|
I read a post on another board that basically suggested that monks were a worthless class. This got me to thinking. What kind of positive experiences have you guys had, either playing monks or having them played in your games? What makes the monk a worthwile class? What makes them less than desirable?
Opinions please.
Thanks
Tam
I read a post on another board that basically suggested that monks were a worthless class. This got me to thinking. What kind of positive experiences have you guys had, either playing monks or having them played in your games? What makes the monk a worthwile class? What makes them less than desirable?
Opinions please.
Thanks
Tam
Improved Unarmed Strike.
Is that Not Enough?
40 ft movement.
alright...but? no armor?
wisdom bonus to AC with a +3-+4 you've got a medium armor class anyway.
if you didn't count Improved Unarmed Strike...
Flurry of Blows. in a 1st level encounter I had a friend play a monk against a PC 1st level fighter (who got his full AC bonus, but no improved unarmed strike) in unarmed combat...in the FIRST ROUND he did Flurry of Blows for 10 pts and left the fighter with 2 hp. with a 1d4 damage from the fighter plus a grapple, followed by another 1d4 the monk was on the ground, but...he was the one initiating the grapple, and without improved grapple, he isn't THAT likely to beat a 1st level fighter. if my friend wasn't SUPPOSED to lose, if he didn't listen to my encouragement to GRAPPLE and give the guy playing the fighter a chance...he would have used Flurry of Blows AGAIN. As far as I know, there is NO limit or fancy restrictions on how many times per day or battle he can use Flurry of Blows. maybe once per round of course, but that's one round. (Honestly, I could be more familiar with the class)
I'm sure you've wondered how well a monk can do in 1st level fisticuffs with a fighter, that's how well...but barely. I'd say the monk would have won if the character my friend was playing wasn't supposed to be cocky as hell. (a snobby Bazareene nobleman vs a semi-important, but still barbaric in comparison, Thurkasian fighter)
other than that, I can't speak too much about the monk class as I have my regular monk (played by the same friend) intentionally outclassed since he chose to play a ghost, first he had to die and become a ghost, then he died because he was dumb enough to tangle with one of the creatures that was partly responsible for his death...as a ghost this time.(death gaze from a bodak eye graft killed him, so no coming back as a wight or a slaughter wight). But, he did pretty well with tumble checks and attacks against the freaking Slaughter Wight (CR 8, and the monk was just 3rd level) I let them have simultaneous actions since the slaughter wight's dex was the same or higher I think and they rolled the same init...it was that or let the slaughter wight go first and with a +11 slam attack, he'll hit eventually, even against a ghost. (for the record, if I'm wrong about 50% miss chance, he was within the manifest ward when he died...again.)
But, I'd generally recommend the monk class, the monk in my campaign is planning on becoming a paladin (this of course means an alignment change into something he's not used to playing and probably isn't going to do a good job of roleplaying), just so he can get the smite ability with his freaking FISTS.
Guess what, fists count as blugeoning weapons, and what am I running...an undead heavy campaign?! Goodbye damage reduction. that's a good point to make about Monks, if they use their fists, ie. don't call that they're using specialized unarmed strikes like the martial artist guy who's playing my monk might use...if they use their fists or say an axe hand, they're doing bludgeoning damage all the time, thusly they do relatively significant damage against skeletons and other such undead. I might add that they get Knowledge Religion as a class skill, so understanding the enemy would be good.
Oh and for my campaign, I'm just glad he wasn't "munchkin" enough to try and play a Monk/RANGER with favored enemy undead...that'd just be nuts. (Ranger abilities work best without armor, right? so if he gets to keep his wisdom bonus when he multiclasses...I remember something about that for or against...then his AC isn't too bad and he's a freakin ranger)
But I digress. Monks can and will tank, give them the feats they need, plus the abilities they ALREADY get- maybe even a fighting style from Unearthed Arcana...(my monk is using Sleeping Tiger, it's a mix of stealth+hide and power attacks)
I haven't seen a lot.
My own as a player forgettable at best.
I see the following issues with monks:
They are based on a psuedo asian design - in a basically eurpean setting, less true in 3.5 - but a lot of the monk class is still basically a collection of artifact notions from the 1st edition. The just don't havea good context to come into the game from.
It resembles closely the Kwai Chang Cain notion of a monk for the Kung Fu tv series rather than an asian monk from asian fiction.
It alludes to a cool asian action film/anime type without delivering - the result is (IMO) a sort of cheesy psuedo fighter.
They are generic martial artists with a bunch of mis-matched weapons and skills.
They fill the melee fighter role - but with have support level hit points and don't have the healing ability of clerics (or even bards, paladins, rangers).
They kind of fail to be anything - including support.
The up side is that if you have good palyers they represent kind of a unique challenge to the player - but even though they are probably balanced as a class they are kind of lame in their execution and style.
They could be made better with some illusion type abilities.
Add a dash of spider climb, blink, and haste.
Add some healing.
Some blind fight.
Some magic sense.
Some other perception abilties.
A special range attack.
The ability to "master" a weapon instead of multiple goofy proficiencies.
The abiltiy to build a (game balanced) stylist along the following trees:
Grappler (judo/wrestler)
Striker (karate/boxer/kickboxer)
Kicker (TKD, Hapkido)
Energy (Aikido)
Locks (Jujitsu, Hum Do)
Weapons (Fencer, Kendo)
Then build to mastery along real world, anime, or kung-fu movie lines (game balanced so one wasn't better than the other)
Then you could build focused specialized fighters with funky martial arts skills, magical abilities and have a character not better filled by something else - and have something unique.
