What makes the monk so bad?

[Eldariel]

Whereas in my circle it's much more important to roleplay a character, and if that means you pass up your existing class features because they don't fit the flavor, then the DM works around that. It might mean you can't call yourself the badassest of the badass, but as long as everyone is playing their character and having fun, achieving objectives is of secondary importance.

Oh, certainly, I'm all on board for homebrewing stuff for every player but it's just not always an option: in my latest campaign only one player is playing a printed class, Warblade, with only minor modifications, and the game doesn't use magic items outside a single scaling item per character and rules are changed accordingly. Other two are a blind Elven Mage of sorts (psionics-based magician class with some power limitations) and a Human ToB-reworked Ranger type. We don't pick one or the other, it's roleplay and mechanics all in one neat package. Mechanics worked out before the game, roleplay done during the game. Individual competencies vary, of course.

There's also a lot you can do with the rules as they stand anyways (e.g. Cleric with Wis to AC can be achieved; simple Monk's Belt from core being the easiest option). It's a lot more work to customize stuff for every player tho; in a local playgroup with longstanding friends, maybe; at a convention? Never.

PbP, well, it varies but usually I'd err on the side of caution with effort spent on individual players as not all might even participate and those games disintegrate occasionally.


That's all irrelevant for this question tho 'cause this only comes up if I'm playing the Core Monk as written in a playgroup not tailored to the power level it would require. In such a case I would go and age, and make it work probably.

[awa]

wow I cant belive I didnt even notice that the monk threads werent 20 pages long and full of yelling until you mentioned it.

(and im being completly serious)

[Coidzor]

Whereas in my circle it's much more important to roleplay a character, and if that means you pass up your existing class features because they don't fit the flavor, then the DM works around that.

That's very fortunate and lucky for you and your group, but not really entirely relevant to a discussion of why monks are problematic because just because you can fix it, that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

I believe there's a named fallacy for that one.

[Answerer]

I believe there's a named fallacy for that one.

Oberoni's.

[Vaern]

Diamond Soul is a bit stronger then people give it to be, as Spell Resistance is overridden by Foregoing your save. I dont think there is a heal in the game that lacks a save.

Actually, it's not. It specifically says that you need to spend a standard action to lower your spell resistance in order to accept a spell.

The terms "object" and "harmless" mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws. A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by a spell noted as harmless. In such a case, you do not need to make the caster level check described above.

[Grendus]

Oberoni's.

It can also be referred to as the rule 0 fallacy - it's not broken because the DM can fix it.

[toapat]

Actually, it's not. It specifically says that you need to spend a standard action to lower your spell resistance in order to accept a spell.

This was debated in the nonfunctional rules thread, with the judgement being that Core is more accurate then the rules compendium, in which you can force fail the saves no matter what.

[Kazyan]

This was debated in the nonfunctional rules thread, with the judgement being that Core is more accurate then the rules compendium, in which you can force fail the saves no matter what.

It really bugs me when people use the primary source thing to ignore a book that outright tells you it overrides the primary source and has no other function.

[hewhosaysfish]

Actually, it does make monks vulnerable, as it changes your type to Outsider (no subtypes). Because they have no native descriptor, they are considered extraplanar no matter what. Fey'Ri and most other planetouched at least specify that they have the Native subtype by refferencing back to teiflings.

Have you got a reference for that? I'm looking at the SRD's entries for the Outsider type and the Extraplanar and Native types and I'm not seeing it.

[toapat]

It really bugs me when people use the primary source thing to ignore a book that outright tells you it overrides the primary source and has no other function.

well, if you actually use those rules, Spell resistance is fully useless, as the entire point of having the forego your saving throw rules originally was so that getting spell resistance wasnt slightly less effective then deciding to target yourself with a Headman's chop.

Have you got a reference for that? I'm looking at the SRD's entries for the Outsider type and the Extraplanar and Native types and I'm not seeing it.

