Why do people view monks as OP?

[Phelix-Mu]

The tier system considers classes in isolation. One feature of the Monk class is that it is MAD, which means that it buffs up well, so if you have a lot of buffing support casters it improves more than say a Fighter. The MADness also means that Items help the Monk more than other classes.

The upshot of this is that in a party where the Clerics Heal or Buff, and the Wizards Blast or Buff, the Monk appears stronger.

Monk with Dex, Wisdom and straight AC buffs can be very hard to hit — and this is easy to achieve.

Flying requires an item or a buff, and so on.

Getting them to do actual damage, or even hit reliably, is harder — but, again, there are buffs for this too.

This is an excellent, and perhaps under-promoted, point.

Some classes can do just about anything well by themselves. Sadly, this is a group game, so even that measure of power is far from intrinsic merit.

Monks, on the other hand, have weaknesses that respond well to typical party makeup, with enough flexibility (considering that any outcome will still be subpar compared to higher tiers) to fill any of several roles (if not exceptionally well). Alongside buffs, they benefit well from friendly crowd-control support with their high mobility, from ranged attacks with their mobility, and from opportunities to engage in a bit of stealth (which they can be decent at in a campaign that calls for such...usually a campaign with several stealth characters, as splitting up the party based on stealth capability is logistically perilous for both characters and DMs).

[StreamOfTheSky]

Most of the time, class features in D&D are more powerful than feats. So, based on that assumption, a Monk should be more powerful than a Fighter (class features at every level vs. feats at alternate levels). Here's WotC's view, from their Dead Levels online article: The problem, of course, is that Monk class features (a) suck; and (b) don't work together. "Most colorful and unique" does not mean powerful or even somewhat useful.

Not only do the features suck, but quite a few of them are there solely to try (and fail) to offset the massive nerf that fighting with no manufactured weapon (or massive arsenal of natural attacks with pounce) and no armor or shield (even WIZARDS can benefit from a mithral buckler and spiked chain fighters grab animated shield; monk's the only one forced to abstain from +1 to +7 cheap AC) and a medium BAB with absolutely zero spellcasting support is in D&D. Everyone who is wowed by the sheer number of class features always forgets that. Many of them are there just to try to get the monk up to par w/ an NPC Warrior of the same level wearing armor and swinging a sword, nevermind that other PC classes are getting actual boons on top of that.

[squiggit]

Big weapon damage die. Looking at the chart and seeing 2d10 punches makes the jaw drop.

Class features. Monks are one of two classes in the PHB who advance a class feature every level (the other being the Barbarian, another class that has a reputation in low-op).

Flurry looks crazy in a vacuum when you're looking at nothing but those big damage dice and the number of hits.

It's odd that Monk is everyone's first thought when they take a look at Vow of Poverty, when really the most viable use for it is Druid. When you can turn into a bear, you don't really need material possessions anyways.

The poor wanderer who's actually a kung fu genius is a pretty common archetype, and vows like that are a big thing for real life monks. So it makes sense.

[Troacctid]

I think my initial reaction when I saw the 3.5 Monk for the first time (as a player who was introduced to D&D with 4th Edition) was something like: "So you can't move and Flurry in the same round. So...unless you AND your enemy are both standing still, you can't use it at all? Unarmored AC...okay, but all that does is make up for not wearing armor, it's not going to be a net gain. Unarmed strike...it still deals less damage than a regular weapon! I don't understand this class. None of these class features do anything!"

Maybe 4e spoiled me.

[Gemini476]

I think my initial reaction when I saw the 3.5 Monk for the first time (as a player who was introduced to D&D with 4th Edition) was something like: "So you can't move and Flurry in the same round. So...unless you AND your enemy are both standing still, you can't use it at all? Unarmored AC...okay, but all that does is make up for not wearing armor, it's not going to be a net gain. Unarmed strike...it still deals less damage than a regular weapon! I don't understand this class. None of these class features do anything!"

Maybe 4e spoiled me.

4E is one of what, two editions with good monks? AD&D's had issues, 3E is 3E and full attacks actions take a full round, and I don't know much about the 5E monk but their damage doesn't scale well and they have a serious Ki deficiency.
4E, meanwhile, has the Monk as a magnificent pinball wizard.

And BECMI has a somewhat broken monk, from what I've heard. At level nine (name level and just before you get into Mystic Highlander) you have three attacks for 2d8 damage each when compared to the Fighter who has maybe one attack at 2d6+1 damage (and +2 to-hit) if at Skilled mastery with a two-handed sword. Against enemies with roundabout 9d8(40) hit points.
...Yeah. Also, the Mystic has what's pretty much super-Spring Attack when it comes to being able to split its attacks up while moving. This is in an edition that doesn't give the fighter a "1 attack/level vs. 1HD enemies" ability.
In true old schoolfashion the Mystic makes up for its overpowerdness by virtue of being underpowered at low levels (and also really hard to get the prerequisites for) - d6 hit dice and literally unarmed AC at first level (+1 for every level thereafter) does not make for an easy start. Then again the same thing could be said for pretty much every BECMI class.