My opinion, take if for what its worth.
The up side is that if you have good palyers they represent kind of a unique challenge to the player - but even though they are probably balanced as a class they are kind of lame in their execution and style.They could be made better with some illusion type abilities.
Add a dash of spider climb, blink, and haste.
Add some healing.
Some blind fight.
Some magic sense.
Some other perception abilties.
A special range attack.
The ability to "master" a weapon instead of multiple goofy proficiencies.The abiltiy to build a (game balanced) stylist along the following trees:
Grappler (judo/wrestler)
Striker (karate/boxer/kickboxer)
Kicker (TKD, Hapkido)
Energy (Aikido)
Locks (Jujitsu, Hum Do)
Weapons (Fencer, Kendo)Then build to mastery along real world, anime, or kung-fu movie lines (game balanced so one wasn't better than the other)
Then you could build focused specialized fighters with funky martial arts skills, magical abilities and have a character not better filled by something else - and have something unique.
As far as style is concerned, have you checked out Unearthed Arcana? (as I mention above)
As far as style is concerned, have you checked out Unearthed Arcana? (as I mention above)
I know a lot of people rave about Monte Cook - To those that like his stuff great. I readily agree he has some good ideas, and I thik that its great that he has been able to bring some concepts to the game, that said the execution of those ideas is (IMHO) uninspired and uninspiring - so I don't use UA material when I play. (Though from when I have looked at it generally appears balanced to me - which is saying a lot).
If the UA stuff makes monks work for you great!
But, I responded to the post assuming the PHB as the only reference.
As far as style is concerned, have you checked out Unearthed Arcana? (as I mention above)I know a lot of people rave about Monte Cook - To those that like his stuff great. I readily agree he has some good ideas, and I thik that its great that he has been able to bring some concepts to the game, that said the execution of those ideas is (IMHO) uninspired and uninspiring - so I don't use UA material when I play. (Though from when I have looked at it generally appears balanced to me - which is saying a lot).
If the UA stuff makes monks work for you great!
But, I responded to the post assuming the PHB as the only reference.
understood.
I'm responding with my fairly limited knowledge and opinions on the monk class- and its variants. I'm also assuming any reference I have is one that a reader might have...I don't assume they have it, but it would be available to them if desired. (I'm lucky to have a fairly extensive library of reference books, so many that I'm having trouble digesting them.)I'm running Ghostwalk (with a Libris Mortis bent), which Monte Cook helped Create (with Sean K. Reynolds, but I'll add that Sean K. Reynolds wrote the Online Supplement for Ghostwalk, as well as the 3.5 update, I believe), so I'm fairly open to his material as I would think a good portion of it would have some cohesion between different sources. If not, oh well...I consider the Sleeping Tiger monk a total experiment. I'm only allowing it because I wanted to see what the fighting style/special monk class, was about...and I think it presents an interesting challenge to my player...who is restricted to the feats and skill requirements of the fighting style. Luckily for him, tumble, hide and move silently as class skills only help his style of play, at least he's using tumble and hide well, he even used power attack a couple times in his last encounter.
I read a post on another board that basically suggested that monks were a worthless class. This got me to thinking. What kind of positive experiences have you guys had, either playing monks or having them played in your games?
My gaming group loves Monks. We have three different DMs. I'm running SCAP, and I have two monks (granted we are gestalt, but that is still two base monks with other classes for flavor).
In one other ongoing campaign (Sunless Citadel -> Bastion of Broken Souls) we had two monks (with 1st level cleric of farlarghgn) until recently, when one was killed. They are grappling machines, my rogue would enlarge them via a wand, and they'd just annihilate enemies in grapples, as my rogue moves around either healing them with a wand of CLW, or sneak attacking the grappled foe. In the Forge of Fury, the monk duo were nigh unbeatable save for the animated carpet, who required a retreat to town for alchemical weapons.
The third campaign is Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, the Monk is the only character from our first group who survived Nulb. (My paladin tried to sacrifice himself to save the others, but they didn't listen).
What makes the monk a worthwile class? What makes them less than desirable?
At first level, a monk can have Stunning fist (as his bonus feat) and take improved grapple as his first level feat. Both of those are great tools.
The monk is mobile and has several deadly tools at his disposal (grapple, stunning fist, ability to carry items & still fight). He can easily move to the rear to harry enemy spellcasters. He can carry a lightsource for the party and not hinder himself in any way (unless he wants to use a 2-handed weapon). He can pick up a downed ally and carry him while still threatening areas.
The mobility is what makes it appeal so much to my group. Heck in my scap campaign the most heavily armored character is the Rogue in studded leather (can't afford mithril chain yet).
Opinions please.
Monks rock. You just need a clear definition of what you want to be able to do, and choose your skills and feats accordingly.
If you value mobility, these guys are king.
-c
I guess it depends on what your looking for in a class; but imho monks rock. Give a stone giant a few monk levels and you have a seriously bad monster on your hands that can outrun most anyone to get away to heal or chase down those that flee; great damage; dodge; evasion; a real nightmare if played well.
Also, take a look at the wild monk variant that gets wildshape; take a few levels of master of many forms; and you have another kick butt and versitile pc or mob on your hands that is fast beyond belief with claws or whatnot from shapechange.
In most builds I would not match up a straight monk vs a warrior for instance and expect to win in a straight upfront one on one contest, but with some builds you could if your heavy on grapple and the warrior is not for example. In general a warrior is going to do much better against most opponents, but a monk against clerics or mages or bards or rouges in melee combat is a big mismatch in favor of the monk, but those other classes have very useful other skills than combat.
