Why is monk the most underrated class?

Because D&D et al is a pretty shitty place for them.

They were decent in 4e and you can make a better monk using Tome of Battle/Path of War stuff, but there are better games and systems for playing martial artists of all stripes.

>>44549809
Because people don't want to believe that that they could do extraordinary things on their own and the only person holding them back is themselves. Its much easier to believe that the system is designed against you and unless you're lucky enough for the "key" to fall into your hand you're just a fucked scrub, whether that key is a magic micguffin or a unique trait that only sets you apart is irrelevant.

The whole idea of a monk is that they're a normal person that pushes themselves through hard work, dedication and perseverance. Literally anyone can do it, but if you tell someone that the only reason you're you and not mister amazing hands over there is because they're a lazy fuck, they don't like that. So an excuse is made e.i. mister amazing hands was lucky, or shit is unfair. This correlates as much to real life as it does to fantasy and the fact that the people trying to escape real life via fantasy may often go to table top games just compounds this.

Tl;dr people are just as lazy in fantasy as in real life

Note: this does not apply to the people who actually enjoy the acting and real roleplaying as appossed to those who just want an ego stroke.

>>44549845
Pretty much this. D&D heavily influences tabletop games. Monks are bad in the most influential version of D&D. Thus Monks are performed as bad.

>>44549809
Because their class concept in D&D was mostly about the special powers of making unarmored barehanded combat for them equal to armed combat. Which is actually a pretty incredible feat but for heroes alongside other heroes, it's not fun to just be making up for losses that happen at level 1 over the course of your 20-level progression. The system tries to account for gradual-growth into being skilled enough to use your basic fighting style, which doesn't exist for anyone else - they just get proficiencies for free and are fully competent.

Depends on what we're talking about.
Usually, it's because fighting with your fists is an extremely bad idea, as weapons were invented for a reason.
But knowing /tg/, it's about D&D. In which case, it's because they were broken and terrible in 3.5, the most famous and popular edition.

Because it's underpowered due to being restricted to staffs, slings, pole arms, and fists when the rest of the party are carrying basic iron weapons that do 2x the damage of every monk weapon. Also, even though the wizard can't wear armor at least he has spells, only one crucial stat, and is usually behind the party tanks. The monk is supposed to be a frontline fighter but his AC, damage output, multiple stat dependencies, and low health die completely disagree with that idea. This means the monk can't do shit.

>>44549809
They're not. If you're talking 3.5/PF, my experience is that the most commonly under-rated class is Bard. Lots of people will insist that it's weak, when Bard's are actually pretty competent..

>>44550442
Yeah, this.
Bards are underrated. Monks are just weak.
See >>44550214

>>44550172
Monk as a class is fucking shit in 3.5 and PF, no, srly, is shit, the best "monks" are or totally not monk class or only have like 1 or 2 levels in monk and 18-19 in other class. Yeah, the system is designed against you in this case.

But thank god there're better systems out there, for example Anima and their Taos.

>>44550308
This is not true, monks can do one shit, they actually very good at one thing: flee.

File: The-Boss.jpg (42KB, 500x268px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x268px

>>44549809
>Masters of CQC
>Underrated
Nigga, you can CQC dragons and other dangerous shit, how can it be underrated?

>>44552312
>Masters of CQC
Not in any D&D edition ever but 4e, and sadly a lot of systems and companies predate from D&D and wotc.

>>44549809

RAW monk is actually pretty bad.

Unless you do nothing but stand still, you don't get your tons of attacks.
And you can't get special enchantments for your fists like weapons can.

Fix those two things, or at least the first one, and they'd be more fun.

>>44552704
>Special enchantments
Even the most basic +X for monks costs 3 times more than the same bonus for a weapon.

They're also MAD as fuck.

>>44550172
Left ok man, I'm all about work ethic and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, but the monk in DnD is very much poorly equipped and is well deserving of its low tier status.

>>44549809
No 1-1 BAB in Any monk that I'm aware of.

Fuck flurry of Blows and Balance. If I want to play a Monk Variant, I shouldn't be 5 levels behind a fighter with 0 defensive equipment.

>>44552818
His point was that the system designers think like that, so they don't make monks good because if monks were good, that would imply that the only reason THEY, in real life, aren't that good is lack of effort.

>>44549809
Because I don't want any fucking shaolin monks in my fantasy games.

Yes, fuck your fun

>>44553335
Unless it's Quelong.

How do we "fix" the 3.pf monk?

>>44553428
Full BAB
Class abilities that actually make sense
d10 HD couldn't hurt

>>44553480
>>44553428
PF unchanined monk has:
Full BAB
d10 HD
Gets Pounce like feature
Qiggonk powers
And other features

But they now have bad Wis save

Their magic items are still expensier and their damage is still impossible to improve (improved natural strike doesn't work anymore and there isn't supreme unarmed strike)

They went from Tier5-6 to Tier4

>>44553428
You don't need to. They are actually fine.

>>44553577
They are a T5 class you retard. A barbarian using spiked gauntlets is more effective.

>>44553552
Then just fix the game in general, remove save or die spells

>>44552644
>What is 5E
Both 4E and 5E monks are good for such things.

>>44555823
>>44552644

Monk is good fun in 5edition I play a sun soul one. I both punch and kick things and shot lasers from my hands.

>>44553019
I like you. You're a "curtain is blue" kind of guy.

Because any other class can do what they do better.

They're interesting, but I get the impression that half the time people don't know what to do with them.

>>44553428
Class ability that lets them spend money on giving their unarmed attacks enhancements like any other weapon. Higher ranked magical enhancements become available over time. Fluff wise, it's the monk training so hard that his fists catch fire, or vibrate sonic waves, or defend harder, WHATEVER.