I've been thinking about making some homebrew conversion of the Mystic to 3.5, actually. It might be interesting to see what people think of its abilities.

[TheIronGolem]

Another factor to consider is that low-level games are by far more common than mid- or high-level games, and the low levels are the ones that best mask the monk's weaknesses. At level 1, that WIS+DEX to AC is just as good as whatever armor the fighter can afford (better, if you're caught flat-footed), and you're doing as much damage as a guy with two shortswords (okay, daggers if you're Small) with only slightly less chance to hit. Then at level 2 you get Evasion, which is awesome as long as the enemy wizards are just hucking Fireballs at you all day - which many DM's have them do. By the time the Monk's problems are obvious enough to overcome the bias created by the low-level experience, the game is likely to have fallen apart anyway.

Basically, players who neither play a lot of high-level games nor engage in theorycrafting on forums - i.e. most players - don't get many chances to see the cracks in the class balancing.

[holywhippet]

Agreed. The whole class tier theory doesn't even become relevant until about level 7 when the casting classes start to get decent spells to cast and plenty of them.

At reasonably high level a monk has a very high movement speed and can use spring attack to get in, do damage, and fall back out of attack range. The only decent physical counters are ranged attacks (which the monk can counter by blocking line of sight) or preparing an action to attack when the monk comes in range.

There is no good counter for certain spells though. A flying, invisible can just pound a monk at range with spells that don't offer a reflex save.

[UmpteenthDoctor]

Wait there are good monk classes out there? even ones that are actually Powerful? Where do we find these books what systems are they?
I am sorry but I am fan of the Monk idea, but the Monk class only works if you have it gestalted and really only RP the fluff of a monk.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Wait there are good monk classes out there? even ones that are actually Powerful? Where do we find these books what systems are they?
I am sorry but I am fan of the Monk idea, but the Monk class only works if you have it gestalted and really only RP the fluff of a monk.

If Monk in 2E is anything like it is in Baldur's Gate, they get pretty good at high levels. I think mine had ~ 92% immunity to all magic, plus great saves, plus an insane amount of attacks that all generally hit...

[Sam K]

If Monk in 2E is anything like it is in Baldur's Gate, they get pretty good at high levels. I think mine had ~ 92% immunity to all magic, plus great saves, plus an insane amount of attacks that all generally hit...

I think the BG reference really sums it up. In computer RPG style combat, where you fight wave after wave of meatbags with limited magic support and few tactics, monks (and well built fighters) are powerhouses: "OMG CLEAVE CLEAVE FLURRY FLURRY!" "Lol wizard is out of spells already!" And seeing how many players are probably exposed to CRPGs before PnP RPGs these days, that will likely become the norm for many players. If the enemy starts flying, and you factor in the expected number of encounters per day, things change.

Also, while monk is pretty bad, it's in fact quite hard to make worse. Whatever you put your stats into (except charisma, maybe) will benefit you in some way. In poorly optimized (not to be confused with low OP where people actively decide not to build too strong characters, I'm talking about the games where people pick feats like endurance, self sufficient and diehard on fighters because they think it is a mechanically sound choice for a fighter) the monk is likely to come out ahead.

[Divide by Zero]

Whatever you put your stats into (except charisma, maybe) will benefit you in some way.

Don't forget that Charisma boosts your UMD!

[Rubik]

Don't forget that Charisma boosts your UMD!

And Giocomoronic monk "optimization" aside, it also boots Diplomacy, which actually is a monk skill.

Love ya, DbZ.

[Talakeal]

If Monk in 2E is anything like it is in Baldur's Gate, they get pretty good at high levels. I think mine had ~ 92% immunity to all magic, plus great saves, plus an insane amount of attacks that all generally hit...

IIRC Perfect Self actually made epic level monks count as demigods in 2E. Bladur's Gate actually gave them the whole gamut of immunities that went with divinity. I remember when I was fighting Balthazar (the level 40 monk villain in BG2 EX) on my mage and I cast time step to prep for the fight, and Balthazar proceeded to be immune to the effect, follow me into my own stopped time stream, and pound my mage to dust while my party was frozen.

You know, come to think of it, Divine Ranks might be exactly what the 3E monk needs...

[Troacctid]

I'm thinking of houseruling Flurry of Blows to work on a standard action attack in my next game.

[Gwendol]

That, and giving the poor monks full BAB is a decent carrot.

