item = 36k Dexterity +6 item = 36k Amulet of Natural Armor +5 = 50k Ring of Protection +5 = 50k Bracers of Armor +8 = 64k . VALUE OF EQUIPMENT = 236K AC = 10 (base) +6 (dex) +9 (wis) +5 (RoP) +5 (AoNA) +8 (BoA) +4 (Monk Bonus) = 47 Fighter Full Plate Mithril Armor +5 = 34k Heavy Shield +5 = 25k Amulet of Natural Armor +5 = 50k Ring of Protection +5 = 50k . VALUE OF EQUIPMENT = 159K AC = 10 (base) +3 (dex) +13 (armor) +7 (shield) +5 (RoP) +5 (AoNA) = 43 So actually the Monk has an AC of 4 better because you forgot their inherent bonus for the class. But you also spent an extra 77k on the monk to pull this off. I have a simple solution though. I am going to buy the Fighter a locking gauntlet along with a +1 Anarchic Longsword of Speed and Gauntlets of Ogre Power. Those give me a +2 boost combined so that makes up some for it. Since we're just plugging in stats lets say that the next 2 highest is are 14. Guessing that will be your Strength and Con. I'll put my 18 in Strength (then boost by 4 through advancement to 22) and my 14's in Con and Wis. My 20th level Fighter attacks based on this little scenario you started - Feats assigned = Wpn Focus, Gtr Wpn Focus, Wpn Specialization, Grtr Wpn Specialization, Improved Critical, Improved Trip, Prone Fighting, Combat Expertise, Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple Attacks = +30/+30/+25/+20/+15 Damage per Hit = 1d8+2d6+12 (average = 23.5) My 20th level Monk Feats = Improved Trip, Stunning Fist, Weapon Focus, Prone Fighting, Improved Grapple Attacks = +18/+18/+18/+13/+8 Damage per Hit = 2d10+2 (average = 13) Now I admit these are nowhere near optimized or perfect builds and the odds of hitting are going to be a pain in the buttocks. But I just wanted to point out that you had shorted the Fighter on gear to begin with. The listings here at least have them as equals in theory. |
| Wolfrngr04-08-05, 01:42 PM | Interesting. Certainly the way to do a core-only skirmisher if you don't want to be lawful. AC is similar but caps sooner. Better at single hit damage. Better long range damage. Probably worse at full attack damage, but maybe better if he's got the flank. The fort and reflex saves will be somewhat behind the monk, the will save will stink. The mobility will be fair...the barb land speed and rogue skills help. The BAB will be a touch higher, but you won't have the 1-2 extra fullbab attacks from flurry. How did you get all the feats you need for the tactical stuff? (combat reflexes, combat expertise, improved trip, imp unarmed strike, imp grapple is like all your feats to level 9-12 depending on whether you are human, and I assume you want power attack in there somewhere) Okay, here's the base breakdown: Fighter/Pugilist (Dragon 310) 4 levels, Rogue 4 levels, Barbarian 4 levels, and Primal Rager (Forgot which Dragon). What I have, BAB 12, Fort +11, Ref +6, Will +3. I will be the first to admit that she does require gear that a monk does not. For Armor a Mithril Chain Shirt +3 and Buckler +1. Weapons: Cold Iron Gauntlet of Impact +1, Admantine Gauntlet of Impact +1 (I waited 6 levels for them to finish forging that.) Boots: Striding & Leaping. Ring: Freedom of Movement She of course has some nice toys, like a necklace of adaptation, a cloak of resistance +2, and from her last big haul--a belt of giant str +6. But I don't consider them essential. She is dwarf, not a human, from pugilist gets Improved Unarmed Strike and Endurance at 1st level and 1d4 for base unarmed damage, she has the flaw shaky, the only purpose of bow is to annoy monsters until they come closer. She also took Weapon Focus Unarmed Strike. Her other feats are: Combat Reflexes, Close Quarters Combat, Improved Grapple, Clever Wrestling, Iron Will, Weapon Specialization (Unarmed) and Extended Rage. Barbarian gave her Rage twice a day, Trap Sense +1, Uncanny Dodge, and Fast Movement. Rogue gave Sneak Attack 2d6, Evaision, Uncanny Dodge 2. Primal Rager gives Strength of the Beast which lets her increase power of rage at cost of duration (her base duration is 14 rounds) and upgrades her unarmed attack to 1d6 base. But leaving out all the rage and the belt of giant str her attacks are base 13/9/4 before stat bonuses and gear. Not as great as a monk and her damage is only 1d6 + Str +2. Her base to grapple is +15. Of course after 13 levels her stats are pretty good and she did start w/ and 18 in str, which ironically she hasn't raised. |
| solbergb04-08-05, 01:59 PM | Looks like a better grappler (base is similar, but you have all the fancy strength addons when you rage), fewer full attacks but adequate at damage per hit because of all the strength boosters than your standard monk. Actaully looks a lot like what a reaping mauler is supposed to be, as opposed to how the PRC actually turned out. Not as mobile or as good at saves...dwarf hurts the former, helps the latter. Does look like it would fill a similar role. You'd probably be a beast at tripping if you could somehow get the feat. |
| Wolfrngr04-08-05, 02:33 PM | Ironically I was going for reaping mauler when I figured out it was a downgrade. Does look like it would fill a similar role. You'd probably be a beast at tripping if you could somehow get the feat. I'm shooting for the Oppressor prestige class from Dragon 213, at 2nd level I'll gain the ability to do sneak attack damage while grappling. (All I needed to get into the prestige class was the persuasive feat, lol) |
| Thorak04-08-05, 02:43 PM | So actually the Monk has an AC of 4 better because you forgot their inherent bonus for the class. But you also spent an extra 77k on the monk to pull this off. I have a simple solution though. I did indeed forget the +4 inherent bonus from the class. And I believe I said that monks can get very good AC. I never once said they can get it as cheaply as a Fighter. As I showed above, the fighter and monk are hitting AC40 at the same rate at level 20 in a full attack. Almost exactly. Each hits twice. (fighter is at like 80%/55%/30%/5%=2.15 hits monk is 50%/50%/50%/25%/5% (2.25 hits) At AC35, the monk hits more (95%/80%/55%/30%=2.55 hits for fighter, 75%/75%/75%/50%/25% = 3 hits for monk) So what's the big deal? Let's rework this. Damage per round. Using our earlier numbers, with 28 Str for each, a Flaming Shocking Icy weapon +5 (let's drop the wounding, because it just complicates things), and the Fighter having the full focus and specialization tree; average damages per hit are; Fighter: 39.5 damage (weapon; greatsword) Monk: 28 damage (weapon: nunchaku) Now, some to-hit progressions. I won't bother with ACs, these are relative comparisons. Fighter; 95%/70%/45%/20%. Total; 230% Monk; 65%/65%/65%/40%/15%. Total; 250% Average damage per round; Fighter; 90.85 Monk; 70 Advantage; Fighter. Fighter: 95/95/70/45. Total; 305% Monk; 90/90/90/65/40. Total; 475% Average damage; Fighter; 120.475 Monk; 133 Advantage; Monk. So, as the monk gets closer to auto-hitting, he can outdamage the Fighter due to number of attacks. Fighter: 70/45/20/5. Total; 140% Monk; 40/40/40/15/5. Total; 140% Average damage; Fighter; 55.3 Monk; 39.2 Advantage; Fighter again. This will continue to get worse for the monk, as he's losing to-hit on more attacks than the Fighter with each step up in AC. The only time the Monk deals more damage than the Fighter is against low-AC enemies. For the above example, the Monk has an attack bonus of +30 (15 BAB, +9 Str, +5 weapon, +1 weapon focus). Meaning he only performs this well against enemies with a 31 AC or less. And there's oodles of Cr 20 encounters with higher than that. Plus, he's got either a crap AC, or crap HP. If we assume 32-point buy, each character started with an 18 Str; that's half the points. With the remaining 16, the Fighter can get an 11 Dex, and a 17 Con. This lets him max out, AC-wise, with full plate, and get a +3 Con bonus. The monk, on the other hand, has to make choices. He has three stats to fill, Dex, Wis, and Con. Let's do two examples, the con-boosting monk, and the AC-focused monk; Con-based; dex 11, Con 16, wis 11 (can't afford a 17 Con without an 8 or 9 in either of the other two). AC here, with Bracers of Armor AC 8, ring of protection, and amulet of natural armor, is 28. Average hp; 150 AC-based; 14 Dex, 12 Con, 14 Wis. Balanced out because there's little need to focus on one, at least for AC purposes. AC, with same gear; 32. HP; 110. The Fighter, in similar gear, including Full Plate +5; AC 34. HP: 170. So while a monk can compete with a Fighter for damage and win, but only against lower-AC opponents, he does so by making himself more fragile than that Fighter. ow you do get combat expertise which you might want anyway, imp unarmed strike wich might work ok with the TWF stuff. But by my count that is 7 feats. Which is all the fighter bonus feats up to level 12. The fighter gets only 4 more feats by level 20, and he also can't make as good use of the feats because he's slow and spell vulnerable. Since I spotted your +36 attack fighter greater weapon focus and spec in the prior examples, he's out of feats, and he and the monk are now even on what other things they can do (they have the basic feats from race and leveling, that's it). You're forgetting the normal feats, too. The Fighter has 7 more feats than you're considering. That's plenty to max out any other combat style I'd like. Especially considering I don't need to get TWF feats, because two-handed weapons are better for dealing damage, and the Fighter generally outdamages you even considering your Flurry.