Standard of obtaining Outsider type is getting Extraplanar as a subtype. because the monk capstone does not specify any subtypes (which is a huge problem), the game's auto assumptions apply. Planetouched are the exception, not the rule.

RAI, the monk capstone changes you to being Outsider, and grants you the subtypes (Lawful, Native). It doesnt say anything beyond becoming an outsider

[Vaern]

This was debated in the nonfunctional rules thread, with the judgement being that Core is more accurate then the rules compendium, in which you can force fail the saves no matter what.

This isn't about saving throws. Nobody is saying that you can't voluntarily fail a saving throw. I'm saying that forgoing a saving throw and lowering spell resistance are two completely different things, which are specifically described in the PHB, the SRD, and the Rules Comendium.

The Rules Compendium says the exact same thing about spell resistance as the Player's Handbook and the SRD: It takes a standard action to lower, reactivates on your next turn unless you continue to focus on keeping it down, and applies even to spells labeled as (harmless).

And although all three sources say that you can voluntarily fail a saving throw, none of them says that forgoing your saving throw also allows a spell's caster to ignore your spell resistance. Otherwise there would be no need for them to elaborate on the mechanics of voluntarily lower spell resistance.

Standard of obtaining Outsider type is getting Extraplanar as a subtype. because the monk capstone does not specify any subtypes (which is a huge problem), the game's auto assumptions apply. Planetouched are the exception, not the rule.

RAI, the monk capstone changes you to being Outsider, and grants you the subtypes (Lawful, Native). It doesnt say anything beyond becoming an outsider

I looked this up, and they are in fact native outsiders. Any creature on a plane other than its home plane gains the extraplanar subtype, and that any outsider whose entry does is not labeled as extraplanar is assumed to be native to the Material Plane even if they don't specifically have the native subtype. Thus, outsider (no subtypes) defaults to outsider (native), not to outsider (extraplanar).

However, I don't think they would gain the lawful subtype. The entry for the lawful subtype says that it's usually only applied to outsiders who are native to the lawful-aligned outer planes. A lawful outsider retains the lawful subtype even if his alignment changes and he becomes non-lawful, as he is partially composed of the essence of a lawful-aligned plane.

Despite the monk's requirement of having a lawful alignment, he is not native to a lawful plane and there is nothing to indicate that he would gain the lawful subtype as an outsider. He would be a outsider of an unaligned plane, who happens to also be a lawful creature.

[toapat]

*Snip*

1: The Rules Compendium Change is specifically in Foregoing saving throws, not spell resistance. Without it, you can fail the saving throw before you decide to roll spell resistance.

2: Im not going to believe you without you citing the entire section about this, as there are more unmarked extraplanar outsiders then unmarked planetouched.

[olentu]

Bah, the counter argument is that if the spell fails to overcome spell resistance then no saving throw is made because the spell does not affect the monk. You can not fail a save you are never asked to make.

[Vaern]

1: It does not say that a caster can disregard the spell resistance of a willing subject. It only says that you can willingly fail a saving throw. There isn't a single mention of spell resistance within six pages of the entry regarding forgoing saving throws.

2:

A subtype applied to any creature when it is on a plane other than its native plane. A creature that travels the planes can gain or lose this subtype as it goes from plane to plane. This book assumes that encounters with creatures take place on the Material Plane, and every creature whose native plane is not the Material Plane has the extraplanar subtype (but would not have when on its home plane). Every extraplanar creature in this book has a home plane mentioned in its description. These home planes are taken from the great Wheel cosmology of the D&D game (see Chapter 5 of the Dungeon Master's Guide). If your campaign uses a different cosmology, you will need to assign different home planes to extraplanar creatures.
Creatures not labeled as extraplanar are natives of the Material Plane, and they gain the extraplanar subtype if they leave the Material Plane. No creature has the extraplanar subtype when it is on a transitive plane; the transitive planes in the D&D cosmology are the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, and the Plane of Shadow.