Then again, what do I know about game design? I'm sure this idea is bad for balance somehow.

>>44549809
because they don't rely on equipment. It's simple, everyone wants some sort of loot and new toys to try out but with a monk a lot of the loot is of no use to you. Wands, scrolls staffs for magic users. Weapons armour for fighters. Monks could get trinkets but Rouges and Bards are usually better with those too.

>>44556401

Doesn't even have to be a class mechanic. A DM could just fluff it as wandering martial arts masters willing to teach their techniques to the worthy.

Heck, that means you can vary the cost for each of them. Maybe one will train you if you pay him enough, but another requires a quest from you. It doesn't have to be a prestige class, just a secret technique from another monastery.

>>44553335
What about in Yoon-Suin, the Purple Land?

>>44553422
My nigga.

>>44556401

>>44556612
(Me)

Or it doesn't even have to be a martial artist. It could be inspiration. Perhaps the monk goes to a secluded place with beautiful, peaceful scenery, and meditates. Contemplating life while taking in the surroundings of the world inspires him to new techniques.

Or perhaps goes on a safari, where he observes wild animals in their natural habitat, and develops new techniques based off their movements. The money could go toward paying a local guide. Or he could try roughing it alone.

Heck, maybe the monk isn't above magical augmentation. Maybe since they do so much soul-searching, they can accept things like that because they're not just slapping it on or putting it in and calling it a day; they're training their very souls to accept the new and make it truly a part of them.

>>44556401

Magical accupuncture?
You can spend 2,000gp and undergo a lengthy ritual in order to add a +1 enhancement bonus to your unarmed strikes, or spend 1,000gp likewise to add a +1 enhancement bonus to your natural armor.

>>44556817
Yeah!

Or like the Samurai in Oriental Adventures, sacrifice some loot to the ancestors for more power.

>>44549809
Throwing in with everybody else: Because they were bad in one game (and the off-brand mutation) and people are dumb and can't separate the concept from one mechanical expression of that concept.

Because they don't have a full base attack bonus

>>44553428
By buying the 5E PHB.

>>44553552
>>44553428
why even bother though
play just about anything else

>>44550172
>The whole idea of a monk is that they're a normal person that pushes themselves through hard work, dedication and perseverance.
The whole idea is of a monk is you can accomplish what others accomplish but without any magic, armor, or weaponry, though it doesn't happen in practice with D&D in particular.

So what you have is a class that tells 99% of other classes that they're fundamentally inferior because they need actual tools to win encounters, not just the power of poverty.

The problem with monk is that monk exists as a separate class instead of being fighter's class features.

>>44555823
A valor bard who picks up proficiency in Athletics is better at chokeslamming dragons than a monk :^) Luchador supremacy.

File: 1448240255010.gif (4MB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 600x450px

The casters have magic. They are more capable when they have magic, so to compensate they are less capable when they don't.

The fighters have weapons. They are capable when they have weapons, so to compensate they are less capable when they don't.

The monk comes in at the bottom or the top of this pyramid depending on perspective. He can do the most with nothing, so as a counterbalance he can do the least in the opposite environment. Monks excel when you're imprisoned, when your weapons were checked by the guards, with your hands tied, or fighting in a magnetic or antimagic environment.

This is bullshit, of course. These days magic users have ways to never be without magic. But I feel like that was the original intent.

>>44549809
I found that Unchained monk in PF is pretty good, and get an item or two and your shitting out crapton of d6 in a round. Not to mention some ki powers are pretty bonkers

>>44558630
Which could have been solved by giving other martials more lateral utility and the ability to get more out of their gear. But, you know, martials roll d20 to attack once per 5 points of BAB, let's go write more spells.

>>44551978
>Anima and their Taos
Punching people with your SOUL tends to do that m8

>>44555823
>5e monks

Enjoy your lack of weapon feats.

>>44558728
The original intent is that one of Gygax's or Arneson's players wanted to play Bruce Lee, so Gygax made him a custom class. This then got ported into 3e alongside all the other AD&D and older content and became a sacred cow due to the hobby getting flooded by people who thought that everything written in the rulebooks was a high-quality product engineered by RPG scientists instead of a pile of homebrew made on the fly by some neckbeards.

>>44558733
Well it's not me that aggressively shilled for 3.5e/PF for years so if there's anyone to blame it isn't me.

I remember my ex-girlfriend got into table-top through some friends, her first experience with it, and I told her that's great, and that I was running a D&D 4E game at the local game store. She wrinkled her nose and sincerely said, "Ew" about D&D 4E, because her group played PF.

This is someone who just got into the hobby not even a month ago already brainwashed into obsessing over 3.clones and denouncing everything else.

>>44549809
For me It's always been that If I want to play a guy who punches real good I don't want it to be from martial arts. I just want to punch with raw ass strength.

>>44552644

4e monks were fantastic, though the exact sort of CQC varies a lot on the type.

The Desert Wind monk in my current game tends to act like a fighting game character.

>Blistering Flourish for +Cha to damage for a turn.
>Rain of Hammers Ki Focus for an extra at-will attack against the same target.
>Flurry of blows
>Starblade flurry for an extra target 5 squares away.
>Crossbow for an extra target 10 squares away
>Supreme flurry for a second flurry of blows
>Action point for a daily attack
>another use of flurry when you action point (Via feat).

'Jesus fucking christ he's already dead and you've hit SSStylish, you can stop now'

>>44558794

Iron Soul monks were great in 4e for that.