[/quote] do in fact consider melee damage dealing a strength of barbarian, ranger (if TWF), fighter, monk and Paladin. Rogue too if it is a soft target. Primary spellcasters CAN do melee damage, but it is rarely the best use of their time unless there isn't an actual warrior at the table. I base this view on what people actually do in a combat. If you are a fullbab class, monk or rogue, you usually focus on damaging the enemy. The difference is the monk tends to be also able to fill battlefield control role, as can some builds of fighters, where the rogue, paladin and ranger tend to mix in magic (rogue via UMD) when their main schtick doesn't work.[/quote] My point was that it's disingenious to claim something as a class strength when most other classes have the same or better capacity. It's like saying the Rogue's d6 HD is a strength, because it's better than a wizard's. Which means it is a solid middle-of-the-road warrior class, and thus isn't "weak" unless you just hate melee classes and consider them "weak". Which is a whole nother conversation and thread. A solid, middle-of-the-road skirmisher class. I never claimed monks were weak. I said their strength wasn't frontline combat. I said they were skirmishers and opportunists, and were ideal for killing mages. |
| solbergb04-08-05, 03:31 PM | Regarding the fighter feats...yes you have the extra feats, but so does the monk. We have to ignore those when comparing class abilities. Your point about the TWF feats not being needed is valid, but your fighter won't be as good at tripping without the extra attacks. And of course a successful trip evens out the fighter attack advantage. But I grant that most nonhuman CR20 enemies are untrippable. Sheer number of attacks matters when the 1d20 is larger than any bonus you're likely to get. The title of this thread is "are monks underpowered". Your point about a fighter doing a bit more damage on higher AC targets is valid. My point about the monk doing more on lower AC targets is valid. You say "there are lots of high AC targets." I say "there are ALSO lots of low AC targets". It is a wash...which means the monk is adequate at melee combat. By your reasoning most of the melee classes suck at melee combat. I perhaps think you are setting the bar too high, because in fact all of the melee classes get the job done, with their class abilities as long as they bothered to have some strength and invested in items that help them do more damage. I think though we're pretty close to agreeing and understanding each other's point of view. I don't consider the monk underpowered. I think you might..but you also consider the other melee classes underpowered. Can we agree that the monk is sufficiently powerful compared to the other fighter types to fill the "warrior" role? Keeping in mind that each fighter type does the role differently? |
| Tony Vargas04-08-05, 03:46 PM | Can we agree that the monk is sufficiently powerful compared to the other fighter types to fill the "warrior" role? Keeping in mind that each fighter type does the role differently? Mechanically, the Monk really can't fill the 'warrior' role as well as a fighter, barb, or palladin - not without some truely extraordinary stats (18's in STR, DEX, CON, & WIS at 1st level, and going up from there, for instance). It's very close to the Ranger, though (and, like the ranger, is a good scout). Considering the Monk's other abilities - movement, good saves, skills, etc - that close-second to the warrior types in combat ability is a ringing endorsement. The Monk's effectiveness also varies with the campaign, more so than some other classes. In a very low-sat (25pt build, 3d6 straight rolls, etc) game, the Monk will suffer, it won't be able to come up with the AC, hps, and AB/damage to be a competative combatant. In a very high-stat game, the reverse is true, and the monk will be super-effective. In a very low-magic/low-wealth/lost-equipment game, the Monk will outperform, since he's decidely equipment-independent, conversely, in an extremely high-magic game, where stat boosters, inherent bonuses, and exotic monk items are readily available, the monk will /also/ have the potential to dominate. ;) |
| OamuTheMonk04-08-05, 06:53 PM | It seems odd to me that this thread started as a discussion of the Pros and Cons of playing as a monk, and it has somehow degenerated into a my-dad-can-beat-up-your-dad style of argument pitting monks of various levels against fighters of same level (in a duel, no doubt behind the lunchroom). It's ludicrous and inane. Why not pit them against each other in a hot dog eating contest, or water balloon fight? In some kind of canned fight (a steel cage match, perhaps, or behind said lunchroom), a fighter, bedecked in his finest +5 fullplate, and wielding his +5 vorpal greatclub will have a distinct and potent advantage over a monk of similar level. That said, Monks have skills beyond fighting. Maybe not as many fully exploited skills as a rogue, but a crap-ton more than the fighter. If the campaign you play in is simply one canned duel after another, the fighter is your best option. However, if your DM has taken the time to craft a variety of situations, settings, traps, puzzles, and terrain for the PCs to interact with; or problems to solve that cannot be stabbed away, your decision will be more difficult. As to the duel, I'll be waiting on that side of the river--the water is a little rough, and cold, but as tough as fighters are, they should have no trouble navigating it. As to the hot dog eating contest, I think the Barbarian would win. The water balloon fight goes to the Rogue. |
| solbergb04-08-05, 08:14 PM | Nah....we hijacked the thread not to talk about duels but to make a point about whether or not monks can count "melee damage" as something they do. If they can not...they are in fact not very useful, since what are they supposed to do in combat? Mobility only matters if you affect the battlefield, and they don't have spells. I think we demonstrated the facts of the situation, people can judge for themselves whether they are "underpowered" or "normal" for a melee character with respect to straight damage in a full attack sitatuation. It is a whole other debate on who is more likely to GET those full attacks. Opinions vary, but mostly it depends on whether the monk can use his mobility to get AOO's and to place himself next to foes that can't counterattack meaningfully so he has the luxury to full attack, vs whether the fighter can use his (at most levels) higher AC and HP to just stand next to the bad guys and pound away and thus get more full attacks... And then which situation comes up more, granting that if you can NOT get full attacks, the fighter has a distinct advantage, because he has full BAB (which means with a 2h weapon his damage potential is higher, from power attack and a higher top-level attack roll) I think what makes the discussion hard is that people who see effective monks played see them have a significant impact on the battlefield, either by controlling it with tactical maneuvers/pressuring casters or by raw damage on key targets. Those who have only seen monks who can't punch their way out of a paper bag, those who play exactly as if they were barbarians or for whatever reason monk who were unable to take advantage of their class abilities (campaign reasons, player inexperience, houserules, lots of possibilities)...they find it incredible that people think monks can fight. There seems to be little middle ground. Most will grant that circumstances can make a paladin or ranger stronger than a fighter or barb in some fights. But the monk advantages aren't as obvious as "if it is evil or my mount can make a contribution I'm better" or "if it is my favored enemy and I get a lot of attacks I'm better". They have advantages, but you have to work a bit to get them to surface, and you must not compromise on offense...or that 3/4 BAB will in fact hurt you. A fullbab fighter can afford to slack a bit in some department regarding attack rolls, a 3/4 bab fighter really can't. You must be strong, you must get bonuses to hit and you must take advantage of every circumstance bonus that lets you either get more attacks or plusses to hit (flanking, etc). You need to do more to make a monk hit hard. But you have to do a lot LESS defensively to keep him active than most other classes. This is overlooked sometimes, and every description in this thread and others of ineffective monks describes low strength characters who spent their cash on armor class and their feats on crap like dodge/mobility. |
