LibriumArcana.Games

I am of the position that this character class is way underpowered relative to its peers, an opinion I have heard from others on various forums.

I have also heard of the Swordsage class and that it can work as a replacement Monk, though I don't have access to it; is it worthwhile? Or do any of you know of other, better monk fixes/replacements?

Of course if anyone disagrees about the monks being a bit crappy, I'd be interested in your arguments.

Underpowered in comparison to which classes? Druids, sure. Wizards, yes. Everything else? No. Monks have a slew of special abilities and several magic items which effectively increase their level for their powers. Compared to other brawlers, they're broken. The only reason one would see them as 'underpowered' is if they ignored the fact that the monk is defensive, not offensive, biased.

Swordsage is good and balanced with the other classes from Tome Of Battle. If you were to drop a Swordsage next to a straight Fighter, the Fighter would be even more outclassed... Which takes some doing, considering Fighter is easily the least powerful class in 3 and 3.5.

Swordsage... shit, in the last game we played the lvl 11 SwordSage shadow-stepped to the back of the Undead Shadow-touched Fang Dragon and used a combination of stance, manuever and Arcane Strike to deal 120 Damage to the beast.

And then nearly died as the dragon counterattacked. Only by GM Fiat was the SwordSage left stable at -9HP. This was after the WarBlade had hit it for 80-some points (then it hit me clawclawbite for 40HP).

Nitram said to point out that any class from Tome Of Battle should be considered one CR above the given level ... and some 2-3 CR above when you have a clever player.

Me? I just think the WarBlade is the most fun I've ever had. I'd never played the Tank before.

The main objection seems to be the so-called Multiple Attribute Disorder, i.e. they need decent stats in more fields than the other brawlers. For instance, many of their abilities are Wis dependent, that leaves a lower Strength for damage and to-hit (of course, clerics etc also suffer from this, but their spell slots are more potent than the monk abilities.). They cannot wear armor, so better Dex is needed (even with the Wis bonus to AC -- at least at lower levels).

Second, they tend to be less than stellar compared with Fighters and Barbarians in the fields of Grapple, Trip and Disarm - areas where the theme would suggest that they be more potent.

Perhaps I'm just using them wrong.

Rangers and Paladins also suffer from needing multiple good stats. That isn't to say that it isn't a problem for monks. It is.

Grapple mechanics work against them since it works off base attack and Strength, although Escape Artist plus Dex to escapes works for them.

The are defensively based, as Nitram said, so its easy to not see their strength when compared to offensive melee types. They have three good saves and evasion as well as being difficult to flank or catch flat footed. Their abilities are often not directly combat orientated, but good at getting them out of bad situations. Their magic item needs are somewhat specialized.

The Minx wrote:The main objection seems to be the so-called Multiple Attribute Disorder, i.e. they need decent stats in more fields than the other brawlers. For instance, many of their abilities are Wis dependent, that leaves a lower Strength for damage and to-hit (of course, clerics etc also suffer from this, but their spell slots are more potent than the monk abilities.). They cannot wear armor, so better Dex is needed (even with the Wis bonus to AC -- at least at lower levels).

Second, they tend to be less than stellar compared with Fighters and Barbarians in the fields of Grapple, Trip and Disarm - areas where the theme would suggest that they be more potent.

Perhaps I'm just using them wrong.

Well, MAD is a minor thing unless you're trying to be the uber. You need to pick which things you like the most. Careful use of feats can shore it up to a point. Then again, I never liked point-buy, so I may be skewed.

Their grapple, trip, and disarm all suffer primarily if you go with a non-strength monk, which is an issue. But then again, these are most often offensive moves, and you need to think less like an offensive combatant if you're going to play a good monk.

SirNitram wrote:Well, MAD is a minor thing unless you're trying to be the uber. You need to pick which things you like the most. Careful use of feats can shore it up to a point. Then again, I never liked point-buy, so I may be skewed.

Their grapple, trip, and disarm all suffer primarily if you go with a non-strength monk, which is an issue. But then again, these are most often offensive moves, and you need to think less like an offensive combatant if you're going to play a good monk.

Yes, I see. Though I thought that disarm and trip etc sort of fit with the idea of being able to defeat opponents non-lethally and such.

Anyway: my ideas were:

* To counter MAD, they may use Wisdom in place of Strength for close combat attack and damage rolls (ki and all that kind of thing).
* They may use full BAB progression for grapple, trip and disarm, though not for other kinds of attacks.