'Hello. I am going to beat your face into pulp with skill, speed and raw power. Then I am going to dislocate your knee so you can't get away from me when I do it again next turn'

>CTRL+F
>"Swordsage"
>0 of 0
You make me sad, /tg/

>>44558811

>playing 3.5 Shit instead of better rulesets

Even Savage World is better than that

>>44558765
But that's every martial without a great weapon or polearm.

>>44558803
What?

The best way to do that in 4e is an unarmed tempest fighter with the master of the fist multiclass feat

Combine shock trooper PP with the improved unarmed strike feat and get 1d12 fists

>>44558899
Not too familiar with this build but can you use ki foci to keep your attack bonus up to par with the magic weapon curve?

>>44549809
Because a wizard and barbarian can be better at fisting things to death.
And even the fact that they are supposed to be half-casters is ignored by the devs.
Then there's the fact that they are worse with weapons than any other martial class despite being dedicated to the study of MARTIAL ARTS which fucking include weapons.
Heck i'd give them double proficiency on all the monk weapons , give them 2 cantrips that scale well and don't cost ki and call it a day.

>>44558899

Both were good. It depended a bit on what exactly you wanted.

Iron Soul was a striker with a secondary defender/controller stick.

Tempest Fighter was a Defender with a secondary striker/controller stick.

Both were very fun.

>>44549809
Because monks can't wear Gray Dragon Scale Mail and don't really benefit from wielding the Grayswandir.

>>44558925
yes

>>44558940
the problem with the iron soul one is that, well, you aren't actually strong. Iron soul monks typically dump strength.

Meanwhile the tempest fighter one is strength primary, significantly more in-line with the idea of a dude with loads of raw-ass strength just punching fools in the face

>>44558958

Iron Soul was the secondary strength Monk. It directly added to flurry of blows and gave them good MBA (Which really helped the secondary defender role)

>>44558782
>I remember my ex-girlfriend got into table-top through some friends, her first experience with it, and I told her that's great, and that I was running a D&D 4E game at the local game store. She wrinkled her nose and sincerely said, "Ew" about D&D 4E, because her group played PF.
Is that why she's an ex?

>>44558976
Iron Soul is constitution based. Stone Fist and Eternal Tide are strength.

>>44558976
...no it wasn't, iron soul was the secondary constitution monk, focused on using weapons like longswords and crossbows.

The secondary strength monks were stone fist and eternal tide

>>44559008

...god dammit. Sorry.

Replace 'Iron Soul' with 'Stone Fist' in my previous statements. I am, in fact, an idiot.

I have an idea for the D&D 5 e monks.

Basically the lvl 6 feat Qi enhanced strikes only makes your unarmed attacks count as magical and does nothing else.

Change that to all your martial arts attacks counting as magical and you get to learn ''martial arts techniques'' that are basically enchantments for your body/monk weapon while it's being held by the monk from a list of enchantments designed for monks.

You Remember/Practice/Prepare them for half an hour every morning after waking up similar to what a wizard does.

At lvl 6 you gain 1 enchantment/technique and after that you gain one every 2 levels until you max out at 8 at lvl 20.

Also the martial arts die is upped to scale better.

Bam now they are at least competent at their MARTIAL ARTS theme.

>>44549809
I never understood why people say the monk class sucked for 3.5/PF. In the 8+ years of running/playing (mostly running) I have never seen a problem with monk characters being outclassed by other players. Especially at higher levels with the monk's higher base save.

>>44553428
Full BaB
d10 HD
Pounce-like ability so they can move and full attack in the same round
Less MAD, make DEX and WIS their core stats, let them use WIS for extra damage instead of STR
Class ability to apply enchantments to their fists.
Increase their AC bonus

>>44559226
Because you can't do math.

>>44559258
I can do math fine. Unless you are suggesting that the people who shit on monks are the same ones who focus ridiculously on roll play over having fun with the game.

>>44559306
Clearly you can't or else you'd notice how badly fucked over they are, what with being a 3/4 BAB class with zero accuracy boosts that pays three times as much for their enhancement bonuses, gets no precision damage, and who is completely locked off from using Power Attack effectively because of their MAD, BAB, and Flurry of Blows forcing them to use 1x STR on attacks regardless of whether they're two handed or not.

File: that's bait.webm (473KB, 500x208px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 500x208px

>>44559306
>roll play

>>44559468
This is all offensive stuff. Have you never had a monk tank?

>>44559519
A) Tanking is fucking useless in 3.5 if you aren't a Crusader.
B) Even ignoring that, Monk is one of the worst possible classes for the job. Nobody fucking cares how much you're not getting hit when you have zero effect on the battlefield when enemies ignore you.

>>44559519
>>44559468
If you focus on defense, the monk becomes the anti-Wizard.
>High movement to move around meat shields
>Higher touch AC then anyone else
>Very High Saves
>Some additional class bonus stuff against magic

>>44559554
What are you smoking. I use mostly NPCs and I have multiclass a huge variety of tanks. I made a Abjurer/Fighter tank before.

>>44559554
Fuck, one of the most powerful tanks I ever sent against my players was a cleric with one level of monk with a tower shield.

>>44559572
How are you going to punch the invisible flying wizard, though?

>>44559599
How are you going to get to a Wizard through Solid Fog unavoidably clamping your movement speed to 5 ft/round and breaking your line of sight?

>>44559572
>If you focus on defense, the monk becomes the anti-Wizard.
The Wizard, noticing your touch AC and saves, shrugs and then casts a no save spell, rendering your defenses completely useless.

>>44559596
That's not a Monk, that's a Cleric. Ignoring a Cleric is suicidally stupid.