| harmyn04-08-05, 08:26 PM | .....The water balloon fight goes to the Rogue. Got to disagree with you man. Ranger or Archer-Styled Fighter wins this one hands down. Especially the ranger if he gets to pick type of target (favored enemy anyone?) And your right about the canned fight issue. My big post was in response to the AC issue and all the Monks are just as good cause they can hit 1 or 2 more times. Monks are more than combat monsters. My issue with the Monks (flaws I percieve) - ### - Some of their big badness comes from Melee combat, and while a high move gives mobility, it does nothing to promote flurry of blows if they don't hang around. ### - With the exception of speed (and to paraphrase an Anne Oakley Song) Anything a monk can do another class can do better. This makes them definite second string characters in the party, and few people like that. ### - They require more good attributes than any other class to be really effective at what all they are supposed to do. ### - Their legendary status is Mage-Killer, but at lower levels the wizard can pummel them with direct effect spells - Magic Missile and Fire Shield. At higher levels a wizard with many enemies worth his salt will have at least 1 wand of ice storms on hand. Then its the SR or nothing (50% chance is better than zero though). And with the Mage-Killer feat they are trying to give this to the Fighter (if anyone would let that feat into their game). Having said that, I have seen monk characters I like and known a some people to really enjoy them. But I do feel they are subpar compared to the others. Class based RPG's are geared towards archtypes, but the monk doesn't quite hit it right in my opinion. Random thought for the day. |
| Thorak04-08-05, 09:09 PM | It seems odd to me that this thread started as a discussion of the Pros and Cons of playing as a monk, and it has somehow degenerated into a my-dad-can-beat-up-your-dad style of argument pitting monks of various levels against fighters of same level (in a duel, no doubt behind the lunchroom). It's ludicrous and inane. Why not pit them against each other in a hot dog eating contest, or water balloon fight? Neither I nor solbergb were talking about duels. We were doing statistical comparisons of the two classes against a common enemy. In a best-case-scenario for the monk, I might add, since we're comparing full attacks, which is the monk's strength, to their much weaker single attack actions, due to having a lower BAB; flurry in a full attack makes up a bit for that in sheer number of attacks, but is useless when you're only getting one attack. Regarding the fighter feats...yes you have the extra feats, but so does the monk. We have to ignore those when comparing class abilities. So your point was that the Fighter can match most of the monk combat abilities, and still have 4 feats to play with on top of what a monk can do? Doesn't that seem like the monk's getting less? Especially since most of the other abilities are essentially trying to offset their existing penalties? (AC bonuses for no armor, Flurry for lower BAB, etc...) Sure, the monk has some nifty abilities like Abundant Step, but I'm talking combat abilities. The Fighter's are required to be, since all Fighter bonus feats are related to fighting. Again, I'm not saying monks are bad, just that toe-to-toe fighting isn't their forte. Your point about a fighter doing a bit more damage on higher AC targets is valid. My point about the monk doing more on lower AC targets is valid. You say "there are lots of high AC targets." I say "there are ALSO lots of low AC targets". It is a wash...which means the monk is adequate at melee combat. It would be a wash, except that this is on a full attack in melee. In ranged combat, or single Attack actions, the Fighter comes out as a clear winner. And to get into a full attack, you pretty much have to put yourself into a position where you'll get hit. Since you can't move more than 5' at the start of your turn to get into range, that means the other guy, on his turn between when you moved that close and your next one where you'll full attack, either is far enough way that he Charges or something, or he can get a full attack on you. In which case, I remind you that even given a 32-point buy, your AC and HP don't match up with the Fighter, in either aspect, and that's assuming you focus on one or the other, meaning the one you don't is even worse. |
| Willie the Duck04-08-05, 10:22 PM | Does improved natural attack apply to a monk? If it does then the monk isn't so bad in dealing damage. Though still worse than the fighter-barbarian. Improved natural attack increases youo damage by an average of no more than two (excluding large sized monks), making it a poor man's weapon specialization. |
| HypnoticMonk04-09-05, 02:15 AM | When people compare the fighter and the monk class and talk about them going toe-to-toe in combat, I usually see a hole or two on the pro-fighter's side's argument. If you say " Well, my monk will disarm your fighter", they say ' Well, my fighter has locking gauntlets so you can't do that" If you then say " Well, then I will use hit and run tactics on you." the reply I get most of the time is "I will just have to use a crossbow( or some such missile weapon)" ummm.. what happened to the locking gauntlet? either you have your main weapon locked into place.. for you can drop it or seathe it to use your missile weapon.. not both and since monks have proficiency with the sai, they do have a +8 to disarm before adding any modifiers to the roll,.( and if you have ranged Disarm you can do so at a distance) All it takes is one good roll and the fighter has lost his weapon. Of course, when I talk about hit and run tactics, sometimes I hear "well i will get on my horse" . Do so and my reply depends on the fighting locale. I we in a forest, I can stop and turn on a dime a lot better than the horse can. If we are in a wide open plain, I can use my Use ropes skill to tangle his legs up, I can throw flour into his eyes, pepper into his nose, or use a tanglefoot bag on his feet. ( if you can grab up stuff from the PHB [like a horse]and use it , so can I) Ever see a fight between a heavy puncher who moves slow and a boxer who uses mostly jabs and moves a lot quicker than his opponent? I will usually put my money on the faster guy who can keep out of the reach of the slower one. Will he win every bout? Nope ,because the slower one always has a "puncher's chance" especially the more experience he has. But speed in a fight like this would seem to be an important factor. |
| Lina_Inverse04-09-05, 02:28 AM | When people compare the fighter and the monk class and talk about them going toe-to-toe in combat, I usually see a hole or two on the pro-fighter's side's argument. If you say " Well, my monk will disarm your fighter", they say ' Well, my fighter has locking gauntlets so you can't do that" If you then say " Well, then I will use hit and run tactics on you." the reply I get most of the time is "I will just have to use a crossbow( or some such missile weapon)" ummm.. what happened to the locking gauntlet? either you have your main weapon locked into place.. for you can drop it or seathe it to use your missile weapon.. not both and since monks have proficiency with the sai, they do have a +8 to disarm before adding any modifiers to the roll,.( and if you have ranged Disarm you can do so at a distance) All it takes is one good roll and the fighter has lost his weapon. Of course, when I talk about hit and run tactics, sometimes I hear "well i will get on my horse" . Do so and my reply depends on the fighting locale. I we in a forest, I can stop and turn on a dime a lot better than the horse can. If we are in a wide open plain, I can use my Use ropes skill to tangle his legs up, I can throw flour into his eyes, pepper into his nose, or use a tanglefoot bag on his feet. ( if you can grab up stuff from the PHB [like a horse]and use it , so can I) Ever see a fight between a heavy puncher who moves slow and a boxer who uses mostly jabs and moves a lot quicker than his opponent? I will usually put my money on the faster guy who can keep out of the reach of the slower one. Will he win every bout? Nope ,because the slower one always has a "puncher's chance" especially the more experience he has. But speed in a fight like this would seem to be an important factor. first off,pcs dueling doesnt matter for balence.the game isnt built for player vs. player. secondly,the sai is a small weapon,-8 to disarm a great sword.HINT HINT. thirdly.if a monk is running back and forth,the fighter can hit him once per round as well.at +5AB,with higher AC,and higher hp.mobility only helps if you have ranged attacks,mobility/speed wont help in melee. |