As an aside, the monk weapons seem a bit useless.

And what is taken away to make them anything but the absolute best melee class outside of ToB?

SirNitram wrote:And what is taken away to make them anything but the absolute best melee class outside of ToB?

The assumption that they are weak to begin with, nothing more. Of course, if you maintain that they are balanced against the other classes already, that changes things.

The Minx wrote:

SirNitram wrote:And what is taken away to make them anything but the absolute best melee class outside of ToB?

The assumption that they are weak to begin with, nothing more. Of course, if you maintain that they are balanced against the other classes already, that changes things.

I really can't fathom how you can think the monks are weak against, say, a Fighter. Or how monk weapons are useless. Flurries are pain and suffering for the enemy.

In my experience (and I grant the caveat that the last time I played was with 3rd edition rules, not 3.5 or anything following), the monk isn't necessarily a pain-dealer, at least at the beginning. Monks are excellent scouts and support characters for at least half of their careers, being resilient and very independent equipment-wise.

Of course, when the hand damage and number of attacks starts building up, nobody wants to be in melee with a monk.

It's for the above reasons that I've enjoyed playing them, just as much, if not more so, than my modified Spellblade character from Tome & Blood.

SirNitram wrote:I really can't fathom how you can think the monks are weak against, say, a Fighter. Or how monk weapons are useless. Flurries are pain and suffering for the enemy.

Too many mage, cleric and druid centered campaigns, possibly.

Fighters are somewhat hidebound too, though at least they avoid MAD. The main problem I had where fighters were superior to the monk was the special manoeuvres (that I thought monkish), not damage in general.

As for the monk weapons, they do less damage than the bare fist of the monk, even if you can flurry with them.

The Minx wrote:As for the monk weapons, they do less damage than the bare fist of the monk, even if you can flurry with them.

Typically, in my experience, this is because weapons are "training wheels" at best for a new monk. After a few levels, you're absolutely right - the weapons are severely outclassed by the raw damage and number of unarmed attacks.

Monks are defensively based, yes. That's exactly what makes them underpowered. They're good at staying alive and not much else; this does not kill the enemy nor particularly help the rest of the party. It's the same thing that makes a greatsword with Power Attack more powerful than a longsword and shield with Combat Expertise. Sure, the greatsword wielder's armor class is lower, but his enemy is dead, so no one's around to hit him. Shock Trooper and Leap Attack only make it worse.

Good points Rogue. It is worth mentioning that monks are great at fucking up casters, especially wizards.

If the wizard's sloppy. I'm sure that's what monks are designed to do, and they're good at it if the wizard is played like the 3rd edition playtesters played them, but when you get right down to it, there are spells that make it so the monk really never has a chance to start the caster-ending grapple. Phantom steed alone makes a caster nearly impervious to being caught by any martial class; the thing's just too damned fast and at higher caster levels it can fly at rates exceeding most flying monsters and any magic item allowing flight. Foresight, time stop, moment of prescience, and contingency make doubly sure that the caster won't be surprised or caught, and Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion ensures that the wizard only has a round or two of vulnerability, tops, between running low on spells for the day and being untouchable for the night. But those are problems with balance issues in the sorcerer/wizard spell list, not anything in particular wrong with monks.

Phantom Steed relies on running away and winning initiative.

Contigency has costs and only really works if the contigency matches the situation.

Moment of Presience is high level cheese.

Foresight is brutally high level and won't stop a monk from kicking your ass.

Time stop is also brutally high level.

Mordenkainen's mag mansion doesn't get you out of a monk beat down.

Most of those rely on having the initiative and going before the monk is grappling or stunning the snot out of the caster. Most of them are also very high level defensive spells. An 17th level wizard is a rough opponent for anyone, especially if he has time to throw up appropriate defences. But that doesn't help a 10th level wizard.

Phantom steed actually doesn't rely on winning initiative at all; it has a ten minute casting time. At an hour per level duration, there's no reason to not run it all day. At 14th level the caster basically has a 240 ft. fly speed all the time and no reason to ever be down on the ground where a monk can grab him.

A contingency can easily be set to "whenever I'm attacked with surprise," and by the time a character has the spell, the focus is easily within his means.

Moment of prescience means that you win initiative, at least according to some interpretations. (I personally think it shouldn't apply to initiative checks, but whether or not initiative is an opposed Dex check is severely open to interpretation.) After that, whatever you want to kill is killed.