Monks excell at enhancing prestige classes and adding neat combat and movement modifiers while being an all around good class. I believe that most people who play monks are not trying to make power characters, but rather like a character with a lot of versatility.
As far as style is concerned, have you checked out Unearthed Arcana? (as I mention above)I know a lot of people rave about Monte Cook - To those that like his stuff great. I readily agree he has some good ideas, and I thik that its great that he has been able to bring some concepts to the game, that said the execution of those ideas is (IMHO) uninspired and uninspiring - so I don't use UA material when I play. (Though from when I have looked at it generally appears balanced to me - which is saying a lot).
If the UA stuff makes monks work for you great!
But, I responded to the post assuming the PHB as the only reference.
I think you are misunderstanding his reference here, Kyr. The Unearthed Arcana is a book of - solely - variant rules, including combat styles for Monks among many other things for all aspects of D&D play. Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed came out at about the same time and has nearly the same name - just the two words reversed - and can be used as a standalone variant Player's Handbook. It's somewhat unfortunate that the two books came out so close to each other with so similar of names, since people who don't know about one or the other can often get very confused.
TK
In our AOW game at the mo we have an large dwalf monk and he is cracking out the damage now i tell you!!!
At 15 level its going to be 5D8 per hit and if we didnt have him around the game would have been over a long time ago.
In our AOW game at the mo we have an large dwalf monk and he is cracking out the damage now i tell you!!!
At 15 level its going to be 5D8 per hit and if we didnt have him around the game would have been over a long time ago.
How in the hell does that work? 5d8 per hit? Large sized dwarf? Oh. Is dwalf a new race?
I read a post on another board that basically suggested that monks were a worthless class. This got me to thinking. What kind of positive experiences have you guys had, either playing monks or having them played in your games? What makes the monk a worthwile class? What makes them less than desirable?
The thing that most people do not understand is that monks, what we base D&D monks off of, were retired military that would move into their own little community and stay away from people to handle their PTSS and other disorders they developed from combat. They live very regimental lives...thus being very lawful.
I run monk as a prestiege class, sort of. This previous military experieence suddenly makes monks profound characters. They have given up the right to armor and weapons since they retired, but when you think of them as retired military...it makes a great difference when you play the character.
Monks are one of the most powerful classes out there.
1. They are NOT fighters. If you try to use a monk as a fighter, you're trying to use a dagger as a sword. Doesn't work. That said, the flurry of blows is an awe-inspiring ability. The sheer number of attacks, combined with the strength bonus monks can obtain as easily as any fighter, offsets the slightly reduced attack bonus, and the damage potential from each strike is at the upper end of the scale, too. Not to mention, as I believe was outlined in the FAQ from WotC (anymore acronyms available? Let me know), a monk can, indeed, take the two-weapon fighting feats and benefit from the extra attacks. Combine that with haste, and again, the slightly reduced attack bonus and (depending on the character) slightly lessend damage potential (compared to a well-built fighter or barbarian) are more than overshadowed by the number of attacks. And then the attack penalty dissapears completely when using flurry. Combined with the various forms of Ki strike they get,and many Damage Reductions are negated without ever spending a gp on that magic adamantine weapon you need for the golem. The only enhancement a monk needs to buy is an amulet of mighty fists, and while they are more expensive than other weapon enchantments of equivalent power, the monk can easily make up for this buy not needing many of the items other classes crave and spend money on so much.
2. Mobility. Whereas others have to spend multiple rounds getting to a destination, the monk can, at high levels, get there in just a move action, meaning he can still get off that attack. Not to mention agumenting that with their dimension door ability. Though only a once-per-day ability, if executed as a standard action after a move action, the monk can cut off any retreating foe (or outrun them herself if things are going bad) that isn't using similar teleportation effects. Not to mention the bonus to jump checks provided by the speed increase. If the monk actually has the skill, they hardly need a fly spell to catch low-altitude attackers. Perhaps there should be an additional penalty on the attack due to the hasty nature of the action, or even the Spring Attack feat, but nevertheless, the option remains.
3. Resistances. Monks have the best saves of any class. Not only that, but they also have stats feeding into them, as well! Not every class has a stat to support their good base save- wizards and sorcerers, for example. However, the monk is a lightly armored fighter (requiring Dex for their AC and Con for their hp), both of which feed into stats, and they typically have a good Wisdom score to add that to their AC, feeding into the third save, and completing the package. Combined with Diamond Soul, and magic becomes near-useless against them. Also, their AC is deceptively high. They gain not only their Dex bonus, as does everyone else, but also their Wisdom bonus, which already puts them into the Medium armor class ACs, and then they get the miscellaneous AC bonus every 5 levels. Since they have everything to lose by wearing armor, they never have to pay for the enchantment on full plate, or even a masterwork suit of it, freeing those funds up for rings of protection and amulets of natural armor. Also, their resistances and immunities to things such as enchantments (Still Mind), diseases (Purity of Body), and poisons (Diamond Body), make the monks hard to bring down by anything but hit point damage. Granted, that can be a weak-point for a monk, considering the situations they can get into and the HD size they have, but that's what Wholeness of Body is for- to try and offset that some and give them even more self-reliant staying power. Oh, and let's not forget Evasion and Improved Evasion. And Slow Fall. And the option of Deflect Arrows.
4. Amazingly interesting minor miscellaneous abilities, such as Timeless Body, Tongue of the Sun and Moon, Empty Body, Abundant Step, Quivering Palm, and Perfect Self.