| harmyn04-09-05, 08:32 AM | .....Ever see a fight between a heavy puncher who moves slow and a boxer who uses mostly jabs and moves a lot quicker than his opponent? I will usually put my money on the faster guy who can keep out of the reach of the slower one. Will he win every bout? Nope ,because the slower one always has a "puncher's chance" especially the more experience he has. But speed in a fight like this would seem to be an important factor. Just don't ever let George Foreman hear you say that. He was never a very fast boxer even at the height of his career. But he didn't have to be. One solid punch would frequently do the trick. --------- Classes aren't set up in a purely duel fashion. I mean lets see who has the best ranged attack for a combat encounter. Distance 250 feet - Master Archer Fighter or Archer Ranger vs. Wizard or Sorcerer with ranged combat spells. Winner 9 times out of 10 - The Wizard. My 20th level wizard vs. your 20th level Monk. Who wins? My wizard unless he's being run by a total moron. We're about to start fighting in a surprise situation. Quick Rogue vs. Fighter, Rogue has a good chance of winning. Especially if he is focused on Bluff and Improved Feint as a back-up combo. Its just that claiming the Monk is the equal to a fighter in the one situation where the Fighter class is designed to excel (Combat - Primarily melee by most accounts) is incorrect. Now if we both need to sneak into the arena after scaling a 15 foot wall and leaping over the 2nd story balcony rail to get to the match sight. Well then, the Monk's going to win 19 times out of 20 (there could always be that one freaky strange fighter build we never think of). If the fighter is wielding a 2-handed weapon, a place where they excel in combat, it doesn't really matter that the monk gets an extra attack. The odds are very good that the fighter has more than enough modifiers to his attack role to make even his third attack equal the monk's first. The extra attack of a monk is less than sufficient in the damage throwing dept to make up for it. Just the way it tends to be. |
| Nephlite04-09-05, 11:44 AM | Neither I nor solbergb were talking about duels. We were doing statistical comparisons of the two classes against a common enemy. In a best-case-scenario for the monk, I might add, since we're comparing full attacks, which is the monk's strength, to their much weaker single attack actions, due to having a lower BAB; flurry in a full attack makes up a bit for that in sheer number of attacks, but is useless when you're only getting one attack. So your point was that the Fighter can match most of the monk combat abilities, and still have 4 feats to play with on top of what a monk can do? Doesn't that seem like the monk's getting less? Especially since most of the other abilities are essentially trying to offset their existing penalties? (AC bonuses for no armor, Flurry for lower BAB, etc...) Sure, the monk has some nifty abilities like Abundant Step, but I'm talking combat abilities. The Fighter's are required to be, since all Fighter bonus feats are related to fighting. Again, I'm not saying monks are bad, just that toe-to-toe fighting isn't their forte. It would be a wash, except that this is on a full attack in melee. In ranged combat, or single Attack actions, the Fighter comes out as a clear winner. And to get into a full attack, you pretty much have to put yourself into a position where you'll get hit. Since you can't move more than 5' at the start of your turn to get into range, that means the other guy, on his turn between when you moved that close and your next one where you'll full attack, either is far enough way that he Charges or something, or he can get a full attack on you. In which case, I remind you that even given a 32-point buy, your AC and HP don't match up with the Fighter, in either aspect, and that's assuming you focus on one or the other, meaning the one you don't is even worse. Deflect arrows blocks the first arrow that would hit the monk so that gives a 50% chance(in total) to hit in a full attack action. |
| Pinky's brain04-09-05, 12:10 PM | There's also a decent argument that in a game without PrCs or non-Core rules, Monk 1&2 are worth considering after you already have BBN2/Ftr2 & Rgr2 - compared to the third level of any of those classes, the first level of Monk is acceptable, provided you can take the BAB hit.I love monk2/barb2 (especially if the DM allows fractional BAB/saves, in which case you can still take 2 levels in some other 3/4 BAB class without loosing extra BAB). But it is a bit cheezy. Monk1/2 is almost as good as fighter1/2 ... the problem is that alignment restriction. Also a class being good for dipping doesnt really say much about it being a good class over all. |
| FangsofChaos04-09-05, 12:18 PM | Good monks: Vow of poverty +4 AC right off the bat. And a Vow of Poverty isn't too hard to keep up with a monk. |
| Insane Pixie04-09-05, 12:20 PM | I love monk2/barb2 (especially if the DM allows fractional BAB/saves, in which case you can still take 2 levels in some other 3/4 BAB class without loosing extra BAB). But it is a bit cheezy. Monk1/2 is almost as good as fighter1/2 ... the problem is that alignment restriction. Also a class being good for dipping doesnt really say much about it being a good class over all. How did you pull that off? Monk 2 (Any lawful)/Barbarian 2 (Any nonlawful) Did you lose Monk and decide to become a Barbarian..? |
| Pinky's brain04-09-05, 12:28 PM | As I said it is cheezy, but you dont loose any monk abilities by becoming unlawfull ... BTW a warforged monk is by far the best monk, cheap enhancement on unarmed strikes through the battlefist (which also makes him hit as one size category larger, combine with monk's belt for even more fun) and he can have armor enhancements put on his body. |
| Thorak04-09-05, 12:30 PM | First, a general note, since it seems some people are confused about a term I'm using; "Toe to toe" fighting isn't a duel. It's standing there trading blows, getting a full attack and letting the enemy full attack in turn. Standing "toe to toe" with them, as it were. Nobody is discussing a monk/fighter duel except you guys who keep saying it's a bad comparison. It is. Which is why nobody's talking about one. Hypnotic Monk; The problem with disarm is twofold; 1> Opposed attack roll. The Fighter's got a +5 over anything the Monk could possibly have, just on BAB. 2> Weapon Size. The Fighter's probably wielding a two-handed weapon. The monk, if they're using a sai, is using a Light weapon. Sure, the Sai has a +4 to Disarm, but it's a Light weapon, meaning it innately gets a -4. It's bonus makes it as good at disarming as, say, a longsword. And the greatsword's got a +4, for being two-handed. So, if we're talking about a sai, the Fighter's got a +9 to the opposed disarm roll. If he doesn't have Improved Disarm, he still has a +5. And if the monk took Improved Disarm at 6th level, then they don't have Improved Trip. And for my money, Improved Trip is better, since a melee touch attack is much easier to hit with, and you can match the other classes in Strength. Well, they could have Improved Trip, but that requires a 13 Int, which makes 5 abilities the monk needs to invest in. Deflect arrows blocks the first arrow that would hit the monk so that gives a 50% chance(in total) to hit in a full attack action. And with Rapid Shot, there's 5 arrows. You can block the first one. But duel-type comparisons are useless. |
| Kaiosama21404-09-05, 12:54 PM | one thing I've always seen the monk excel in is how well it meshes with other classes, specificly cleric. case in point...I had a lvl 2 monk/ lvl7 cleric with the Vow of Poverty feat....oh dear lord.... |
| Pinky's brain04-09-05, 01:31 PM | Meh, Id rather be a level 9 cleric with a monk's belt. |
| DarkThoughts2404-09-05, 02:31 PM | first off,pcs dueling doesnt matter for balence.the game isnt built for player vs. player. secondly,the sai is a small weapon,-8 to disarm a great sword.HINT HINT. thirdly.if a monk is running back and forth,the fighter can hit him once per round as well.at +5AB,with higher AC,and higher hp.mobility only helps if you have ranged attacks,mobility/speed wont help in melee. 1) not with tumble. he gets no extra attacks of opportunity. with a strong dex that a monk the dc is a cakewalk to make and the fighter would have no AoA to hit with 2)so with a sai, a monk has the same chance as a fighter would have agaisnt someoen disarming him with a LARGE weapon. not helping your case there if the sai is a weapon enchanted for disarming, yeah its out of the poor fighters hand. 3)unless he's built on a finesse build i doubt he has a higher ac than the monk 4)if the fighter is a grapple monkey, monk uses escape artist class skills are nice like that. 5)between barcers of blinding stike or enchanted monks weapons, they can get the extra attack a fighter's speed weapon can get. 6)it costs mroe for a monks extra ac boosts, but they have a decent inate SR, the ability to count as adamnatite weapons and magic, dimension door, immunity to diseases, poisons, a death attack, evasion, boost to mind control, and toher stuff a swordjockey will want to spend money on. 7)crossbow is actually on the monks list of weapons. dont get why not shortbow instead but a monk also can use the mobility it has to appear before you and pummel you to pelt you with heavy xbow bolts before he gets going which i find funny. on wizards yeah the sr is breachable, but a monk still has decent enoguh saves so save or dies arent so exceptional killers, improved evasion make blaster mages groan, mind control is less an option, and given the movement rate and tumbling they ARE getting to your caster from however far away in a VERY few rounds. they arent weak. |