>>44559599
If it is a flying enemy, it would be assumed that the party caster could cast fly as well? Or the fellow barbarian or fighter could give you a toss aided with acrobatics. Then it is a matter of making Perceptions checks. What high wisdom character wouldn't have good perception

>>44559623
A wizard that has those types of spells would make everyone's defenses useless.

>>44559572
>>44559599
>>44559623
And this is all ignoring the fact that enemy spell-casters in DnD are usually physically powerful too. Getting adjacent to a Lich or spellcasting Dragon isn't going to help you that much.

>>44559641
Congratulations, you've learned why focusing on defense in 3.5 is a losing proposition. There's always a way to get around them and fuck you over.

>>44559641
That's kind of the point, ya dingus.

>>44559648
I actually outmaneuvered an asshole player's lich goblin wizard on one of the few games I played.

>>44559651
So wait, I'm sort of unfamiliar with 3.5

Does that mean that in games where everyone's playing low tier classes, that building for defense is actually viable?

>>44559651
What kind of DM seeks out to defeat their player's character builds. Sounds kind of a pointless. There are funner ways to be challenging.

>>44559692
And there are funner ways of playing a monk than by taking monk levels.

>>44559688
No because you're not necessarily fighting low tier classes. 3.5 has a huge variety of enemies and assuming that you fight a variety of them, your tank character's defenses are almost guaranteed to be useless at some point or another, and since you focused on those to the exclusion of everything else...

>>44559711
Fuck, I never played a class straight, so I wouldn't know. Always multi-classed. Only made one bad build. Rogue/Summoner.

>>44559727
Monk isn't a bad dip by any means, it's just absolute shit by itself.

In 3.5 you're better off playing a Swordsage who's trained in unarmed combat.

>>44558733
I wish martial classes had maneuvers the way spellcasters have spells.

>>44560818
I wish 5e martials worked like 3.5 ToB classes

Maneuvers, stances, and the means to regain them during combat were the best ideas in 3.5, and they've never been re-used

>>44552644
someone cant into multiclass with rogue and grapple shit
in 5e if you monk/rogue you can be solid snake including chokeholds. for fluff, get your DM to agree to let you grapple with a knife (no damage difference for monk)

>>44560938
You know all of the CQC comes from rogue there, right? They give you the athletics expertise. Monk gives you 0 support for grappling.

>>44560960
monk gives you more damage

best grapple class is still lore bard though, because cutting words is fantastic

>>44560967
Rogue gives you sneak attack, which is more damage than the monk shit when grappling.

>>44560981
I thought you didn't get advantage on a grappled target just by grappling them

>>44560995
You get it once you shove them down. And they can't stand since they have 0 move.

Monk is actually pretty fun for multiclass builds.
I remember my brother was playing a monk5/wizardX in a campaign once and it was a cool character. He was a bit tankier than most wizards and had the control to back it up. Though the decent saves and higher amount of skill points are what he mainly got out of the class.
The GM though was modifying monk to have more skill points and a higher BAB if I remember right.

>>44549809
better question: Why the fuck was monk determined to be a magic-y fighter offshoot when clearly it should have been a martial cleric offshoot?

>keep natural AC bonuses and full BAB
>better unarmed damage
>get spontaneous cast cure spells and a few blessings on the side.

>>44558728
The monk seems to be an anti mage class, with high saves, speed unrivaled, and a lean towards grappling, and some spell resist.
Now if only it worked

There are only two races with a tendency toward lawful alignment.

>>44561144
I wouldn't give it healing spells, I'd give it buffs that can only be cast on itself

>>44555823
>What is 5e
Monks can't trip and grapple for shit in 5e

>>44558843
Sharpshooter says hi

>>44561694
for 200: "what is proficiency"
also, flurry of blows. disagrees with you

>>44561734
>for 200: "what is proficiency"

On a non STR class. With no other features to boost athletics. I'd go with "fucking worthless".

>>44560960
flurry of blows can knockdown, chars who are knocked down cant be easilly grapled.
also a knocked down, grapled char gives easy sneak attacks :D, sounds like a good combo to me...

>>44561756
can, not cant, my bad, fuck my spelling.

>>44561734
Then wizards or absolutely any other class ever are as good as monks as CQC, because they're going to have the same Str as a monk, or monk, and can also pick athletics ;^)

Fuking face it, monks can't do more than punching (and they deal less damage than any other martial and than bards) and stun, nothing fucking else.

>>44561861
Open Hand monks can knock people down or around.

>Monks can grapple and trip, you just need to multiclass into Bards and Rogues
Nice point on why 5e monks are Masters or CQC
Sarcasm

>>44561861
you can make a strength-monk

You typically do if you're making a grapple monk.

I mean, grapple monks still aren't the best, bards do it better thanks to cutting words and silence, barbarians do it better thanks to rage, and wizards do it better thanks to the divination school being amazing.

Still, monks are better grapplers than fighters

File: 5e Monk.jpg (22KB, 425x347px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 425x347px

>>44561880
>Masters or CQC
>Needs a scarce as fuck resource while other classes do it better without spending shit
Coolio

Btw, sure, they can, but you won't do it once you have stun because your team will ask you to stun instead of trip (because others do it better), you become pic related, and in the odd case you reach 17th level (because almost no game ever reachs that hight) you then become useful again in dealing damage

>>44560897
4E

>>44561908
>Better glappers than fighters
Fucking no, stop spreading lies. Fighters have better Str than monks, they also gain stats faster, in the odd case you make a monk with the same Str as a fighter you then have Shitty AC and HPs and still you can't grapple better than a fighter, just, at best, equal.

Meanwhile Bards, Rogues and Barbarians laugh at then both.

