What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

[Essence]

Here's what I've heard over the years:

[*]Their fists aren't enchantable.
This I totally buy. Being 5 points behind on attacks 'cause of your BAB sucks, but being 10 points behind on attacks because you can't enchant your fists makes you a non-fighter.

[*]Melee classes with low BAB aren't viable.
This I totally don't buy. Druids disprove this with authority, and simple math tells you that there's a definite breakpoint when a BAB of +15/+15/+15/+10/+5 does as well or better than a BAB of +20/+15/+10/+5, provided each character has access to similar other bonuses (see previous point).

[*]The monk's class features don't help it kick ass.
I'm unsure of this. They obviously don't help it directly, but survivability is a big part of kicking ass, and while I believe they might have overvalued immunity to poison, immunity to disease, a bonus vs. mind-effects, minor self-healing, and Spell Resistance, I'm not sure how much.
It's obvious, however, that the Monk's inherent "offensive" abilities -- Ki Strike and Quivering Palm -- are *way* overvalued (especially if we're going to let them enchant their hands now).

[*]Monks don't get enough HP to be frontliners.
Again, Druids disprove this with authority. It's obvious that, with proper other abilities, a d8 HD is more than enough to make you a survivable frontliner.

[*]Becoming an Outsider as a pinnacle ability sucks this guy's butt -->
Duh.


So...assuming we
[*]allow the Monk's fists to be enchanted (and totally take Ki Strike out of the equation)
[*]up the DC of Quivering Palm to 10+1/2 character level+Wisdom and allow it to be used once per five class levels per day
[*]make the Spell Resistance based on character rather than class level, and
[*]grant the Monk some kind of Body Hardening Zenjoriki crap that gives him a point of DR every four levels and a point of Natural Armor every five...

What else does a Monk need to not suck?


How does this question and answer change if you switch things over to 3.5?

[fbmf]

I always thought it was because if you brought the monk was on par with the fighter he would be unbalanced. By that I mean if a guy who uses no equipment was just as effective as the guy with crazy badass armor and weapons, why be the equipment guy?

Even if we charge the monk the same amount, or even double, that we charge the fighter, your fist can't be sundered, or taken from you, or disarmed, or whatever, and you have no need to store them, do upkeep on them, or even have Quickdraw because they are your fists for God's sake, and that is perceived as an unfair advantage to the fighter.

Thus, if you monks up to par with the fighter, fighters are hosed moreso than they are now.

Game On,
fbmf

[RandomCasualty]

Yeah I agree with fbmf, the monk is constantly competing with the fighter, and the fact that his fists are immune to lots of the counters to fighters, like sunder, disarm, they can't be as good as a fighter, otherwise you undermine everything the fighter is.

[Maj]

By that I mean if a guy who uses no equipment was just as effective as the guy with crazy badass armor and weapons, why be the equipment guy?

Sword-chucks, yo.

[fbmf]

Good point.

Game On,
fbmf

[The_Hanged_Man]

IMO, the unsunderable, undisarmable, unlosable weapon is the most overrated aspect the monk. Any DM that sunders a PC's weapons is a munchkin. Disarming is hard. Stealing PC weapons? Munchkin.

In any event, you can't fix the monk if you complain that the fix makes it better than the fighter. It's already better than a fighter, at least after 10th level. The problem is it's worse than a Druid, Cleric, Wizard or Sorcerer.

A question. AFAIK, the increasing monk fist damage was supposed to keep up w/ the increased weapon damage that comes from enchantments (largely). So, in theory, the 2d10 (11) fist damage was supposed to compensate for not having a bastard sword +5 (10.5).

Is this true? I don't have a lot of monk experience. If it is, then allowing enchantments to affect damage would seem to require amping down the base damage at higher levels.

IMO, the monk doesn't need more AC. It might be a little lower than an armored PC's, but, well, that's part of not wearing armor. Otherwise, that looks good.

[User3]

1. Crit range and mod thats worth a damn.

2. Fighter BAB.

3. Ability to enchant own fists* with weapon mods. Call it a Technique, give it an XP and a Gp cost, and make it tradable during combat...."My Flying Monkey Style shall defeat your Flatulant Crane Technigue." Also, you get the ability to "gain" the technique if you defeat a master of it. this should roughly approximate fighter weapon stuff. the fact that you have to kill an enemy to gain the technique is like find a sword in a horde, and questing for masters to give you the technique, or you experiment to perfect a new technique(burning XP and GP on rare items and set-ups like dancing on the backs of flame serpents while a full band plays in the background so that you can learn the Mightly Serpent Lash of Flame Technique).

*Fists is just a monk term for their weapon. The flava text is quite clear that monks fight with fists, feet, knees, elbows, throws, locks, etc.