| Pinky's brain04-09-05, 02:58 PM | Tumble doesnt help against readied actions. |
| Thorak04-09-05, 05:42 PM | 2)so with a sai, a monk has the same chance as a fighter would have agaisnt someoen disarming him with a LARGE weapon. not helping your case there if the sai is a weapon enchanted for disarming, yeah its out of the poor fighters hand. You're forgetting the -4 a Sai gets for being Light. It effectively gives you a +0 to Disarm. The +4 bonus only offsets the penalty it already has. 3)unless he's built on a finesse build i doubt he has a higher ac than the monk Are you serious? Look back in the thread, where I presented a 13 Dex Fighter with a 43 AC. And the monk, spending a crapload more, and starting with a 16 Dex and 18 Wis, and boosting Wis by 4 points with the level bonuses, only topped out at 47. 4 points more AC. For, IIRC, 77k gold extra in magical items, and focusing on Dex and Wis to such an extent that he can't afford more than an 11 Str and Con. Assuming a 32-point buy, high-power campaign. 4)if the fighter is a grapple monkey, monk uses escape artist class skills are nice like that. So your Escape Artist is, at level 20, 23 ranks, plus Dex. The Fighter has a 20 BAB, plus Str. Escape Artist probably is your best bet, but it's hardly going to be a given, since most monk's don't uber-focus on Dex, while lots of Fighters uber-focus on Strength. 5)between barcers of blinding stike or enchanted monks weapons, they can get the extra attack a fighter's speed weapon can get. I have already shown that A> the lower BAB means that monks only tend to hit about as often as Fighters, despite extra attacks, and B> they do less damage when they do hit. 6)it costs mroe for a monks extra ac boosts, but they have a decent inate SR, the ability to count as adamnatite weapons and magic, dimension door, immunity to diseases, poisons, a death attack, evasion, boost to mind control, and toher stuff a swordjockey will want to spend money on. And the fighter has a crapload of feats, the ability to buy an adamantite magical weapon and thus not waste class abilities on it, and 77k worth of extra money due to his cheaper protection gear. 7)crossbow is actually on the monks list of weapons. dont get why not shortbow instead but a monk also can use the mobility it has to appear before you and pummel you to pelt you with heavy xbow bolts before he gets going which i find funny. But hardly all that useful, with a crappy BAB, and having to sacrifice a precious feat for Rapid Reload to make the crossbow really useful. Not that I'm saying monks aren't good, but a lot of the reasons here have either been already dealt with and shown to be wrong, or are ignoring certain critical points. |
| Loophole Hider04-10-05, 06:19 AM | Double post - Sorry |
| Loophole Hider04-10-05, 06:41 AM | I've found that Dex is slightly more important than Wis, sure you lose it if you are flat footed but there are feats that mean only you don't lose your dex bonus when flat footed etc, and who hs the highest initiative anyway - probably the monk. Weapon finess means combat is dex not Str, Ranged is Dex already. And most of these post are forgetting that monks can use all sorts of weapons - for example Daggers (which allows the PrC of the Invisible Blade to be taken), which can be magical. And dont tell me that a Holy Repeating Crossbow doesn't hurt (Monk has High Dex!). Couple of buff spells, maby a staff of bulls strength or cats grace. There are many Monk PrC specilisting in different things (Sacred Fist, Tattoed Monk) that allow you to be a monk after taking them. Feat like Touch of golden ice and many exalted feats cause damaget to evil characters - which may sound specalised, but works wonders. Many evil feats also work. And thnk of a monk that has 2 weapon fighing - simultanious with furry of blows (especially if you get perfect 2 weapon fighting). A monk AC IS very high - and since they dont buy armour (their AC bonus is better than armour if they pump Wis and Dex) they can afford more thing like Belt of Magnificance, Ability increases, AC bunuses and Magic weapons. On top of that they are virtually immune to all area attacks (half or no damage - normally non due to high saves), immune to that poison attack from some creatures, heal their own wounds, can't be caught, almost immune to AoO due to tumble. If you want a nice little combo - from core - go for either Druid 5 / Monk X, or Monk X / Rouge X (becoming non-lawful doesn't stop ablities) for sneak attack damage - think about it - a natural weapon focused shapechanged - monk damages apply to ANY creature thats a monk - and you can get bigger sizes, or a monk the tumbles behind you, and with any other character gets a sneak attack with each and every furry of blows attack. Monk vs Barbarian Barbarian is like the monk, but stronger and not as fast, monk has better saves, no rage. Barbarian is the strongest thing around, but the monk is the hardest to hit, faster and has better saves. Monk vs Bard Cant really compare - small time magic user that works well with the monk. Monk vs Cleric - Magic using fighter - Monk saves vs most spells (+SR of course) monk is faster, better saves, same BAB, give the monk a wand of sure light wounds and he/she is a very fast cleric. Monk Vs Druid - magic user who shapechanges (with animal companion), monk has better saves, faster (normally), druid can shapechange and cast spell, both are very different. Monk vs Fighter - Fighter will have slightly less cash after buying armour, also, while he is more likly to hit the oppontent, also more likly to be hit. Can't tumble like monk or heal self - can be sundered or disarmed. Monk vs Rogue - quite simmilar - Monk won't be caught flat footed normally, Rogue can disarm traps, monk saves vs traps (as canthe rogue), Monk can fight more efficiently in combat! Monk vs Wizard and Sourcerer - tumble, stunning fist, drop. Magic users have a hard time hurting the monk, and cant get away except by flying or teleporting somehow! Overall the monk is faster, hard to hit, hard to catch, has more money due to no armour, and is able to survive that 12d6 dragons breath that the tank failed his reflex against. Oh, and did I mention max saves...? If anything, its overpowered when min/maxed... |
| Malfean04-10-05, 09:51 AM | Improved natural attack increases youo damage by an average of no more than two (excluding large sized monks), making it a poor man's weapon specialization. Are you sure about that? Improved natural attack changes your damage as if you when one size category larger. Perhaps i am missing something but in page 28 DM's Guide says that a weapon that deals 2d10 damage in medium size deals 4d8 in large size. This and the fact that large sized monks end up dealing 4d8 makes me think that if you are medium sized and you buy improved natural attack you will deal 4d8. Now 4d8 = average 4*4,5=18 while 2d10=2*5,5=11 18-11=7 it's far better than greater weapon specialitation. So i think it makes a difference... |