There you go. Monks are not labeled as extraplanar, and are therefore native to the Material Plane.

[tyckspoon]

2: Im not going to believe you without you citing the entire section about this, as there are more unmarked extraplanar outsiders then unmarked planetouched.

I'd actually have to turn this back on you- can you cite the rule that makes you believe that Outsiders are automatically Extraplanar? It's not part of the Outsider Type traits, and the Extraplanar Subtype itself, well

A subtype applied to any creature when it is on a plane other than its native plane. A creature that travels the planes can gain or lose this subtype as it goes from plane to plane. Monster entries assume that encounters with creatures take place on the Material Plane, and every creature whose native plane is not the Material Plane has the extraplanar subtype (but would not have when on its home plane). Every extraplanar creature in this book has a home plane mentioned in its description. Creatures not labeled as extraplanar are natives of the Material Plane, and they gain the extraplanar subtype if they leave the Material Plane. No creature has the extraplanar subtype when it is on a transitive plane, such as the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, and the Plane of Shadow.

... specifically mentions that if you go to another plane, you are (Extraplanar) and the creatures that actually live there are not. Unless there's something I have forgotten that says a Monk 20 stops being a creature of the Material Plan, they are no more (Extraplanar) than a Material-plane-born Aasimar or Tiefling is.

(Also, all the 'go home planes-travelers' spells specifically target the Extraplanar subtype, not the Outsider type.)

[Vaern]

(Also, all the 'go home planes-travelers' spells specifically target the Extraplanar subtype, not the Outsider type.)

Yes, yes, I take back what I said about them possibly being considered legal targets for those spells. I will not, however, take back what I said about it being a hilarious circumstance to think about :P

[toapat]

1: It does not say that a caster can disregard the spell resistance of a willing subject. It only says that you can willingly fail a saving throw. There isn't a single mention of spell resistance within six pages of the entry regarding forgoing saving throws.

2: There you go. Monks are not labeled as extraplanar, and are therefore native to the Material Plane.

1: Look through the non-functional rules thread, they have the actual place where the willingly take 1 can go without

2: Monks do not gain the Native subtype, which is not RAI. They gain specifically a unique subtype to their ascension that is Outsider (Can be ressed). This becomes a significant problem when Outsiders have to have either the Native or Extraplanar descriptors, which no other creature types in the game have normally on the Prime Material Plane.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Problems with monks.

Medium BAB: You're a warrior class. I'd understand this if you gained bonuses specific to your unarmed strike and monk weapons that make your BAB equivalent to full, but you don't.

D8 hit die: Warrior class!

4+int skill points with good list: So this is supposed to make you a better skillmonkey in exchange for being a bad warrior? Barbarian gets this too, and fighter should get this. Not good enough.

Unarmed Strike: Good enough

Flurry of Blows: No movement and medium BAB? With a weapon that's harder to enchant than normal? Bad. Easily fixed, but that ain't the point.
Fast Movement: Great, so now you can waste your turn running up to the enemy and making one medium BAB attack, then stand with your crappy AC and hit points. Oh, and it doesn't stack with Haste and magic items, so say goodbye to your concept of making a super-speedy guy.

Slow Fall: Oh, it's Feather Fall, but way worse.

All your other class features: Either useless, or too little too late.

[tyckspoon]

This becomes a significant problem when Outsiders have to have either the Native or Extraplanar descriptors...

This part. This part is Citation Needed. Why does an Outsider *have* to have one of these two subtypes? Why is an Outsider not permitted to just be an Outsider?

(Also, on review it's a bit of a moot point anyway, as a Monk doesn't actually become an Outsider- his Traits and Features don't change. He only counts as an Outsider for the limited realm of "magical spells and effects" ... which largely don't *care* whether or not he's Native. He has a specific exemption for Raise Dead already, which is the effect that most cares about the distinction between Native and non-Native Outsiders.)