>>44561955
What?

>>44561908
>If I roll four 20s and the fighter has everything on 14 or less I'm better than him ;^)
Nice point, didn't think about that

File: 1426808885200.jpg (1MB, 1600x2528px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x2528px

>>44549809
They do stuff other than fight in a fight. Mainly crowd control and gap-closing.

Ever wonder why your god-like Wizard doesn't just get sniped in the back of the head? Thank the Monk for catching that shit out of the air.

>>44561934
You will want to stun and prone since it procs on flurry of blows which you should spam as much as stun with your easily regenerated resource. The prone is literally free on any FoB hit.

>>44561966
Just saying that martials have "maneuvers" and "stances" in 4E.

>>44561992
and no way to replenish them in-combat without high-level feats.

>>44561992
>Stun and prone
You can't have advantage twice, once you stun why you want to knock him prone?

>>44562034
>without high-level feats
Gonna know which feat gives you ki regeneration

>>44562073
what?

>>44562034
You still get a minimum of 2 at-will maneuvers beyond "I attack X". It still has the core idea.
>>44562052
>Stun wears off and has to waste movement to do shit.
>Knocking prone is a FREE effect of your FoB which you use anyways.
What else? Monks can also run up walls, over water, get 60+ speed, catch arrows, get proficiency in all saves and talk nonsense fortune cookie wisdom. They DO suck at grappling and normal tripping because the system is retarded, but the monk is good in 5E.

>>44562080
Meant to write "I wanna"

>>44562112
>Monks can also run up walls, over water, get 60+ speed, catch arrows, get proficiency in all saves and talk nonsense fortune cookie wisdom
Half of that is fucking useless, other classes also do it and better or doesn't appear before the game ended.

>>44562117
We're mixing 3.5, 4E and 5E right now. Anon talked about 4E powers.

>>44562112
No it doesn't.

The thing I was pointing out was the maneuver recovery methods present in the ToB, each of the three classes had their own means, that's the unique thing, the thing that has never been re-used, and was the most interesting thing about the ToB classes, and it isn't present in 4e

>>44561961
I am a tad confused

Monks can trip more easily than fighters can, get twice as many tries per resource spent, and get more of said resource to try and trip.

Since the tripping is the one thing fighters and monks contribute to grappling, why are monks equal or worse?

>>44562136
Only magic users do it better and that's still their stupid idea of magic > martials. Fighters can only fight better, literally nothing else. Barbarians can JUMP GOOD and Rogues can't run up walls at 30 feet/second. And if we only count up to X level then at the least give me some guidelines to compare classes with.

>>44562112
>Monks can also run up walls, over water
Both of those are skill checks, and last time i checked even as a level 20 monk, Levitation is still worth about 200 ranks of jump contra 400 for normal classes.

>>44562141
Ah, ok, I thought he meant 5e ki

>>44562183
This is 5E monk we're talking. No skill checks for any of that.

>>44562182
Barbs can even fly
Fighters (EK) can also eventually fly
Rogues (AT) can also eventually fly, thief also climbs fast, jumps good and sets traps as bonus action

>>44562213
Barbs jump good. It is "flying".
The other two uses spells and if we want to go there the monk can also cast Fly.
Should the monks get buffed? I am down for that.
Is it as bad as 3.PF monk? Not even close. They're below average, but still better than ranger.

>>44562256
They're behind in damage and hp with d8 HD but that's all.
Stunning Strike fuck shit up, open hand is good at crowd control and shadow is a good sneaky character.

>>44562256
Nobody is saying they're bad as 3.5PF, this started when someone said they're the masters of CQC in 5e, which is a straight lie

They need some love, among the martials they deal the lowest damage, they only seem to deal enough at first levels, there's a lack of magic items for them

Imo 4e>5e>3.5

>>44562295
The biggest problem is that there is no feat for them.
For STR you have GWM and all that shit, for ranged DEX you have crossbow mastery and sharpshooter. Rogue got sneak attack.
But for the straight dex figther? There is nothing.

>>44562295
Hmm, not sure I agree with that.

Mechanically speaking 4e monks are pretty damn good. But they're kind of weird, they only make implement attacks, and actually going unarmed is a terrible idea for them. Which means that the main reason to play a monk for many people (I wanna punch dudes inna face!) isn't present

>>44561367
You see, you're thinking of monks in the weeb sense. When you get right down to it though the only objective difference between a monk and cleric is the monk focuses on virtues rather than details of the religion and clerics can into armor. Monks were healers for most of history. It makes no sense to have a monk with such an intense and disciplined understanding of human anatomy and energy flow that can't heal properly.

>>44562385
You see, you're seeing monks as literal "monks", rather than a blanket term to refer to martial artists of all stripes.

Monks have never actually been monks in DnD

>>44562385
I agree wiht that.
Even in a weeb sense, when you have a dude that kill by pression point or some shit, it's sound that he know how to heal with it too

>>44562408
The best example of this would be the brothers from HnK. Before the war they used their practice for healing and one of them was to be a doctor before the bombs dropped.

Toki still heals people after the war and Kenshiro/Raoh do it every so often. Even Amiba picks up on a little of it.

>>44562332
Well you usually are punching dudes in the face, just not with boxing punches or whatever, but special technique kind of punches.

Just punch dudes in the face is more of the Brawler's style.

>>44562440
you still aren't punching though, you're doing special weapon techniques, because going unarmed is an awful idea for monks in 4e

>>44562479
Ki focuses are fine, and you never actually need to use the weapons you wield (if you decide to wield; it's a really nice bonus, but it's not that important). You can say you use them in your off hand for defense and stuff.