5. Versatile roles. The monk can take Hide and Move Silently and keep up with the rogue for protection and a flanking partner, or do scouting just by himself, or not bungle that infiltration mission, among other things. They can run to the front line in a pinch. They are great second-line combatants. That movement lets them get to the other side of the rogue's target in a flash, letting the aforementioned get sneak attacks. They wear no obvious equipment, and thus can slip by guards as nothing more than a simple peasant. As mentioned before, they can hold something, such as a light source, and not be encumbered in combat.
The monk is definately its own archetype, not just a poor variation on a fighter. If you try to run it as any other class, you'll do only slightly better than trying to run a wizard as a fighter. But if you understand the concept of the monk and what they can do and are good at, their strength shines through in ways that allow them to stand toe-to-toe with any other class as far as utility in and out of combat and enjoyment of play.
I'm a big Monte Cook fan and very much enjoy the oathsworn, his monk analog in Arcana Evolved (formerly called Arcana Unearted). It's mostly a matter of flavor--the oathsworn is a credible Western take on the martial artist, rather than a bad pastiche from the East. Moreover, the oathsworn is a highly effective unarmed fighter, while the monk's ability to use weapons (even though the list is limited) feels to me like a cheat and a tacit acknowledgement of WotC's failure to create a compelling hand-to-hand combat system. Also, I just think "monk" is a bad name for a class that has less to with spirituality and more to do with giving the beat down with the bare hand. All of that said, more power to all those who love monks.
All a monk needs to be viable as a fighting class is two levels of pyrokineticist - that's +2d6 fire damage to every unarmed strike. Unless, of course, your opponent is resistant to fire. Then you're screwed.
I've never had positive experiences with players being monks. They always get chewed on really quickly in my games and never manage to make much impact.
I can see how they would work if you wanted to play them with more finesse than my PCs usually bring, but in my experience they have kinda sucked. But that could just be at low levels.
Monks may fall into the ranger/bard trap in that they can do cool things, but their roles aren't always clear, so it takes a particular style of play to bring them out. They can't wear armor and don't have a very robust hit die, but everything they do is focused on melee. Kinda strange.
My experience DMing monks is that they are nigh-unstoppable at higher levels. The ones in my campaign didn't end up doing much damage, and their players actually got kind of tired of rolling so many attacks, and so little damage, and being immune to practically everything I could throw at them.
Bear in mind that I run published modules; if a given module is set up so that a particular class will rock, then that class works really well in that part of the campaign. If a module is written so that a particular class sucks, then there is much suckage. The modules I run seem to be mostly written to benefit the core classes (I just finished the first adventure path, Sunken Citadel through Bastion of Broken Souls).
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I've always seen that monks suck until about level 6 or so, then they can hold their own but don't really serve a vital purpose and then around level 17 or so they become unstoppable combat monsters dealing 2d10 damage with their unarmed strikes and basically ignore anything that allows a saving throw that you can possibly throw at them. Add to this the fact that they are a very Asian-style concept in a (largely) fantasy European setting and you see why I am very, VERY reluctant to allow players to play monks in my games. There are certain circumstances where they make sense (such as the sorcerer/monks of Shar in Forgotten Realms) but for the most part, they just don't belong.
So far, I've only had two people play a monk-like character. One was a badger hengeyokai sohei (Oriental Adventures) and the current one is playing a truenamer/monk character. The truenamer/monk character is working out particularly well, better than I expected. So far, I've not had any problems with it.
They're trickier to play. In our group, one of our new players (in only her second campaign) tried to play a monk. Her ranger, in the first campaign, did very well-- what you do with a ranger is pretty obvious-- especially as she went archery style.
She hated playing a monk the second time around. Part of it was her prior experience-- a monk doesn't do well sitting back and firing, but it also isn't a good straight up tank. If she'd given it a little longer (and she'd been better supported), I think she would have eventually found her groove. As it was, she bailed before it became a solid contributor (before level 3).
Monks are bad mofos if they have a high strength. That is all their is too it, even at all levels, at lower levels with Improved Grapple you can dominate combat. At higher levels you get alot of attacks and good damage.
We played in a 'Dragonlance-ish' campaign with a Half-Ogre Fighter, and a Druid, then my friend and I made twin monks (that talked with russian accents). I went Stunning Fist, Deflect Arrow. But he went Improved Grapple with an 18 strength, and we got into a throw down with some gnolls, and he killed 3 to the rest of the parties 2. It was horrid, so bad that the DM made the 'gnoll boss' really tall in a shorter room to try to make it 'impossible to suplex'. The monk just slammed the gnoll's head into the ceiling repeatively while forcing it not to move.
That was long ago, in this day, I use the Rokugan Martial Arts book, and those Martial Arts make monks even sweeter!
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
So far, I've only had two people play a monk-like character. One was a badger hengeyokai sohei (Oriental Adventures) and the current one is playing a truenamer/monk character. The truenamer/monk character is working out particularly well, better than I expected. So far, I've not had any problems with it.
Monks cross-classed with just about any arcane spellcasting class make for a really nasty combination, imo. Wizards who can lay the smackdown in melee? Hell yeah. Tenser's Transformation and flurry of blows?!? OH NO!
It's a pretty nasty mix. Requires a pretty solid backstory to validate though. I've had a couple of these make it through my 'bad concept shield' that I've installed as a DM. They are certainly terrifying. Monk/psions are also nasty.