[User3]

PS Monks can wear normal clothing(Armor bonus 0) that has armor enchantments. Ever see the Bat-suit?

[Draco_Argentum]

If a class has low BAB giving it a class feature to make more attack rolls is stupid. Just give it a decent BAB in the first place and cut down on die rolls.

[Username17]

Monks need to not even compete on the AC and Damage front.

Seriously, if they ever were competitive, even for a second, in that arena they would be broken. The Fighter is (supposedly), the guy who does the high AC and the hard hitting - and he should be.

Monks cannot, and should not be able to have an AC and damage output which is comparable to what the Fighter has.

Which means that they have to compete in other ways in combat. It means that abilities like the aptly named "unbalancing strike" are actually exactly what the game needs. Monks need to apply conditions, force opponents to make saves if they want to take any attacks back, and otherwise delay combatants while their Fighter friends dish out the real damage.

The monk operates close to pique efficiency with no equipment at all. That level of efficiency sucks, but if it was directly competitive with the Fighter it would break the game. After all, the Fighter has to lug around equipment that he can't even make in order to compete at all.

So the Monk has to be indirectly competitive. He has to add to combat in some way which is flat different from the Fighter.

The easiest way to do that is to make one of them the king of delaying tactics, while the other hands out massive attacks. It doesn't really matter which, so it comes down to flavor.

Do you want the swordsmen to be pulling elaborate parrying manuvers and dumping people over like Flynn's Robyn Hood while unarmed warriors are punching holes in people; or do you want the unarmed combatant to be ducking and tripping people like Jackie Chan while the swordsman just cuts people in half?

Things work fine as long as one schtick goes to each of the styles and they don't really step on each other. As soon as both try to do the same thing you get into fundamental balance problems, however.

-Username17

[Lago_AM3P]

To be honest, I always saw it as the unarmed combats dishing out huge damage while doing little else while the fighters overwhelm the opposition with a variety of weird combat manuevers--even the Final Fantasy d20 Fighter seemed to gravitate towards this, with the reinvention of the feat thing, and monks not getting bonus feats and all. Fists would be like the lightsaber weapon in Star Wars d20. Flat-out superior to other weapons in terms of damage, but that's okay, cuz' you're using martial arts.

However, I also admit that Frank's method will be a lot more palatable to a lot more players. While I'm sure no one really has a big problem with fighters dishing out the big damage while the monks do the indirect effects (play Final Fantasy Tactics and get Beowulf if you want to see how brutally effective inflicting negative status on people is), I'm pretty sure a lot of people will whine if monks punched people through walls and Fighters were the tacticians.

[RandomCasualty]

Yeah, I see monks as being the tacticians, not fighters. They basically should be the people tripping, disarming and so on. Fighters and rogues should be better at pure damage, because lets face it, they're using fists. And if fists are better than weapons then why bother wtih weapons at all?

[Lago_AM3P]

Because Monks have hardcore training, that's why!

If everyone could get 3d20 fists, that'd be something different and unthemely. But considering you need to take all those levels in a martial arts class to get that good, what's the problem?

Fists being better than weapons if you've got hardcore training is supported in a lot of console and PC RPGs, action movies, anime, etc..

If it was up to me, the monks would be dishing out severe damage and the fighters would be using wild and weird manuevers, since that seems to be what the game was going for before the monks became a massive failed project. But people who play fighter-types's beanbags begin to shrivel up over the thought of them not being the king in the damage department (even if they're the king in the combat department when we broaden their role), so we're going to have to have monks be the wild and weird combatants and fighter be the Hulk Smash! types.

[Username17]

It would still work to have the Fighter be the guy handing out tactical aid and delaying opponents - we'd just have to change the role of the Barbarian to more closely match that of the Paladin.

The Paladin is already conceived as a defensive character, so if the best weapon becomes the Fist - he's not liable to really notice (although his class still needs to be shortened or to give more abiltiies like so many other classes).

The Ranger is defined largely by a support role anyway and again doesn't much care if swords are no longer the premier melee weapon for damage output.

However, the Barbarian's best trick is Hulk Smash! He could probably be redefined into a defensive role as well, but that is a rather significant redefinition of him.

Remember, if you change how "unarmed martial arts" work, you are just changing Monks. But if you change the role of axes and swords - you necessarily impact the Fighter, the Ranger, the Paladin, and the Barbarian simultaneously.

Which is not to say that fists can't be defined as the big-damage weapon - there's plenty of precedent for that. It might not even be more work, since all the warrior types need a redesign anyway. But it would be a large coneptual makeover for more classes.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1083833287[/unixtime]]
Fists being better than weapons if you've got hardcore training is supported in a lot of console and PC RPGs, action movies, anime, etc..