| harmyn04-10-05, 09:55 AM | I've found that Dex is slightly more important than Wis, sure you lose it if you are flat footed but there are feats that mean only you don't lose your dex bonus when flat footed etc, and who hs the highest initiative anyway - probably the monk. Weapon finess means combat is dex not Str, Ranged is Dex already. Or maybe the Rogue who wants to catch people flat-footed the first round so they can sneak attack? I'm thinking since Dex is their big important attribute, they might well be fast too. Unless you took Improved Initiative and you need Weapon Finesse (feats 1 & 2) And most of these post are forgetting that monks can use all sorts of weapons - for example Daggers (which allows the PrC of the Invisible Blade to be taken), which can be magical. And dont tell me that a Holy Repeating Crossbow doesn't hurt (Monk has High Dex!). Couple of buff spells, maby a staff of bulls strength or cats grace. There are many Monk PrC specilisting in different things (Sacred Fist, Tattoed Monk) that allow you to be a monk after taking them. For Monk to get the higher AC than the fighter (per the example above) the Monk had to spend 77,000gp more than the fighter. So on top of that extra cash you give the monk you are going to throw on another 18,500gp for the ranged weapon, which requires an exotic weapon feat (feat 3) Feat like Touch of golden ice and many exalted feats cause damaget to evil characters - which may sound specalised, but works wonders. Many evil feats also work. And thnk of a monk that has 2 weapon fighing - simultanious with furry of blows (especially if you get perfect 2 weapon fighting). A monk AC IS very high - and since they dont buy armour (their AC bonus is better than armour if they pump Wis and Dex) they can afford more thing like Belt of Magnificance, Ability increases, AC bunuses and Magic weapons. Touch of Golden Ice is a good feat and useful if your playing good characters, more enemies will most likely be evil. 2-wpn fighting is also useful (feats 4 & 5 / & 6 if Perfect 2-Wpn fighting is a feat I'm not familiar with). And again, the Monk had to spend much more to get the better AC. For your monk to get even more stuff than everyone else, he must get most of the treasure from adventures. Otherwise the fighter I made above with the same cash will buy enough extra gear to completely off your Monk with the addition of more magic weapons. On top of that they are virtually immune to all area attacks (half or no damage - normally non due to high saves), immune to that poison attack from some creatures, heal their own wounds, can't be caught, almost immune to AoO due to tumble. Great saves, no arguement. Their healing is limited but nice. Don't get the Can't be caught. Escaped Artist is nice, but not a guarantee. If you want a nice little combo - from core - go for either Druid 5 / Monk X, or Monk X / Rouge X (becoming non-lawful doesn't stop ablities) for sneak attack damage - think about it - a natural weapon focused shapechanged - monk damages apply to ANY creature thats a monk - and you can get bigger sizes, or a monk the tumbles behind you, and with any other character gets a sneak attack with each and every furry of blows attack..... Rogues can be lawful. But once you step out of Monk your done with it normally. Why not reverse it and start as a Rogue who becomes a Monk? I'm guessing its becaue you don't want any more levels. The class comparison I don't get. I'm guessing you think the Monk is the best class in the game. Got to disagree with you. I've seen people have fun with monks, but they are not the best or most overpowering class by far. They tend to be support characters or scouts and 2nd tier fighters in hand to hand combat. (edit was to correct the feat count) |
| Loophole Hider04-10-05, 10:46 AM | Perfect 2 weapon fighting allows you to use all of the attack that you normally get in primarry hand in second hand as well so in this case 10. It is a real feat - but it is epic, lvl 21 required to get it. (I think another thread actually managed to make a 20 lvl monk with 32 attack!) Can't be Caught reffers to speed of movement. At lvl 20 the move as fast as a flying dragon. (assuming base speed 30). I don't assume monk are the best, but as was said in the first post - the problem with threads like this is the fact that they point out only whats worse or better, i was trying to give a rough comparision. I was probually bias, although not meaning to be, because i like monks. If you ignore the weapons part - Vow of poverty is good. Book of Exalted deeds. Only a human can take it first level (require sacred vow), and means only allowed to carry non magical weapons (non masterwork also), but any weapon you hold is a +5, you get +8, +6, +4 and +2 to attributes, faster healing, and about +14 AC (small bit natural, most deflection) as well as a load of other things, including about 10 Exalted feat for free - touch of golden ice, and all that stuff. If you ignore rogue and take a level of scout you get skirmish+1d6, (comlete adventurer), skirmish means (for those who don't have it) that any time you move more than 10 feet in a round you get the extra damage untill your next turn. lvl 3 = Skirmish +2d6 +1AC. However, monks are one of the hardest to kill classes, i suppose they are the opposite of the bard, instead of Spell casting, skills and music support they are combat support, and lookout (high wis + spot and hearing). however, besides all this, the problem is that everyone is combat obsessed. Most games (in my opinion) should be some problem solving, some RPing and some fighting, with fighting not being more than 50%. |
| Dire Celestial Bonobo04-10-05, 03:17 PM | Monk vs Cleric - Magic using fighter - Monk saves vs most spells (+SR of course) monk is faster, better saves, same BAB, give the monk a wand of sure light wounds and he/she is a very fast cleric. For a Monk to have a 50% chance of activating that CLW wand, he'll need 10 ranks in UMD. Getting 10 cross-class ranks takes until 17th level, at which point the party will be relying on the Cleric to be casting Heal, Miracle, and True Resurrection, rather than a mere Cure Light Wounds. Calling a Monk "a very fast Cleric" is laughable. Don't overstate the abilities of Monks; you just make them look bad. |
| Loophole Hider04-10-05, 03:40 PM | kk, i was wrong. |
| Essence04-10-05, 04:53 PM | (Excerpt from this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=403025) misplaced thread on the optimization board.) Quote=me. Monks are weak. Nothing they do cannot be done better by another class. Even their supposed specialities are weaker than other classes' specialities:Getting There, Being Sneaky, Harrying Enemies, and Resisting Effects is straight crap compared to Getting There, Being Sneaky, Killing Enemies, Dealing with Traps, Dealing with Magical Items, and Being the Party Face. It sucks compared to Killing Enemies, Resisting Effects, Healing Damage, and Punishing Evil Wherever It Hides. It blows compared to Being Sneaky, Killing Enemies, Controlling Pets, Surviving the Wilderness, and Mastering Ranged Combat. It sucks compared to the simple specialty of Arcane Spellcasting, but then, most stuff does, so that's forgivable. :\ Heck, let's go ability-by-ability through the monk class. Level one: Bonus feat -- Improved Grapple is a strong option for the monk for the first dozen levels or so on the outer end. After that, a real tank's superior Strength and higher BAB start to make the monk's grappling skillz weak like a pirate. Stunning fist is almost unique in that it allows you to simultaneously deliver a decent packet of damage and incapictate a foe. Unfortunately, the requirement of both connecting with a melee attack (when you don't have a high BAB) *and* allowing the enemy a save make it significantly less likely to do it's job than most other incapacitating effects, so you have to regard it as a bonus for successfully hitting rather than an effect that you can rely on. Flurry of Blows -- doing the math on this (it's been done so many times that I won't repeat it here), Flurry of Blows with a middle BAB is about equal to regular attacks at a high BAB if your foe's AC is equal to the monk's total attack bonus +10. As the foe's relative AC goes up, Flurry of Blows' power goes down, and vice versa. All told, this ability+mid BAB is a wash with a normal high BAB. But note that the math with Flurry of Blows is for average total hits per round -- if you're Flurrying, your chance of hitting specifically with the Stunning Fist attack is lower than it is with just your middling BAB. So, already, you have two class features that are decidedly non-synergistic. Unarmed Strike -- assuming your DM allows your monk to use an Amulet of Natural Weapons rather than an Amulet of Mighty Fists (which is rediculously overpriced), the monk's unarmed strike is about on par with a real warrior's weapon. The monk has ever-increasing damage dice, but his horrible crit range makes those dice a necessity, because, on average (again, if you search for the math, you'll find it), a 1d8 dmg, 18-20 crit range weapon is superior to the monk's fists until 7th level at no damage bonus; until 11th level at a damage bonus of +6 (easy to attain); until 15th level at a damage bonus of +22 (still pretty simple in this level range); until 19th level at a damage bonus of +43 (getting challenging, but still within believable range for a specialized build); and at 20th and beyond at a damage bonus of +64 (probably requires some sort of trick to get to -- but then, if you're 20th level and you don't have a trick like that, you're not going to survive Epic for very long). Wis to AC -- in the long run, this ends up being almost exactly equal to armor proficiency if you run with a standard point buy. In the short term, it's worse AC but it's free, and in the long term, it's more expensive, but it's better AC. So, almost all of your class features are "this makes you like any other tank, but different." You get 2 HP and 1 BAB less, but you get 2 SP and 2 more good saves to make up for it. So far, so good. 2nd level: Bonus Feat -- Combat Reflexes or Deflect Arrows. One is actually useful. Deflect Arrows is, again, non-synergistic, this time with your theoretically high AC. Evasion -- this is exactly as cool for you as it is for a Rogue, until you get Spell Resistance. Unfortunately, this ability and SR don't stack, so the value of Evasion is reduced by the percentage of spells that your SR blocks. The second in a long list of non-synergizing abilities. 