[LordAshenshield]

Pathfinder gave them Full BAB but only during Flurry.

[georgie_leech]

Wait there are good monk classes out there? even ones that are actually Powerful? Where do we find these books what systems are they?
I am sorry but I am fan of the Monk idea, but the Monk class only works if you have it gestalted and really only RP the fluff of a monk.

The 4E Monk isn't the best Striker in the game because it spreads the damage out to much, but it's one of the most mobile, having scads of movement abilities to go along with varied and effective attack powers. A while back I built a Dragon-emulating Monk that can damage multiple enemies, has several types of attack (doing actually relevant damage, rather than 3.5's unarmed progression), can trip enemies, has enhanced jumps that let it flip around like all the best wuxia movies, has temporary flight, can damage everything around it with force damage, and increase its melee reach for an entire encounter. Other interesting things I could have had him do instead include forcing an enemy to attack one of its allies, attacking multiple opponents to Slow them all after shifting them around the battlefield, and setting up a sonic resonance effect between two creatures that makes it so whenever one is damaged the other takes Thunder (Sonic) damage. All available from level 1.

[Knaight]

There are two main things. One is that lower levels see more play, and monks legitimately have some good stuff going for them in those levels (starting with the saves). Another is that the monk just looks powerful. They get highly visible big numbers (2d10 damage, move speed, etc.) and a long list of features, which are generally pretty evocative. Slow falling with a wall just sounds cool and powerful, even if it's actually pretty limited, has limited utility due to falling damage being pretty minimal, and is totally outclassed by Feather Fall.

Consider the caster classes - they have no plainly visible big numbers, and tend to have really boring class features, consisting mostly of a spell table. Then, the actual list of spells is pretty uninspiring. If the list is trimmed down to a presentable one of high powered options they look downright ridiculous, but it's not immediately apparent. They don't get the big numbers, the cool names, any of that. So they don't necessarily seem powerful.

[Seppo87]

There's a significant psychological factor involved.
New players need a symbolic drawback to accept powerful abilities.

A symbolic drawback is a threat, real or percieved (see the spellbook example), that the power may me unavailable (or dangerous) under certain circumnstances.

Wizards run out of spells. Spellbooks can (theoretically) be stolen.
Wild shape has a limited duration.
A fighter's equipment can be stolen or destroyed. The DM may not give any.
Sneak Attack requires conditions and may be negated

The monk? Well you can't disarm a monk. You can't stop his AC bonus. You can't stop his damage dice from growing. He's not going to run out of Slow Fall effects.

VoP Monk is the epitome of this. His full power is always available in all situations. There are no apparent way to nerf him, short of having him fall.
And his AC is probably excellent, which also scares novice DMs.

It's a psychological, symbolic thing.
Divine Power? "it has a round based duration and limited uses"
In practice, the limitation ceases to exist after a few levels.
But since it FEELS limited, then people are okay with it being overpowered.

VOP Monk just feels like it has no drawbacks. And this really grinds some people gears.

[Spore]

The monk in our group once jumped a chasm that should divide the group from their linear guild. I think it was that moment when our DM decided not to invite him anymore...the monk's a decent class if it weren't for the Ki Pool desaster and combat likely to take to air around mid levels I'd say. I changed my character voluntarily from Blaster Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple to Monk because my DM didn't want his NPCs to evaporate in a small cloud of smoke. But my divine full caster patching people up, supporting the group and providing even an excuse to use the almighty divine intervention is very welcome.

The problem is that a monk's combat style is composed of almost exclusively epic images how he fights the enemy. Take our fight vs. a Lich for example. The monk jumps the gap to the spellcaster from afar and grapples the hideous creature forcing a Dimension Door spell. My character climbs the wall up and drops off on him again to grab onto his flying butt and flurry him. I deal a poor amount of damage when he casts massive no-save debuffs nerfing my damage and my saves and then almost killing me with his fiery blast. An epic battle ensues.

Meanwhile on the other side of the room: The wizard snips her fingers and I get Fire Resistance 20. The sorcerer snips his fingers and he disarms the Lich, gaining a Metamagic Rod of Quicken Spell. The wizard summons something while the sorcerer snips twice and the Lich gets killed by a Disintegrate spell.

Then remember that I couldn't have done ANYTHING if it weren't for my RACIAL climb speed and if we weren't in a large cathedral.

Also Dragon Ball Z.

[Morty]

Like other people have said - the monk seems powerful. If someone doesn't have all the nitty-gritty knowledge of power structure of 3e D&D, a class with all good saves that can do the same damage as a greatsword-wielding fighter with its fists (which it actually can't, but it looks like it can) and has a laundry list of cool-sounding features... people will think it's powerful. If nobody really optimizes, it might well hold up in actual play - eventually, the monk's weakness will shine through, but a few casual, low-level sessions can definitely make it look strong, depending on the circumstances.