I like sun soul monk, I'm in 6th level and I'm having a blast, the future couldn't be more radiant

>>44562552
So grossly incandescent!

File: Non-Diablo3_Monk.jpg (21KB, 470x600px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 470x600px

>>44562256
>still better than Ranger
...
...
So this shit isn't as bad as the fermented feces.
That's like saying this art is better than having ameobas eat your eyes.
This music is better than having your ears clapped.
This sensation isn't as bad as being slowly disemboweled with a jagged chunk of rock salt.

No, the Monk doesn't suck as bad as the Ranger. If that's the best praise you have for it, it's still indefensible.

>>44562661
I think you're exaggerating how bad monks are

They are the scond worst class, but no class in 5e is as bad as a tier 5 class in 3.5, or even the weaker classes in 4e like Binder or Vampire

>>44549809
Because mechanically there's no system that does them well.

>>44562843
Anima says hi

>>44562843
GURPS does unarmed combat, supernatural mystical fighters and such well imo.

>>44549809
Because its shit.

File: Pathfinder-Darius-by-Yama-320.png (163KB, 320x475px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 320x475px

>>44562820
No, my point was that if it's only praise is that it isn't the absolute worst, or it doesn't suck that much, then it is still bad.

File: marco-polo-one-hundred-eyes_event_main.jpg (32KB, 338x225px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 338x225px

>>44549809
Bad roots.

>underrated
I use that word when people don't recognize how good it's something, this does not apply to monks in most systems

>>44562934
You're thinking too negatively

It isn't as good as it should be, but it's better than it could be, and considering how "3.5" 5e is, it could be a hell of a lot worse

>>44562820
When everything is bad, nothing is.

>>44563127
No, that just means everything is bad.

>>44563127
Thank god Anima does the opposite: when everything is good, everything is.

Monks are always weeaboo scum pretending to be muh shaolin can't have fun types

You can have fun with monks if you get creative and don't make a weeaboo little shit

>>44558728
the problem is, in terms of running a game, there are essentially 'monk' moments you would have to include in your game, making one player force the others to fight at a disadvantage every once in a while

>>44563260
>You can have fun with [insert weak class] if you get creative and don't make a [insert word that means "something I don't like"]

Oh, look, is this falacy again, that means it must be whatever hour o'clock

>>44563260
Lets assume the most creative you can get is 100, lets assume your class is a 60 out of 100 in mechanically efficiency. That means that at best you can be 160. Meanwhile casters can be 200.

Doesn't matter how creative you can be, when other classes can be as creative as you and still have the rule's backing them up.

>>44563113
You are settling for too little.
Just because something could be worse does not mean it is of acceptable quality. This permissive, stubbornly accepting attitude is what keeps giving money to games that should be allowed to fail. By paying for and protecting inferior goods, we keep them inferior goods, we keep them bad. No incentive to make an excellent anything, if one that isn't so bad will suffice.

The problem with Monks in 3.5 is that they've been created entirely based on flavour, as opposed to mechanics and flavour together. Literally the only bit of mechanics they got right was the unarmed damage scaling with level. If you rewrote it to be based on mechanics, then added flavour to them, it'd probably be as good as a fighter.

Monks are the only ones written so badly that they must have made them based solely on flavour. Think of every monk trope you want and it's there. It's bad, but it's there. What needs to happen is they need to keep mechanics in mind when making a class.

Unchained Monk for PF is pretty cool.

>>44563433
True, still inferior to the combos you could make with Qiggonk/Hungry Ghost/Master of Multiple Styles, but solid tier4 which is better than the tier5-6 it was core monk.

>>44563363
Why compare a caster to a hand to hand acrobatic stealth guy?

If any class is comparable, it's rogue.

>>44563483
This, casters should be always be better at everything because they're another kind of class, comparing them to martials on utility to the game as a whole is stupid.

>>44562820
Vampire is a class in 4e?

not a racial template or whatnot?

what the HECK

>>44563483
You compare them to casters because casters are the gold standard and do everything well.

I've been fortunate enough to play with noobs when I have played D&D (only AD&D and 3.5), and they just wanted to make ersatz anime characters and didnt metagame, but just seeing the WEALTH of options casters have compared to my maligned friend happily playing a fighter is sad.

>>44563406
I don't see why you think the monk is that bad. The only problem the monk has is bad damage and low HD. There is no other problem. That doesn't make it a bad class at all, you can do a lot of things with a monk,

>>44563672
>Vampire is a class in 4e?
Yes
>not a racial template or whatnot?
They are also a race and a template, tha'ts why you can be triple vampire in 4e

>>44563672
It's not the best decision ever, but I can sort of see the logic behind it. If the player wants to do vampire things to the point that it's the focus of their character, the best way to represent that in 4e is to make it their class. An extensive list of racial abilities on top of class abilities can be a bitch to balance. Rouges rouge, Fighters fight, Wizards wiz, and Vampires vamp. I think there was a background option or a multi-class feat for vampire characters that didn't want vampirism to be their main focus.

>>44563698
>The only problem the monk has is bad damage and low HD
And almost no magic items they can reliabily use

>Inb4 shortswords, quarterstaffs, etc
they only hit twice with those out of their 4 attacks, that means they only use a 50% of them

>>44563796
What?
What magic items can't they "reliabily use?"
Magic armor? Yeah, okay, but that's the same for mage and you have robe and clothes and cloak available for the monk.
Magic weapons? Well, as you just said, they CAN use it. And with FoB they can hit four times with hit, more than any other classes except figther. And when they don't use FoB, they hit two times, one more with a bonus unarmed if they want. That's enough.
And 5e is not balanced aroung magic items.