3rd level: Still Mind. This ability is so weak, you get more from a totally sub-par feat (Iron Will) than you do from the entire third level of Monk class features. And it doesn’t synergize with Diamond Soul. Oh, wait, you get +10 land speed. That's sweet. At this point, you can outrun anybody but a Barbarian, which is great stuff. 4th level: Ki Strike (magic) -- this ability is rendered moot by the simple fact that you have to have an Amulet of Natural Weapons to be able to keep up with the other warriors in your party. Slow Fall -- this ability (and this is the only time I will address it) is distinctly inferior to the ability to cast a 1st level spell. Seriously, it's a straight up waste of neuron firings. It should read: "Monks can cast Feather Fall upon themselves at will." Improved Unarmed Damage -- ooh, now you get Longsword damage, but without the crit range. Go you. 5th level: Purity of Body -- this is a meaningless immunity to a rare attack form that is totally non-synergistic with your high Fort save. +1 AC -- you get to keep up with the warrior's +1 enhancement bonus to AC. Go you. I'm not mentioning these continuing increases as they only serve to compensate (incompletely) for a monk's lack of ability to get a normal enhancement bonus to his AC. 6th level: Bonus feat -- Improved Disarm or Improved Trip. These feats are actually useful. In either case, the middle BAB+feat is eventually overpowered by a simple high BAB, but these feats will keep the monk at least ABLE to do something with his attack actions into the late teens. +10 land speed -- this is useful again, because now you are straight-up the fastest of the classes. Past this increase, this ability doesn't really meaningfully change your usefulness relative to the other classes, so it's not worth mentioning past here. 7th level: Wholeness of Body -- congrats! If you don't actually die because of your low HP in one fight, we'll let you keep your low HP for another fight! This ability is non-synergistic with the monk's defensive specialization: if you're not getting hit or nuked, you don't ever need it. 8th level: d10 damage -- hey, now the Rogue and the Bard might actually deal less average damage per attack than you do (assuming the Rogue doesn't get SA). 9th level: Improved Evasion -- another perk that is really cool until you get Diamond Soul, at which point it's about half as useful to you as it is to the Rogue. 10th level: Ki Strike (lawful) -- this allows you to hit some outsiders and actually hurt them, if you can hit their AC with your middle BAB. 11th level: Diamond Body -- this ability is pimp, as it not only gives you a meaningless immunity to a rare attack form that doesn't synergize at all with having a high Fort save, but it give you a meaningless immunity to a rare mishap of your own doing that doesn't synergize well with having a high Fort save! Go poison kama dude! Greater Flurry -- this ability is pimp. Straight up. 12th level: Abundant Step -- this ability doesn't synergize with having a huge land speed, or Tumble, or Escape Artist. It's basically another way to accomplish things that your natural abilities can already do. 2d6 unarmed damage -- now, we're getting into the range where the tanks have to have a +22 to damage while wielding a longsword in order to keep up with you. That's not bad. Granted, if they have a greatsword...ah, nevermind, changing rules midstream is cheating. 13th level: Diamond Soul -- this is one of the "biggies" of the monk lineup. Everone LOVES spell resistance. Unfortunately, they gave it to one of the two classes that need it least. The monk's entirely high saves, it's immunity to some Fort-affecting spells, it's Improved Evasion to all Ref-affecting spells, and it's Still Mind vs. some Will-affecting spells -- ALL of these are rendered 50% less useful by this one power. This is the height of redundancy. 14th level: This level is entirely empty. 15th level: Quivering Palm -- here is an ability that counts. You can, once per week, perform a save-or-die on someone! Wait – spellcasters have been able to do this multiple times per day since 9th level, and, once again, you have to both hit a creature AND have it fail a saving throw before it works. The only cool thing about this ability is the RP aspect of forcing someone to be your biznatch and kiss your feet while they pray you don’t will them to die. 16th level: Ki Strike (adamantine) – w00t! See 10th level. 2d8 unarmed damage – the amount of bonus damage it takes for a warrior to keep up with your damage at this level is becoming healthy. This goes a long way to keep your fighting ability up to snuff. 17th level: Timeless Body – this can be useful if you get it while you’re young, take about a 60 year break from adventuring, and then start up again. Good luck with that. Tongue of the Sun and Moon – This is, in fact, a level-appropriate ability, if you agree that Speak with Anything should be an 8th level Druid spell. Except that this comes 2 levels later, and doesn’t, in fact, allow you to speak with anything. Walls are still, unfortunately, mute to you. So it’s not, in fact, a level-appropriate ability – but it’s closer than anything else the Monk has gotten since 11th level. 18th level: This level is entirely empty. 19th level: Empty Body – again, this ability is kewl as can be, but it doesn’t synergize with Escape Artist or Abundant Step. It does, however, have it’s totally unique uses, so it’s not entirely a nonability. 20th level: Perfect Self – this is not only a non-ability, but an actively disadvantageous thing to acquire. Being an outsider for the purposes of targeting spells and abilities SUCKS, as almost all of the outsider-targetting spells and abilities are stuff like Greater Planar Binding or “XXX PrC Kicks your Ass with Ease”, not to mention that you now fall for the oldest trick in the book – Magic Circle against Law. Ouch. The DR 10/magic that comes with this is such a pathetic joke that I can’t imagine why anyone would ever subject themselves to this “crowning glory” of the Monk class. Even the 2d10 damage upgrade isn’t worth this indignity. So there you have it. The entire monk class, non-synergistic ability by non-synergistic ability, laid out for you to poke at. I’ll say it again: Monks. Are. Weak. Like Pirates. |
| Dire Celestial Bonobo04-10-05, 05:54 PM | As I showed above, the fighter and monk are hitting AC40 at the same rate at level 20 in a full attack. Almost exactly. Each hits twice. (fighter is at like 80%/55%/30%/5%=2.15 hits monk is 50%/50%/50%/25%/5% (2.25 hits) True; however, the Fighter's attacks do much more damage, especially considering how many creatures will be immune to much of the elemental damage from the weapons. Moreover, it is not being taken into account how the Monk's multiple attribute dependency affects things. A Fighter can cheerfully focus everything on Strength; the Monk has more stats that are important. Even with 32-point buy---which favours the Monk---he'll need to accept one of Con/Dex/Wis being less than 14 to keep up with a Str 18 Fighter, giving him either painfully low AC or an even larger hit point deficit. Let's assume he goes for Con 14, Dex 12, Wis 14. At level 8, modest expenses for the Fighter are full plate +1, heavy shield +1, sword +1, and Str Guantlets +2---total of ~10,000gp, or 40% of his total---for AC 23, att +15/+10 @ 1d8+9(17-20), or avg 20 vs. AC 21. The Monk will have a base AC of 14 (Dex+Wis+Class), and even Bracers +4, Wis Amulet +2, and Dex Gloves +2---80% of his money---will only get him up to AC 20. Even then---assuming he can even afford the reslotted +2 Str Guantlets---he'll attack at +12/+12/+7 @ 1d10+6(19-20), or avg. 19.5 vs. AC 21, and that's assuming he's spent feats on WF and IC. For (almost) keeping up with the Fighter's damage, the Monk has spent 2.5x as much money, 2 of 3 feats, and resigned himself to being much more fragile in combat (AC 3 lower, 10-15% fewer hit points). At level 14, the Fighter can be expected to have fullplate +4, heavy shield +3, NA +2, Ring +2, sword +4, Str Belt +4, Con Amulet +2 (second power), Res Cloack +3---total cost 106,000gp or 70% of his total---for AC 32 and att +27/+22/+17 @ 1d8+15(17-20), or avg. 51.5 vs. AC 28. The Monk can buy Bracers +6, NA +3, Ring +3, Wis Amulet +4 (second power), Dex Gloves +4, Str Belt +4, AMF +3 for 36+18+18+16x1.5+16+16+54 = 182,000gp (20% more than he has available), and will still only be AC 31 with att +21/+21/+21/+16 @ 2d6+10(19-20), or avg. 47.7 vs. AC 28. The Monk is (almost) keeping up with the