[Talionis]

Floor vs Ceiling

We think Wizards are powerful because they have a high ceiling, but their floor is pretty low, especially at low levels. If you play a Wizard poorly, you'll die before you get to higher levels. If you prepare all the wrong spells you won't be worth a darn.

In low Op, players and DMs look at the floor because most of them don't get any farther from it than they can jump.

In High Op, we look at ceilings . If we pick all the right feats and spells a Wizard can live in outer space and practically seem like they don't have a ceiling.

Truly a great point about MAD having an upside if you get buffs for multiple stats. I never looked at it that way, since it seems costly of resources.

[Elderand]

Truly a great point about MAD having an upside if you get buffs for multiple stats. I never looked at it that way, since it seems costly of resources.

That's because it's not actually a great point, yeah you can gain more from buff, but don't forget the caveat, you gain more because you start that much worse and you need more buff.
That's like saying a bycicle is great because the difference between it's old speed and new speed is greater when you stick an engine to it than the difference in speed on a motorcycle if you stick with a better engine.

Worse, by needing more buffs you are actually mobilizing ressources away from other class that could actually do something useful. You're weakening the wizard or cleric by having to be babysitted by them.

[Segev]

Truly a great point about MAD having an upside if you get buffs for multiple stats. I never looked at it that way, since it seems costly of resources.

It seems so, and can be, but you're right that it's a good (and oft-overlooked) point. In a way, it's beneficial because it allows you to buff extra things with a lower outlay, because getting 4 stats at +4 is cheaper than getting 2 stats at +6.

It's still better if you can get an "omni-stat" SAD that you buff through the roof, because if you get nearly everything depending on that one stat, you get much higher values for your money.

It's a matter of what you're optimizing. If you're optimizing numbers of things to buff, bringing it all to one SAD is nice. If you're looking to optimize one thing (like, say, AC), then MAD which adds multiple stats to that one thing lets you buff it with less money and a higher ceiling. (The monk, for instance, gets Dex and Wis to AC, which means if you want to buff his AC, you can use two spells to give +2 each or buy two +4 stat items rather than 1 +6 item...and not quite raising it as much.)

But it's not the TYPICAL way optimization works because it's much more situational and focused, and optimization pushes for T1, which is all about omni-applicability.

[Graypairofsocks]

Yeah, but a lot of people seem actively in denial. Like i was told the other night that all a VoP monk has to do to keep up with flyers or ranged attacks is get a sling with greater magic weapon cast on it. That seems to be less ignorance of system mastery as denial of reality.

Wow, just wow.

[ngilop]

My guess is because they look like they get to do a lot of stuff on paper, and they get to ignore a bunch of features that other people don't. Falling damage? Nope. Armor costs? Nope. Two-Weapon Fighting feats? Still no.

So the initial reaction is always "jeez, look at all the stuff this guy gets to do" and never "...okay, he has a lot of stuff, but half of it is basically useless and the other half conflicts with itself."

this is me agreeing with Fax, a rather rare occurance.

id also add that a lot of people are probably going into the mindset that 3rd ed monk = to 1st edition monk

but that's probably a small % of peeps.


these are the same people who cry 'OP FIGHTER" when you give the fighter a d12 HP 4 skill points, and weapon aptitude for free makes no sense to me and it never will.

[Telonius]

Consider, too, that the groups who think this may also balk at allowing most of the things which are used to make low-level casters viable. The "core only" crowd are very commonly in this "monk OP!" camp. The thing that puzzles me is how the druid escapes this stigma.

Druid is very powerful even in Core, but it's one of those classes that requires a lot of system mastery and work to play to its full potential. Yeah, Natural Spell is obvious. But if you're going to really pull out all the stops for a Druid, you need to have a notebook full of stat blocks for both yourself, your animal companion, and all of the stuff you might want to summon. Almost no beginning player is going to want to do all that, or even know where to start with it. The DM might be the only person who has a copy of the Monster Manual, the player might not know about d20srd, the player probably won't have enough metagame knowledge to know the best animal to Shapechange into for each circumstance. By the time you know the system well enough to do all that, you might as well be the DM.

[Max Caysey]

Because Tippy once created a monk that was the most powerful creature in the multiverse!

[Fax Celestis]

In low Op, players and DMs look at the floor because most of them don't get any farther from it than they can jump.

...which is funny, because monks end up with ludicrous Jump check bonuses from their speed increases.

[Lightlawbliss]

Because Tippy once created a monk that was the most powerful creature in the multiverse!

I'm fairly sure PunPun doesn't work with monk.