Btw, I got a shadow monk in my group with an amulet of health, slippers of spider climbing, and bracers of defense and he put these item to very good use.

>>44563698
>The only problem the monk has is bad damage and low HD
And Monks are billed as frontline fighters. The above, plus having the Rogue's BAB means they simply cannot work as advertised.
As for the "other things," that mostly comes down to a grabbag of abilities with no synergy (meaning you have no defined role in the party beyond the frontline fighter one you can't fill) and being able to run away really really well. A smattering of immunities at higher levels, a restricted form of Feather Fall, and a stun ability that most monsters of your level will breeze through does not inspire confidence in a class.

>>44563672
It's a race, a template and a class

The race is good, the template isn't usually worth it, and the class is the worst class in the game

>>44563886
>the rogue BAB
I'm talking about 5e here. Not 3.X/PF
They're bad in these systems, but not in 5e

>>44563759
I think a vaguely remember this but I just skipped over 4e.

>>44563793
I guess it's the difference between having a "vampire that fights with swords" and a "swordsman who is also a vampire".

I get it, I guess. Looking at the wiki though, it seems pretty lackluster. I don't know how good they are compared to other races, but it seems like they're missing a lot of actual vampire abilities. Maybe the template or class has those.

>>44563911
Oh shit my bad. Guess looking like an asshole is what I get for not following the reply chain.

>>44563877
>That's enough.
If it were enough they wouldn't be the martial class that deals the lowest damage, they're behind rogues, behind barbarians, behind rangers, behind paladins behind fighters and even behind valor bards.

So no, it's not enough.

>>44563918
The class has most "standard vampire abilities", but they're all terribly subpar compared to other classes

Also you only get 2 healing surges, and have to steal more from enemies and allies, and that's fucking awful

>>44563954
Yes, that's enough.
The reason why everyone can do better damage is because feat, because sneak attack, or because spells.
Put a -5/+10 feat for the monk and he will fuck your shit up.

You certainly don't fix it with a magic item. That's directly against the reasoning of 5e.

>>44563954
They actually do good damage, but only assuming no magical weapons of any kindand no feats for the other classes.

The class isn't weak, they just have absolutely no support

>>44563954
They're also behind bladesingers and bladelocks (which suck, but still deal more damage than monks)

In fact, since GFB and BB they're also behind any caster that can cast those.

>>44564020
And now, a very good feat for the monk is magic initiate, to pick up these cantrips.

>>44564036
SKR, please, you aint tricking anyone into your trap options anymore

>>44564109
SKR only did the lore for SCAG apparently.
And I thank God for that

>>44564036
Which has zero sinergy with your class unlike metamagic, warmagic, sneak attack and other shit other classes have, good, fucking job, it's not like you need those feats you rise your Dex/Wis because you don't have other way of rising your armor unlike other martials that can buy better armor.

>>44563971
Vampire abilities aren't subpar; the problem with the class is that it has not enough choices and can't focus on a single stat like all other classes can. They are literally PHB only paladins, except they came out at the very end of the cycle (because mearls sucks cocks).

If you use a hybrid vampire you fix basically all of their problems, and you get to decide how vampire you want your character to be.

>>44564139
>zero synergy
Because booming blade is a good synergy for someone except the rogue that can disengage with a bonus action?
It's a way to have better damage, so it's nice. The fact that there is no synergy is not a big problem. And come on, the monk got no AC problem, you can go beyond 18 which is better than other martials that focus on damage.

There is a small damage problem with the monk but it's nowhere as big as you want it to be

>>44558765
>Not listing his fists as weapons to get the dual wielding feat.

Shiggy diggy.

>>44564208
Booming blade+spell sniper+reach weapon.

Boom, now you move in, stay out o range, booming blade, and move back.

>>44564256
>magic initiate+spell sniper+feat to get reach weapon
Best advice for a monk ever

>>44564288
He's just saying that booming blade got synergy. That's right, I overlooked that.
But still, that synergy with a feat. Feat is a variant rules for 5e.
With rare magic items and no feats, the monk got nice damage. With feats, it's bad, because he got none.

>>44564288
Not for monk I meant in general, since
>Because booming blade is a good synergy for someone except the rogue

Basically, everyone can have synergy for it.

>>44551978
But Anon, monk have ONLY 2 levels

>>44553428
Unarmed swordsage

>>44564315
Have you ever playe any precon campaign? magic items aren't as rare as they advertise.

>>44564333
Everyone sure, monk gets the worst sinergy with that feat though.

>>44564385
Nope, never. But I'm not very surprised, that's classic WotC. Same as making a lot of magical swords so the DM has to refluff them into shortsworts if the monk or rogue want to use it.

>>44564420
The sunblade at least is great for rogues

Which is confusing as hell, because the giant, brightly shining lightsabre is the only longsword a rogue ever wants

>>44564474
Moonblades are good too...if you're an elf or half-elf and in its properties rolled finesse.

>>44559692
I've only done that once. Bigass barbarian was bragging OOC that his dude could whoop any caster in a fight. Didn't even have to use the mean stuff, just fly and greater invis.

>>44564690
>beating a caster who isn't played by a mentally handicapped chimp
Superstition barbs are awesome, but they're not that awesome

>>44558952
Aren't they supposed to be better somehow for pacifist or nutritionless runs somehow, though? I think I read that somewhere once

>>44563793
>Rouges rouge
indeed, reds do red

>>44559599
>monks are bad because spellcasters are broken as fuck and outpace literally every other class in the late game combined

Good argument.