[Zrak]

To speak more generally than the specific, mechanical problems of the monk (which have been enumerated at length in this thread and elsewhere), I think the primary flaw of the monk, from a design perspective, is that it really has no business being a base class. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I don't mean it as anything against the monk class, I just feel that, in both its flavor and mechanics, it is better suited to be (that is to say, it would function better if designed as) a prestige class than a base class.

Basically, the base classes all represent at least fairly broad archetypes which can evolve in a variety of ways and towards a variety of different concepts. A fighter can be a grizzled, pragmatic veteran of a mercenary company, a desert nomad who focuses on mobility and grace, or an honorable knight, in his family's ancestral plate, questing for justice and truth. A wizard can specialize in any number of schools and build a spell list any number of ways, from a power-mad necromancer to a battle-mage blaster wizard to a zany illusionist. These are all concepts the class can represent not just in terms of its fluff, but concepts that can be created and represented by the mechanics of the class, more-or-less viably. Not only does the flavor of monk narrow the concept down much more than just about any other core base class (Paladin, I'm looking at you), but the lack of mechanical options enforces this narrowly-tailored class.

The monk class basically necessitates that anyone who want to be a martial artist plays a character that's pretty much a kung-fu movie version of a Shaolin monk. As such, the class gets a lot of mechanically useless features which add to this flavor, but in the process define the flavor; a very specific character concept, with little room for change, is an entire class. Now, this is more what I think of when I think of prestige classes, classes who go down a more specific path than the base class from which one enters them, and which one must meet certain prerequisites, in alignment and character build, to enter.

Now, this isn't to say all monks are one-note characters, but rather that the system as written encourages monks to be one-note characters, or at least much more similar to one another than two members of another class, even if players can overcome this. Before splatbooks gave us a bajillion extra base classes and as such provided one for essentially any specific concept, concepts as narrowly tailored as the monk, at least in my opinion, were mostly represented through mechanical choices in base classes and/or taking more specific prestige classes. Stretching monk out over twenty levels gives it a bunch of useless "filler" abilities with cool names, abilities than come too late to be useful, and a notable lack of the variety of choices offered to other base classes.

[Coidzor]

What if Everyone were a Monk?

[Vaern]

1: Look through the non-functional rules thread, they have the actual place where the willingly take 1 can go without

2: Monks do not gain the Native subtype, which is not RAI. They gain specifically a unique subtype to their ascension that is Outsider (Can be ressed). This becomes a significant problem when Outsiders have to have either the Native or Extraplanar descriptors, which no other creature types in the game have normally on the Prime Material Plane.

1: The phrase "non-function rules" has never even been mentioned on this forum except in another post you made in a thread about a tarrasque.
I have found a "dysfunctional rules" thread, in which the phrase "spell resistance" only occurs in a copy+pasting of the spell description of Disintegrate (out of the full 40 pages of the thread).
Unless you want to dig up this post and link it yourself, I am inclined to conclude that it does not exist. Besides attempting to redirect me to this non-existent thread, you have done nothing more than insist that the rules say something that they very clearly do no say. Your argument is invalid, as you have no real evidence to back it up.

2: "Can be ressed" is not a subtype. It's a quality. That's like saying an elf is a "humanoid (elf, immune to sleep)."
Monks do not gain a subtype. Because they do not become extraplanar, they default to native. What part of "Creatures not labeled as extraplanar are natives of the Material Plane" is difficult to understand?

[TuggyNE]

Re the whole Outsider-banishment discussion: I've decided my earlier position (as noted in posts as little as a week ago) is incorrect, and (since Monks do not switch home planes) nothing special happens to them.

However, it would have been more useful, clear, and correct to simply give them the Outsider (native) type and subtype for all purposes, possibly even including traits, although martial weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies could I suppose be left out.