Fatespinner, I guess I'm lucky in the fact that the monk/truenamer takes the concept of Truespeak very seriously and not to be abused. While the potential for doing some serious damage as there, he's more likely to boost his allies with universal aptitude and inertia surge than to go toe-to-toe with anything (yet).
The monk/truenamer comes from the Monastery of the True Word, an order I created for use in Faerun.
Monks cross-classed with just about any arcane spellcasting class make for a really nasty combination, imo. Wizards who can lay the smackdown in melee? Hell yeah. Tenser's Transformation and flurry of blows?!? OH NO!
Heck, just first level spells that are insane with monks:
Mage armor. Expeditious Retreat. Shield. True Strike. Enlarge Person. Jump. (WHY?!) Feather Fall.I'm playing a kobold Sorc/Monk in AOW, and I am devastating.
Monks cross-classed with just about any arcane spellcasting class make for a really nasty combination, imo.
Do most of you all use house rules with regard to Monks.
I ask because they have some pretty clear rules about multiclassing. From the SRD:
Like a member of any other class, a monk may be a multiclass character, but multiclass monks face a special restriction. A monk who gains a new class or (if already multiclass) raises another class by a level may never again raise her monk level, though she retains all her monk abilities.
If you don't apply that rule thats fine.
But it seems pretty obvious that rule is there because while as a stand alone class they are mechanically balanced (if hard to fit into the game IMO) they are unbalanced when it comes to multiclassing normally.
In my last campaign, I had a monk who absolutely rocked the boat. He was the second melee fighter (the other was a half-orc barbarian/bard), and towards the end of the campaign (Level 10), he more than once saved the day. He had a high AC, good hps (a d8 in comparison to a d10 gives only one hp/level less than a fighter on the average), ungodly saves, and devastating offensive capabilities with his flurry of blows, not to mention various immunities and special abilities, like self-healing, fast movement, various agility feats, and so on.
Granted, as the main fighter in the group, he would probably be the wrong one, but with another melee tank, it is a deadly combination. I had serious trouble presenting adequate challenges without leaving the other two (Druid and Sorcerer) completely out of the fight.
Perhaps it is somewhat like the wizard: weak in the first few levels, but once he is, say, level five or above, he is a very serious melee combatant, and difficult to "get" with missiles or spells, due to his high saves and special abilities.
And Monk/Wizard is a deadly combination. I remember an AD&D1 adventure in Dungeon Magazine (I don´t recall which one it was, though), where the villain was a monk-turned-evil-wizard, and we had serious trouble winning the day against him - monk abilities made him a serious melee combatant, missiles were quite useless, and then he threw spells to distant combatants...
Stefan
EDIT: I think the adventure was "Master of Puppets" in issue 14, by Carl Sargent.
Do most of you all use house rules with regard to Monks.
I ask because they have some pretty clear rules about multiclassing. From the SRD:
Like a member of any other class, a monk may be a multiclass character, but multiclass monks face a special restriction. A monk who gains a new class or (if already multiclass) raises another class by a level may never again raise her monk level, though she retains all her monk abilities.
If you don't apply that rule thats fine.
But it seems pretty obvious that rule is there because while as a stand alone class they are mechanically balanced (if hard to fit into the game IMO) they are unbalanced when it comes to multiclassing normally.
I don't neccesarily think they intend for the monk not to multiclass, the rule says a monk can multiclass, they just can't go back to being a monk. i know a few players who started with say 5 levels of monk then went onto something else like rogue or sorceror. Also wizards released monk multiclassing feats in Complete adventurer. (I think they are the feats that all start with "devoted"). These feats only work if multiclassing monk with other classes. With that said, I really can't see monks as being unbalanced when multiclassing, especially if the guys at wizards who create, and therefore balance the game, are creating multiclass monk rules. However, that doesn't mean that some players can't tip the scales, especially if they are very good at combining things for max effect. But honestly when players are facing down the likes of kyuss and demogorgon can when we really say the players are the overpowered people in that situation.
To answer the original question, I've only really seen monks used with other classes, so i can't speak to their usefulness when not multiclassed. However, i think like any class they have their uses and their niche, and I believe that if players are creative and use their monk well, the class will not fail them.
My best friend is a very experienced player and will probably play a straight 20 level monk in my next campaign. I personally am very interested in seeing him do this, because he always manages to get alot out of his characters, no matter the class.
|
|
Do most of you all use house rules with regard to Monks.
I ask because they have some pretty clear rules about multiclassing.
There is a feat in the Eberron Campaign Sourcebook that allows a monk to multi-class without penalty. There is also one for Paladins. In Forgotten Realms, they have allowed certain "orders" to multi-class with certain other classes.
I DMed a game with one monk in it and it went to very high levels. Against "mooks" he was devastating. Against the main "boss" he was helpful. His saves were frustrating at times and so I just resorted to hitting him with ranged attacks (still a difficult hit, but more likely than fireball or some other effect affecting him).
I allow multi-classed monks, under particular circumstances. The Monastery of the True Word is dedicated to the idea that perfecting one's body helps on the path to oneness with the universe - learning to speak the Words of Truth only helps one to understand the connection that all life shares, and to understand the Words of Truth is to understand the universe.
Would I allow this character access to any other classes. No, unless circumstances come up within the game itself to open up a class. He's aiming for the Disciple of the Word prestige class, so it's all coming together nicely.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Monks cross-classed with just about any arcane spellcasting class make for a really nasty combination, imo.Do most of you all use house rules with regard to Monks.