And it's stupid there too.

Most of the time in movies, the guys using fists are just plain better warriors than everyone else and they're fighting chumps.

Fists being the best weapons makes no sense. People made weapons in the first place to more effectively kill people, if the power of the almighty fist was so absolute why would there be weapon users at all?

The monk shouldn't be doing much damage, but he should get a lot of attacks, and he should be better against low AC opponents as opposed to high AC opponents. Right now he does that well.

Also a monk should be tougher to land a blow on than the fighter. In any kind of fantasy, and reality even, martial artists are always the toughest ones to land a blow on.

[Lago_AM3P]

And it's stupid there too.

Most of the time in movies, the guys using fists are just plain better warriors than everyone else and they're fighting chumps.

Fists being the best weapons makes no sense. People made weapons in the first place to more effectively kill people, if the power of the almighty fist was so absolute why would there be weapon users at all?

Because you're taking levels in a class that gives real ultimate power. Who CARES if your weapon is flat-out better than what seems 'realistic' (there's that crack-ass word again), because you're a hardcore unarmed fighter. That's what your abilities say, and if fighters want to smash things with fists better than they ever can with swords, they can undergo your hardcore training, too.

The monk shouldn't be doing much damage, but he should get a lot of attacks, and he should be better against low AC opponents as opposed to high AC opponents. Right now he does that well.

Uh, no. Why the hell should a monk get a lot of attacks if we're nerfing his damage? That effectively works out the same as just giving him as many attacks at the other fighter-types, except that it makes things more complicated because monks will respond way differently to buffing spells.

If monks didn't have a neutered BAB but still had their weak damage, they'd still generally suck compared to fighters, but load them up on a three-section staff, the spikes spell, some static bonuses, and you might get someone who's unintentionally flat-out better than fighter. That's why all druids who have access to nature's favor or nature's avatar turn into OCTOPI rather than TIGERS.

And monks suck against horde monsters because they do weak damage and generally have less AC than a reasonably-built warrior. This is lethal when fighting a lot of opponents.

Also a monk should be tougher to land a blow on than the fighter. In any kind of fantasy, and reality even, martial artists are always the toughest ones to land a blow on.

Maybe.

[Oberoni]

In fantasy stuff, the punching guy always lands way more shots than the weapon guy.

[Joy_Division]

I find the monk steps on too many toes to be a real character class. The typical monk character archetype wants to be tactical, do good damage, not wear armor and fight with bare hands, or bare hands and katana.

Whenever someone wants to be a monk they want to use some other classes schtick but do it without armour or with their bare hands. Often time characters just want one or the other as well (fight with no armour or beat things up barehanded.)

For my games I just get rid of the monk and let people tack it's abilities onto other classes as feats.

[Username17]

In game mechanical terms, getting a bunch of weak attacks is in fact the same as getting a smaller number of larger attacks.

If you are attempting to set a balance point of the unarmed combatant doing less damage and being competitive in other ways (such as by tripping or blinding or stunning), then granting extra attacks is definitionally counterproductive.

If you are attempting to set a balance point of the unarmed combatant doing more damage and having less abilities in other respects - then it is again a pointless design pathway.

If the unarmed combatant is attempting to match combat damage with the guy who needs a sword to function - he's always going to either succeed (and be broken because he doesn't need a sword) or fail (and be completely sucktastic because he isn't matching damage). It's totally binary, and there is no "balanced" option for that.

Just waving your hands and saying "he'll hit less hard but more times" is not a balance point - it's madness.

-Username17

[Desdan_Mervolam]

While I like well enough the idea that monks should inflict status effects, I still think that monks should be able to kick some ass on their own anyway. I still really think that monks need to have a way for their fists to get enchantments, either through an item that adds to unarmed attacks and can be enchanted, or through class abilities.

-Desdan

[Essence]

The more I think about the unarmed combat issue, the more I come to disbelieve in the "if they keep up with the Fighter, they're broken, because the Fighter has to spend money on his equipment and the Monk does not" paradigm.

This conception is based on some fundamental assumptions that are not necessarily true. Primarily, that the Monk gets weapons that keep up with an enchanted sword for free. Why would this ever be the case? Why would a designer allow a Monk to get his hands enchanted but not make him pay for it?

If a Monk's hands cost exactly as much to enchant as a Fighter's greatsword, and a Monk's pants cost exactly as much to enchant as a Fighter's armor, then, what, the Monk saves a grand total of about 1,300 gp over the Fighter over the course of 20 levels? At that point, who gives a flying fuck?