[hymer]

@ Zrak: While it may be a problem, I don't think monks are any worse in that particular regard than, say, paladins or bards - at least fluffwise. Druids too I suppose. Of course, druids and bards are notoriously versatile, and so the fluff specificity sort of caves in to the crunch broadness. Paladins much less so, but they at least get spells and a choice of fighting style.

[Darth Stabber]

Just another manic monkday.

Most of the previous listed arguments are entirely valid, but there is a more important note: Swordsage exists, and has an unarmed variant, therefore monk is irrelevant. Swordage has useful mechanical abilities, and is a ton of fun to play, and covers the concept monk is supposed to fulfill better, and can cover a wide variety of other concepts as well. Why would I pick a melee class that is worse at melee than than the NPC melee class, when I can use mountain hammer to break down iron doors with bare hands? Swordsage gets a lot of crap for being weaboo, but monk is just as weaboo by default. Even the most anti-ToB arguments still don't make a dent in it's perfection for monk replacment.

Monks reach spiritual enlightenment by being humble, and nothing makes you more humble than the realization that you are easily the least effective character in your party. Even the fighter who required no purity of mind and body to advance is hitting things harder and more accurately than you. Even the bard, who's whole class is based on merriment, carousing, ADHD, and all manner of good natured debauchery, is as accurate as you in a fight, and can replicate 90% of your other abilities (including all of the good ones) while still having room on his spell list for things that actually resolve challenges placed before you. Like the paladin you focused on power of order to change the world, and you didn't even get a free horse. Truely by the time he reaches even mid levels, he has learned to be humble.

[Zrak]

@ Zrak: While it may be a problem, I don't think monks are any worse in that particular regard than, say, paladins or bards - at least fluffwise. Druids too I suppose. Of course, druids and bards are notoriously versatile, and so the fluff specificity sort of caves in to the crunch broadness. Paladins much less so, but they at least get spells and a choice of fighting style.

Well, I feel like bard is actually a pretty broad class, both mechanically and conceptually. You could go all classic Orpheus with it, you could play a battle-ready Skald, or you could make High Fantasy Jeff Winger. They all fit with the bard fluff and, again, they're all possible and more-or-less viable bards, mechanically.
Paladin, though, yeah. If I were the guy making rules, Paladin would definitely be a prestige class.

Moreover, I feel like a bard represents a fantastic/mythical archetype that's not only broad, but iconic in a way monk (as the class is written) isn't. The monk, as written, is like a niche group of a type of hero from a specific folklore canon. The monk isn't a certain archetype of warrior, like the fighter (trained) and barbarian (wild/natural) are, it's not even as broad type as the ranger; rather than representing the broad category of unarmed combatants, or the slightly-less-broad category of warrior-monks, the monk represents warrior monks associated with a specific pop-culture image of a specific niche within the category of warrior monks.

[Eldariel]

Well, I feel like bard is actually a pretty broad class, both mechanically and conceptually. You could go all classic Orpheus with it, you could play a battle-ready Skald, or you could make High Fantasy Jeff Winger. They all fit with the bard fluff and, again, they're all possible and more-or-less viable bards, mechanically.

It even draws onto the folkloristic idea of song being magic and "casting" being done through singing (see e.g. Kalevala). This is even found in Lord of the Rings (Tom Bombadil, Old Man Willow, the Old Forest in general), pretty much the progenitor of the system.

A bard is a more iconic spellcaster for me than a wizard, honestly.

[awa]

I have never met anyone who owns tome of battle while the srd is free online so just saying monks dont matter sword sages exsist is not particularly helpfull or usefull.

[Gavinfoxx]

I have never met anyone who owns tome of battle while the srd is free online so just saying monks dont matter sword sages exsist is not particularly helpfull or usefull.

monks don't matter, psychic warriors exist. Monks dont matter, fighters and magic items exist. monks don't matter, barbarians and barbarian acfs exist. etc etc.

[awa]

im not saying monks are good merely that saying swordsages exist so completly ignore monks is not helpfull