Not only is there the feat from Eberron that was referenced above, but a monk will have all the abilities he really NEEDS by level 8. You stop being a monk at that point and go all-out sorcerer with Practiced Spellcaster for maximum nastiness. Also, in Forgotten Realms, monks of certain deities are able to multiclass freely into certain classes. For example, monks of Shar can freely multiclass into sorcerer. Monks of Ilmater can freely multiclass into clerics. There's several others, all covered in the 'classes' section of the FRCS.
|
|
I've honestly had nothing but good experiences with monks, on both sides of the DM screen. After reading some of the previous posts, I can see how some may not have as much "fun" using them. A few things to keep in mind:
1) You've got skills. Jump, balance, and tumble are your friends, and don't go far without any of them being maxed. If you're gonna let one slide, leave balance off at 5 ranks, but keep the others at their highest. Movement and mobility are the monk's assets.
2) Forget weapons. Unarmed strikes are the signature attack ability of a monk, and especially by mid level exceeds anything that they could weild. Get your hands on potions or items that can enhance your unarmed strikes for extra boost.
3) As a front-line fighter, but without the hp boost of Fighter or Barbarian, rely on your speed. Be either an elusive target, or take advantage of Flurry-of-Blows to clear your threat range quickly.
4) If that hp shortage still worries you, select "Toughness" or "Improved Toughness" early on to compensate.
5) I know a lot of people seem to favour the core books over supplements, but Oriental Adventures has tips, feats, and 'fighting styles' (a form of feat-synergy bonus) that really help design your monk to follow a specific martial art form, and to give some useful abilities.
I'd have to say one of my fondest monks that I've played saw himself as a bit of a "mage-killer". After taking Improved Grapple and Choke Hold, he'd tumble through the minions and take care of the spellcaster in the back. (not foolproof, mind you, as Silent Spell, supernatural abilities, and a few other affects have put a damper on the plan) Just my two cents worth.
Monks cross-classed with just about any arcane spellcasting class make for a really nasty combination, imo.Do most of you all use house rules with regard to Monks.
I ask because they have some pretty clear rules about multiclassing.
I'm going for Arcane Fist, a monk/arcane PrC from Complete Arcane, that allows you to multiclass with arcane. (You take monk levels first, then arcane, then Arcane Fist, round out with a little more monk & arcane)
I just go with the Oriental Adventures rule: Monks can multiclass freely. I have seen one boring monk (in a game I ran. The player was sorta part time) and one REALLY annoying one (friends game, using BoED-Vow of Poverty, major munchkin player. ugh) I really want to take a whack at playing one myself, if I could find a DM....
|
I'm playing a 13th-level monk (Benedictus, or Ben), and he's been one of my most enjoyable characters. I chose to play a monk due to very strict restrictions on weapons and armor in this campaign's civilized areas, and thought it would be a nice advantage to remain fully armed at all times. Beyond that, though, monks are highly versatile characters. Ben is a front-line fighter and a sneak, and his disciplined outlook has put him in a kind of leadership position within the party. Some notes, to echo what others have said:
1) Monks get lots of attacks and very good damage. Give one Improved Natural Attack and a monk's belt, and things get even better. Only just recently has the party barbarian started to outpace Ben when it comes to total damage output. (Although on single attacks, the raging barbarian's greatsword absolutely punishes opponents.)
2) Monks can get high ACs, and they need it to go toe-to-toe with opponents so they can make full attacks and get the benefits of their flurry. Favor Wisdom and Dexterity, and start working on a combo of bracers of armor, a ring of protection, and possibly an amulet of natural armor, and you'll have no worries about AC. Ben has by far the highest AC in the party.
3) Monks can do lots of stuff outside of combat, unlike many other fighting types. They get decent skill points, and a good list of class skills. Pick one or two areas of specialization, and a monk can be just as much of a skill-monkey as a rogue. For example, Ben is the stealthiest character in the party, and with the ability to hold his own in physical combat and withstand magical attacks, makes the perfect scout. (Although we still need the party rogue for traps and locks and such.) A monk could also focus on social skills, or Knowledge skills, etc.
4) Monks have unparalleled mobility. The super-speed comes in very handy both in and out of combat, and abundant step can help determine the outcome of a scenario.
Also, monks are pretty simple to play. You get an arsenal of interesting and mostly useful abilities, but you're not faced with the choices of spell selection that a cleric or wizard has. Many of the abilities are purely defensive. That can be appealing to some players, or as a break from playing a full spellcaster.
In combat, just remember to make good use of your feats. For example, with Stunning Fist, focus on stunnable opponents, and get some of your companions to team up. Besides the flanking bonus, they get to take advantage of a stunned opponent. A monk-and-rogue flank combination can be devastating; after the monk stuns, the rogue sneak attacks; repeat until the opponent is dead. Monks work well with other characters' strengths, each reinforcing the other.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
But it seems pretty obvious that rule is there because while as a stand alone class they are mechanically balanced (if hard to fit into the game IMO) they are unbalanced when it comes to multiclassing normally.
FWIW, the designers have said that the multiclassing restriction on both the paladin and monk is for flavor reasons only, not power concerns. There are a substantial number of ways to get around the multi-class restriction (various feats from the complete books, the FR has various monk schools each of which can multi-class to another class freely, etc).
A multi-classed monk is no more unbalanced than any other optimized multi-class choice.
...Give one Improved Natural Attack...
I'm not entirely sure that's legal. I think the rationale is that the monk's attack is an unarmed strike, which is not eligible for Improved Natural Attack. The same rationale is used to stop a vampire from delivering his energy drain via flurry of blows, and to stop a creature with a high damage rating for a natural attack from gaining monk levels and upping that damage phenominally, in addition to gaining a flurry of blows.