The point of the mansion isn't to get out of an immediate fight. It just makes the wizard invulnerable until he's once again ready to kill anything that isn't another full caster with but a few syllables.

And incidentally, most humanoid monks will have a tough time out-grappling Evard's black tentacles.

The problem is that arcanists are supposed to be glass cannons (hence the d4 HD and low Fortitude and Reflex saves), but with a little bit of effort things get to the point where their hit points will likely never come into play.

Do I wish this weren't so? Hell yes. And yes, it's easy to play a wizard as a blaster and utility guy, which doesn't break the game, but the fact remains that all the game-breaking stuff is there. Voluntary player restraint does not game balance make.

Running away doesn't help the rest of the party. Even if you have the option and aren't say grabbed by abundant steppping or ethereal monk boy, you've just taken the offensive spellcaster out of the fight with the exception of his long ranged spells. This fucks the party right up.

Contingency costs a fortune to maintain. Expensive component, renewed over a time span measured in days. And it doesn't do jack. It's the contingent spell that matters and that is often not that helpful.

Moment of prescience is badly worded cheese. And there is not guarrantee of killing a monk with spells even if you have initiative. Good hit points plus good movement plus good saves plus evasion plus all sorts of movement abilities= on wizards like ugly on an ape.

Evards is a spell they seem intent of handlingly stupidly. That's why it doesn't show up in my game. Not a magic user problem specificly (Hulking hurler I mean you) as Wizards drops the ball on a lot of stuff.

Wizards hit points will come into play. All the time. You can just minimize with the right spells, but even Evards and Moment of prescience aren't monk killers. Actually, the d4 and shitty saves are part of the problem because its too much glass (and possibly not enough cannon compared to other classes). It encourages extremely cheesy defensive measures by wizards high enough level to pull them off. Arcana Evolved magisters have a superior design.

Abundant step actually does nothing against a mobile mage besides provide maybe a 1/day means of escaping a forcecage (or more likely a greater shadow evocation emulating one), because using it ends your turn. The monk uses abundant step to get next to the mage, and the mage simply moves so he's no longer next to the monk.

Which actually brings us to the monk's other problem: Its two major centerpiece abilities negate each other. The monk is highly mobile, but if he uses that mobility he can't make a full attack, which means no flurry of blows. And if he tries to go toe-to-toe with a fighter or barbarian in order to use flurry of blows, he quickly learns why doing so is a terrible idea: He has a lower base attack bonus, probably a lower Constitution because of MAD, and a smaller Hit Die. In short, he's quite squishy to a power-attacking monstrosity.

Sun Style lets you attack immediately after the teleport. We won't touch adding either Teflammar Shadowlord or Crinti Shadow Adept(?) to them; they will flurry after the step.

I would just like to report that I had a player last night run a 1st level monk. He's a relativity new player, this was his 2nd game. The Monk was perfectly able to keep up with the rest of the party and maintain parity of killing power with the fighter.

That is all.

I would also like to point out that a well run game of D&D is not simply about the best stats and skills for combat. In a heavy RP environment, a fighter might actually have good charisma and take a PRC that helps him maneuver in the various guilds or militia or nobility, a wizard may actually focus on spells that strengthen city walls or improve quality of life for a small hamlet, etc.

You know, just sayin'.

Hotfoot wrote:I would also like to point out that a well run game of D&D is not simply about the best stats and skills for combat. In a heavy RP environment, a fighter might actually have good charisma and take a PRC that helps him maneuver in the various guilds or militia or nobility, a wizard may actually focus on spells that strengthen city walls or improve quality of life for a small hamlet, etc.

You know, just sayin'.

But when does that happen. I'm not saying it doesn't, but in my experiance the players are rarely involved in that sort of thing. Usually we're going after the ancient horror, great evil, kidnapped royalty/nobility, fulfilling prophecies, etc. Not casting remove pestilence on the farm's crops so that the harvest will be bountiful this year.

It honestly will depend entirely on the group. The players and the GM will have to want that sort of game, and admittedly combat IS the focus of D&D, by and large, but still the game is flexible enough to allow for proper roleplaying when the group allows it.

But in all honesty, just about any RPG can be broken to allow for simply stupid shit. While ideally you'd want your RPG to be as balanced as possible, it should also allow for character concepts outside of "super badass #12"