Fighter in terms of damage and AC, but is lower in each, and 25% lower in hit points, all for nearly double the cost. At 18th level, the Fighter could grab mithral fullplate +5, Animated heavy shield +5, NA Amulet +5, Ring +5, Res Cloak +5, Str Belt +6, Con Amulet +4 (second power), Dex Gloves +4, Adamantine sword +5, inherent Str +2---38+49+50+50+25+36+16x1.5+16+53+55 = 395,000gp or 90% of his total---for AC 43 and att +35/+30/+25/+20 @ 1d8+24(17-20), or avg. 78.7 vs. AC 37. The Monk could buy Bracers +8, NA Amulet +4 (second power), Ring +5, Str Belt +6, Wis Amulet +4 (second power), Dex Gloves +6, Con Amulet +4 (second power), AMF +4, inherent Str +2---64+32x1.5+50+36+16x1.5+36+16x1.5+96+55=4 33,000gp of 440,000gp---for AC 39 and att +28/+28/+28/+23/+18 @ 2d8+14(19-20), or avg. 56.9 vs. AC 37. Still, even at extremely high level, the Monk is seriously behind in AC and damage, as well as having fewer hit points. At 20th level, the Fighter could grab mithral fullplate +5, Animated heavy shield +5, NA Amulet +5, Ring +5, Res Cloak +5, Str Belt +6, Con Amulet +4 (second power), Dex Gloves +4, Adamantine sword +5, inherent Str +5---38+49+50+50+25+36+16x1.5+16+53+138 = 480,000gp or 65% of his total---for AC 43 and att +39/+34/+29/+24 @ 1d8+27(17-20), or avg. 92.6 vs. AC 40. The Monk could buy Bracers +8, NA Amulet +5 (second power), Ring +5, Str Belt +6, Wis Amulet +6 (second power), Dex Gloves +6, Con Amulet +4 (second power), AMF +5, inherent Str +5---64+50x1.5+50+36+36x1.5+36+16x1.5+150+138 =627,000gp or 85% of his total---for AC 41 and att +33/+33/+33/+28/+23 @ 2d10+17(19-20), or avg. 84.7 vs. AC 40. Still, the Monk is behind in AC, damage, and hit points. While the Fighter has twice as much money left---and much more scope for improving his weapon---he's almost run out of things to spend the money on, so the Monk is almost as good at melee tanking. So, yes, Monks can take over tanking duties...at 20th level. At almost any earlier level, they just don't have the cash to do so. When fighting CR11 at level 8 I am fighting one monster. ... Which was better than the fighter, if we had one, whose attack rolls were only 1-2 points higher than mine If so, there was something seriously wrong with the Fighter. At minimum, his attacks should be +3 better than yours (+2 BAB, no -1 for Flurry). At the Fighter's option, he can always make your to-hit deficit at least +4 (by taking WF, or GWF if you took WF). As noted above, if you were keeping pace with his Str and weapon-enchantment spending, you'd be seriously hurting for AC, even in a Monk-favouring high-stat game. construct (even the huge constructs can be tripped or grappled their BAB sucks and they're weak for their size) Typically not. A CR 11 Stone Golem, for example, has a +23 grapple bonus; an 11th-level Monk has BAB +8, so even with Improved Grapple and a good Str (+6), he'll still be at an effective -5, which corresponds to a 75% chance of failure. Among other near-CR constructs, an Animated Object is right out (+49), a Retriever is harder (+25), but a Clay Golem is possible (+19). In terms of Tripping, the PC is likely to have a +10 (with Improved Trip), against which the monsters above have +13, +25, +22, and +11, respectively. Really, it's only the Golems who are at all vulnerable, and even then only the lower-CR Clay Golem that's particularly susceptible. MOST opponents at CR11 don't have AC in the high 20s. Low 20s is much more typical. FWIW, average AC for CR 11 monsters in the SRD is 24 (counting dragons only twice, despite there being many CR 11 listings). |
| Elthbert04-10-05, 06:06 PM | How can you get Uncanny Dodge as a Monk (without multi-classing)? I have never seen the rule about substituting for bonus feats. As an aside, I have never understood why monks don't have this ability. It fits perfectly with class flavor. I would certainly rather have this than immunity to disease, which almost never comes up. Well Immunity to disease not coming up is a DM issue, It certianly comes up in my campaign, enough that the clerics ( there are 2 in the party ) each usea 5th level spell every day to cast heros feast ( the party eats well) every morning and evening if they can and it is the poison and desease immunity they started doing this for. It isn't a big deal now but it was a big deal when they were 9th and 10th level. Still a dispel magic doesn't dispel the monks immunity. I think it is a undervalued ability because DM's don't use the desease rules nearly enough. |
| solbergb04-11-05, 01:31 PM | Just a couple things on "synergies" Flurry: If you are doing "tank role", the monk is typically blocking and the enemies come to you. That means THEY have to endure both your AOO's from combat reflexes AND your flurry. If your party uses any battlefield control magic, or debuffing magic, the enemy quite often can NOT counterattack because they are dazed, stunned, nauseous, etc. Or at least blinded. (holy word anyone?) If you are doing "run to the back and kill someone", then you typically don't respect the full attack of the person you are threatening, because they're typically a spellcaster not a melee person and quite often they are stunned, tripped, grappled as a result of your single attack. Flurries happen more than you'd think. And this is my experience with an unusual, very low AC monk (AC down in the barbarian while raging levels or lower). I just don't get full attacked very much compared to how often I get to flurry. Evasion+spell resistance+good saves. Saying they are not synergistic is a load of BS. If you take away spell resistance, a certain percentage of area damage goes away from improved evasion, a certain percentage more from making your save...and you add in spell resistance and it becomes vanishingly unlikely that area damage will do a damn thing to you even if they've cranked the spell DC's. They need all of good penetration, good DC's and TWO good die rolls. Same deal with rays, spell resist, good saves. A finger of death or disintigrate must first hit the monk, second pass spell resist, third pass saving throw. 3 chances for the dice to run against the attacker. That's synergy. Vs straight saving throw spells, the monk only gets two chances, but that's still better than one. And vs no save (Blasphemy anyone?) the monk gets a "save" in the form of spell resistance. The passive defenses DO synergize, because they take away the bad luck that removes your char from play at a critical time or cripples him. |
| solbergb04-11-05, 01:46 PM | Typically not. A CR 11 Stone Golem, for example, has a +23 grapple bonus; an 11th-level Monk has BAB +8, so even with Improved Grapple and a good Str (+6), he'll still be at an effective -5, which corresponds to a 75% chance of failure. Among other near-CR constructs, an Animated Object is right out (+49), a Retriever is harder (+25), but a Clay Golem is possible (+19). You are forgetting the +5 for enlarge person, which makes it 50/50 and the four attacks, which makes it damn near certain. Enlarge person potions are 50gp, and are a pretty obvious use of an action vs a mindless opponent. Or you could trip it getting a net +4 advantage (see below). Or it could be hampered in any of a variety of ways, starting with the humble Grease spell (reflex saves on all those monsters suck...because constructs have all bad saves) Animated objects...past huge they're ungrappleable anyway. Huge or less..easily doable with +19 for huge and +10 for large. In terms of Tripping, the PC is likely to have a +10 (with Improved Trip), against which the monsters above have +13, +25, +22, and +11, respectively. Really, it's only the Golems who are at all vulnerable, and even then only the lower-CR Clay Golem that's particularly susceptible. FWIW, average AC for CR 11 monsters in the SRD is 24 (counting dragons only twice, despite there being many CR 11 listings). Again, the numbers are +13, +22 and +11 for the stone golem, retriever, clay golem. The animated objects....size huge is merely +13, large only +8. Yes, a CR10 animated object is colossal...but anyone stupid enough to try to trip a colossal critter is out of his mind. Ask the mage for a "Grease" spell. If you are only 25% chance to succeed with trip...after a flurry with 4 attacks you are 69% likely to succeed. The odds are better than that even size medium vs all of those critters, if boosted to size large you're over 50% per attack (and with 4 tries, you'll trip it 94% of the time if one chance has 50%) And if the average AC is 24, the monk is hitting the "Average" as often as the fighter, he's hitting "below average" more often, "above average" less often. It's a wash. The real weakness of monks are in single-attacks and if they run into DR they can't penetrate...very much like an archer or any TWF fighter. The strategies for getting around these weaknesses are identical (carry oil of bless weapon, silversheen and some weapons tailored to the opposition, including adamantium until level 16) |