Now, if your DM is fine with it, go, but I'm just saying that I don't think that build is exactly possible within the RAW.
|
|
I'm not entirely sure that's legal. I think the rationale is that the monk's attack is an unarmed strike, which is not eligible for Improved Natural Attack.
The main D&D FAQ clarified it as legal, some time earlier this year, IIRC:
Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (Monster Manual, page 304) to improve his unarmed strike?
Yes. As stated on page 41 of the Player’s Handbook, a monk’s unarmed strike “is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either” which includes feats such as Improved Natural Attack.
For anyone interested in monks from fantasy literature that haven't any obvious Asian roots check out Stephen R. Donaldson's 6 book (unless he's added to it since) Chronicles of The Unbeliever. The Haruchai are a tribe of incredibly hearty souls who focus on perfection of their physical state. They fight without weapons and have their own class/order called the Bloodguard. Capital F formidable and cool as all get out.
For anyone interested in monks from fantasy literature that haven't any obvious Asian roots check out Stephen R. Donaldson's 6 book (unless he's added to it since) Chronicles of The Unbeliever. The Haruchai are a tribe of incredibly hearty souls who focus on perfection of their physical state. They fight without weapons and have their own class/order called the Bloodguard. Capital F formidable and cool as all get out.
I think the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant is the best fantasy series I have ever read. I would easily classify it as real literature masquerading as genre fiction, like 1984 or Gulliver's Travels.
It was just so tragic and different in tone from most fantasy. Covenant is morally ambiguous in a sad and realistic way rather than the "James Bond/Han Solo" way of most fantasy anti-heroes.
The BloodGuard rock. When I was about 15 I tried to convert the Land to D&D but no-one else in my group had read it or was interested.
I think the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant is the best fantasy series I have ever read. I would easily classify it as real literature masquerading as genre fiction, like 1984 or Gulliver's Travels.
It was just so tragic and different in tone from most fantasy. Covenant is morally ambiguous in a sad and realistic way rather than the "James Bond/Han Solo" way of most fantasy anti-heroes.
The BloodGuard rock. When I was about 15 I tried to convert the Land to D&D but no-one else in my group had read it or was interested.
I feel quite lucky that I happened upon those books. I agree that Donaldson's series stood out as being true literature. Despite early indications that it was going to be Wizard of Oz meets LoTR, the eternally flawed Covenent himself lets us know with every thought and action that things aren't going to be that simple.
Sorry to hear no one showed interest in playing the Land. I'd pay cash money to play a Bloodguard.
Just last week I was explaining certain powerful devices in literature to a room full of people and used Vain, the ebon skinned enigma of a demondimspawn, and his connection to the Staff of Law as example.
I think the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant is the best fantasy series I have ever read. I would easily classify it as real literature masquerading as genre fiction, like 1984 or Gulliver's Travels.
It was just so tragic and different in tone from most fantasy. Covenant is morally ambiguous in a sad and realistic way rather than the "James Bond/Han Solo" way of most fantasy anti-heroes.
The BloodGuard rock. When I was about 15 I tried to convert the Land to D&D but no-one else in my group had read it or was interested.
I feel quite lucky that I happened upon those books. I agree that Donaldson's series stood out as being true literature. Despite early indications that it was going to be Wizard of Oz meets LoTR, the eternally flawed Covenent himself lets us know with every thought and action that things aren't going to be that simple.
Sorry to hear no one showed interest in playing the Land. I'd pay cash money to play a Bloodguard.
Just last week I was explaining certain powerful devices in literature to a room full of people and used Vain, the ebon skinned enigma of a demondimspawn, and his connection to the Staff of Law as example.
The Land definitely scores high on the "grim and gritty" and "high fanstasy" scales, showing the two are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes it just seems TOO depressing, but then, that's the point. These guys pay the price for winning. Winning costs. Which may be the opposite of the conceptions behind D&D...
He has started a new trilogy, from the point of view of Linden Avery. The first book is "The Runes of the Earth." Time in the land had definitely passed this time. And you learn A LOT about Vain, the ur-viles, the viles, the Demondim and the wanyhim in this one. In fact, it looks like this series is about them...
The Haruchai are everything D&D monks are, without the Shao-lin cast that seems awfully off-putting in a setting based around a faux medieval European paradigm. Of course, an entire culture of humans where EVERYONE is a monk is very interesting (in the Chinese proverb way).
The Bloodguard scream "Prestige Class" more than anything I have ever seen. Prestige class as it was meant orignally. A world specific group of legendary prowess (not the super-specialist or class-combo-without-having-to-multi-class most PrCs are these days). Forestals do the same for druids (though maybe not a great PC option).
And you won't believe the role the Bloodguard and the Haruchai play in the new book....
|
|
Here, here, Bloodguard and the Covenant series are a very worthwhile challenge to read. And the ideas, my god, it makes a smashing setting.
My favourite bit was the moments Covenant said Nom.
Anyway I digress. As to monks my experience as a player is that my cleric eventually tired of saving our monks life. He was a fighter wannabee.
As a DM, the situation was even worse. The half-orc monk lasted to second level. I reckon you have to be a party saver rather than a glory hunter to get the most out of the class.
However I once got R. A. Salvatore to sign my PHB 2nd Ed at GenCon. He signed the monk class - his favourite class and he said that monks only come into their own at higher levels.