And therefore, who gives a crap if Monks can keep up with Fighters in AC and damage, but have a slightly lower attack roll with slightly more attacks?


K is right on at least one count: Monks need better crit matrixes. In fact, the hard-style vs. soft-style can be equated pretty well into the difference between a high multiplier vs. a high range, neh?

And I still disagree with everyone about the fighter's BAB. The whole concept behind the Flurry math is that more hits at a lower BAB can come out to approximately equal damage throughput, with the higher-BAB doing better against single hard-to-hit monsters and the higher-attack-rate doing better against multiple easier-to-hit monsters. No one has given me a good reason why this math and/or the logic behind it fails.

[Lago_AM3P]

And I still disagree with everyone about the fighter's BAB. The whole concept behind the Flurry math is that more hits at a lower BAB can come out to approximately equal damage throughput, with the higher-BAB doing better against single hard-to-hit monsters and the higher-attack-rate doing better against multiple easier-to-hit monsters. No one has given me a good reason why this math and/or the logic behind it fails.

I just gave one. Octopus Druid-Fu.

In the core rules, octopus druid is only moderately better than tiger druid-fu, but when you throw in stuff like nature's favor or nature's avator, octopus-druid fu becomes outrageously overpowered.

[RandomCasualty]

Lago is right about that... when you factor buffs in, having multiple attacks becomes very much numerically superior. Also stuff like sneak attack also makes more attacks numerically superior.

But given that TWF is a -2 penalty and gives more attacks, I'd think flurry in exchange for cleric BaB would be a fair trade also.

Because we want the monk to have some kind of ability to beat down lightly armored opponents really well. That's what martial artists should be good at. If he has fighter BaB and fights like a fighter, then he isn't really different enough from the fighter. We might as well just make "monk fist attack" a feat. Stunning fist already is.

I suppose instead of flurry we could give him some kind of really good power attack, where he takes a -1 penalty and gains a +3 to damage. It'd make him fearsome against low AC guys but still wtih cleric BaB he'd be weak against something liek a dragon, which is what I think is what we should be aiming for.

[Username17]

If a Monk's hands cost exactly as much to enchant as a Fighter's greatsword,

Think carefully now - how often have you seen someone pay for the party fighter's primary weapon? How often have you seen the party fighter find their primary weapon?

Because the game is predicated on the notion that it is more than likely that the best thing you'll find is better than the best thing you'll be able to make, which in turn is going to be better than the best thing you can improvise. +2 weapons come in reasonable frequency out of CR 3-5 treasure hordes, and can't be made until level 6. +4 weapons come in decent quantities in 10th level treasure and can't be made until 12th.

But that's luck - or DM fudging. Whatever you build in to the Monk's hands is built right in. It's more attune to Craft Arms and Armor than found magic. And if it's as good as found magic, and it's guaranteed, it's broken. And if it's as good as crafted magic it's worse than what the fighter is actually using so it sucks.

---

Having Multiple attacks at a lower attack bonus is just bad design. Even TWF shouldn't give extra attacks, it should just give bonuses to hit.

When you make additional attacks, you use each bonus additional times. It has a multiplying effect on the value of every single bonus you pick up ever. So long as characters have a number of bonus attacks which is fixed by level, the additional value these bonuses will acrue can be factored in.

However, when the number of attacks is variable, the value of those bonuses become uncalculatable. If you use the TWF mechanic where people roll twice as many attacks - each single +1 to-hit and damage is worth twice as much to some people of a level as it is to another.

Figuring the relative value of a Luck Stone or a Bracer of Archery or whatever is simply intractable if the number of times it can be used against a single opponent in a full attack action is going to vary.

If we lived in a world with no bonuses at all, it could be made balanced. But it still wouldn't be a good idea because then you've got two completely different character styles directly competing for the same class role. That's bad, because logically one of them will necessarily perform the job better and the other will be worse.

Take the Sorcerer and the Wizard - their role is exactly the same, and the Wizard is better. Making the monk into a damage/ac/hit point combatant while the fighter is also a damage/ac/hit point combatant means that one of them is going to be the Sorcerer and one is going to be the Wizard.

That's unavoidable.

-Username17

[Count Arioch the 28th]

1083873447[/unixtime]]

1083833287[/unixtime]]
Fists being better than weapons if you've got hardcore training is supported in a lot of console and PC RPGs, action movies, anime, etc..

And it's stupid there too.

Most of the time in movies, the guys using fists are just plain better warriors than everyone else and they're fighting chumps.

You're neglecting the fact that in the same genre, the guys with guns get beat up by guys with swords.

so, maybe there's a paper-rock-scissors thing going on. (Fists beats Sword. Sword beats gun. Gun beats fist, or something like that.)