Cheers
The Land definitely scores high on the "grim and gritty" and "high fanstasy" scales, showing the two are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes it just seems TOO depressing, but then, that's the point. These guys pay the price for winning. Winning costs. Which may be the opposite of the conceptions behind D&D...
He has started a new trilogy, from the point of view of Linden Avery. The first book is "The Runes of the Earth." Time in the land had definitely passed this time. And you learn A LOT about Vain, the ur-viles, the viles, the Demondim and the wanyhim in this one. In fact, it looks like this series is about them...
The Haruchai are everything D&D monks are, without the Shao-lin cast that seems awfully off-putting in a setting based around a faux medieval European paradigm. Of course, an entire culture of humans where EVERYONE is a monk is very interesting (in the Chinese proverb way).
The Bloodguard scream "Prestige Class" more than anything I have ever seen. Prestige class as it was meant orignally. A world specific group of legendary prowess (not the super-specialist or class-combo-without-having-to-multi-class most PrCs are these days). Forestals do the same for druids (though maybe not a great PC option).
And you won't believe the role the Bloodguard and the Haruchai play in the new book....
Thank you.
You've got me excited over the news of a newer series. I want start in but I'm afraid I'm going to need to read the last six again for grounding and that is no small task. Well, if I start tonight... hmm...
Bloodguard absolutely define a prestige class.
BTW, in a book of Donaldson's collected short stories there is a deleted chapter from The Illearth War called Gilden-Fire. It was removed from the original for reasons of length. He explains which chapters if fits between.
|
|
Just last week I was explaining certain powerful devices in literature to a room full of people and used Vain, the ebon skinned enigma of a demondimspawn, and his connection to the Staff of Law as example.
Ach! But then you ruined the great mystery for any of them that hadn't read it! As much as the second trilogy dragged on at times (How much exposition about the experience of being at sea do you need? You're sailing, I get it!), the payoff at the end was very satisfying.
I'll echo the praise for the Thomas Covenant series, it's absolutely some of the best fantasy ever written.
Heck, I had both my high school class ring and my wedding ring made of white gold due to my affinity for the character. (Don't tell my wife, though, I'm not sure I ever mentioned that to her! ;-) )
Ach! But then you ruined the great mystery for any of them that hadn't read it! As much as the second trilogy dragged on at times (How much exposition about the experience of being at sea do you need? You're sailing, I get it!), the payoff at the end was very satisfying.
I'll echo the praise for the Thomas Covenant series, it's absolutely some of the best fantasy ever written.
Heck, I had both my high school class ring and my wedding ring made of white gold due to my affinity for the character. (Don't tell my wife, though, I'm not sure I ever mentioned that to her! ;-) )
I too had a bent for white gold after reading the series. As for ruining the books for these people... worry not, they were NEVER going to read anything in the fantasy genre. Not for love or money.
I do recall that there were too many details about the sailing... it was harder to pay attention during The One Tree. My eyes kept wondering off paragraph to unrelated daydreams and back again.
|
|
I'm not entirely sure that's legal. I think the rationale is that the monk's attack is an unarmed strike, which is not eligible for Improved Natural Attack.The main D&D FAQ clarified it as legal, some time earlier this year, IIRC:
Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (Monster Manual, page 304) to improve his unarmed strike?
Yes. As stated on page 41 of the Player�s Handbook, a monk�s unarmed strike �is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either� which includes feats such as Improved Natural Attack.
How does that interact with multiattack? Would a level 20 monk have a +20/+18/+16/+14 attack routine?
BTW, in a book of Donaldson's collected short stories there is a deleted chapter from The Illearth War called Gilden-Fire. It was removed from the original for reasons of length. He explains which chapters if fits between.
I think I originally got that in its own little hardback way back in the day.
Very aggravating. I have all of the rest of the original Covenant books in paperback. So they are separeated on two different set of shelves. Of course the 2nd and 3rd series are both on the hardback shelves with the little chapbook from the middle of the Illearth War.
It makes me grind my teeth.
[Heck, I had both my high school class ring and my wedding ring made of white gold due to my affinity for the character. (Don't tell my wife, though, I'm not sure I ever mentioned that to her! ;-) )
Just tell her you are looking out for her welfare. If she should ever be accosted by an ochre robed beggar with bad breath and is transposed to another world, she will be wearing the Keystone to the Arch of Time.
Always a good thing to have in your corner in any new environment.
How does that interact with multiattack? Would a level 20 monk have a +20/+18/+16/+14 attack routine?
It doesn't. Multiattack allows a creature with three or more natural attacks to make its secondary natural attacks at a -2 penalty rather than a -5. If you have, say, a Half-Fiend Monk so that he has claws, bites, and unarmed strikes (three types of natural attacks) he could presumably take Multiattack to make claw and bite attacks in addition to unarmed strikes while applying a -2 penalty to the claws and bite. The Monk's unarmed strikes would be at no penalty if they were considered to be the primary attack, but would follow the standard x/x-5/x-10 progression. He could even take Improved Natural Attack with Unarmed Strike, Claw, and Bite (each separately) if he wished.
I'm not entirely sure that's legal. I think the rationale is that the monk's attack is an unarmed strike, which is not eligible for Improved Natural Attack.The main D&D FAQ clarified it as legal, some time earlier this year, IIRC:
Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (Monster Manual, page 304) to improve his unarmed strike?
Yes. As stated on page 41 of the Player’s Handbook, a monk’s unarmed strike “is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either” which includes feats such as Improved Natural Attack.
Ok, I see. I had an earlier edition of the FAQ, over a year old, and in that version, it said "no". I actually must say it's nice to see them bending to logic more than strictly game-balance.