Melee classes are heavily reliant on gear. In campaigns where the money flows like wine it's easy to equip fighter and rogue types with all sorts of magical weapons and items. They can't use any of the cool armor or the cool weapons.

It's easy to just find a Dagger of Whoopass +9 in an enemy keep, because they're awesome and even the maid can use it in a pinch. You're going to mount that shit on the wall. This... magical piece of rope that enhances monk abilities? Uh... yeah. Maybe they used it to tie back the curtains or something.

Monks have to have all of their gear given to them by the DM as loot "for reasons..." and then hope they have enough party stroke to not have those items just taken by the sorcerer or the cleric.

You nullify gear, a monk can wreck shit while your fighter is holding his dick.

You nullify magic, a monk can wreck shit while your wizard is raging about his resistance rolls.

They're a hard pure class to balance because everything else gets so fucking broken so fast if you don't keep your party in line, but nobody wants to do that because you lose the "epic unbeatable heroic badass..." element of a fantasy game everyone loves. (And then casters dominate even more when the gear isn't available...)

We had a monk rogue build in one of our older campaigns that was simply unstoppable mid-game. Flurried backstab bonuses, a pimped monk-class weapon, and the huge movement speed ended encounters often before the rest of the party got in range.

Then that ended late-game once the wizard bloomed, like every late-game. Time-stop 9x death flurry pew pew with a few floating wands for good measure... and any encounter lasting longer than six seconds makes the party worry.


>We've been arguing about this since 1E, and nothing has changed.
>Why stop now?

>>44565131
>You nullify gear, a monk can wreck shit while your fighter is holding his dick.
Top kek, not even close, you nullify gear and monk is still SHIT

>You nullify magic, a monk can wreck shit while your wizard is raging about his resistance rolls.
No, you nullify magic and the party dies against shit 10 levels behind their intended CR

>>44549809
No one can make a good martial arts system without designing the whole game around it.

>>44565350
There's a thing I don't get, their excuse on caster/martial disparity is that they didn't playtested it enough and used the cleric as a healbot, the wizard as pew pew spellslot wasting evocator and the druid turned only in rabbits and robins...yet the CRs are mostly intended for optimized groups that know what they're doing, not going to say they're a fucking piece of liars that are trying to excuse their casterfaggotry, but it seems pretty fucking convinient.

>>44565477
>No one can make a good martial arts system without designing the whole game around it.
Not really. Anima is a good example of a system that handles martial arts well without being designed entirely around martial arts.

>>44550308
Pretty sure the Monk was made as an anti caster class. Sadly they suck at it.

>>44563672
I legitimately don't see why you could have a problem with Vampire being a class unless you're so attached to the idea that RACE BELONGS IN DA RACE SECTION due to 3.5e that you simply can't break the spell in which case I can't help you and I'm sorry.

>>44565523
Magic Marts.

Just play Fantasy Craft or something

To anyone who plays pathfinder

How well does the psychic warrior (mediant) hold up?

Is it weaker than the standard PW?

>>44570528
Is better than the monk

>>44549809
mechanics and game systems aside, i would say it is because i have only ever seen bad players want to play as a monk. Greedy stupid monks who want loot cause they feel underpowered, weeboo edgelord monks who rant on about all the situations they could do a special punch, but never a disciplined, thoughtful, and kind monk.

>>44561989
>Ever wonder why your god-like Wizard doesn't just get sniped in the back of the head?
No, I understand the gist of a spell named "Protection from Arrows"

>>44550172
yes, roleplay wise they are nice but holy shitballs they suck in combat. But really they can be good in combat and roleplay wise as long as you don't use DnD as an example.

>>44563759
They added a vampire template?

>>44565131
>You nullify gear, a monk can wreck shit while your fighter is holding his dick.
No he can't, his stat spread is too wide for that.

>You nullify magic, a monk can wreck shit while your wizard is raging about his resistance rolls.
No he can't, his stat spread is too wide for that

>>44550442
How could anyone insist that any type of caster is weak in caster edition?

>>44561164
It's not an anti-mage class, otherwise like you said it would work. It could do a decent job, but casters do it better.

In my experience I've found the Monk most effective as a Scout. Not as good as a Ranger or Rogue but they do have high movement, high saves, and a good deal of resistances and self-healing. They may not be able to detect the traps but they have a good chance of surviving most.

>>44558699
So pick Way of the Open fist, get those magic gauntlets that let you take no damage from catching missiles without having to roll damage and possibly multiclass into Druid for Wild Shapes.

At most, I believed you get 1d10+Dex mod x 7 unarmed hits. You're also allowed to carry monk weapons without penalty.

This also doesn't change the fact that with high acrobatics, you dodge everything 9/10 times and everything that gets through does half damage.

Spell casters like Sorcerer/Bard multiclass are OP as all godly hell but Monk are fun too, what with quivering touch basically allowing you to basically do 200 damage at once, so if you absolutely, positively kill something, you use the insane stealth abilities monks have, sneak in to the BBEG's lair, use quivering on two asshats, meditate for half an hough, get your ki back, go use it on two more ass hats or the same two to stack up the damage, do this over the course of a day since quivering punch lasts like a day times each level the monk has or something, so a level 17 has more than 2 weeks to do this before snapping his fingers and having every monster or minion in the BBEG's lair fucking explode into a spray of blood.

Oh and it's not magic and pretty much undetectable.

And if you're worried about being caught cause you're not stealth enough go be a fucking ninja or something.

That's your options in monk and they're fucking glorious.

Way of the 4 stars shit so hard it fucking explodes into a storm of gore, dodge everything and heal the paper cuts you get; Naruto so hard your autism causes everything to explode and heal yourself when you get paper cuts; or Punch shit so hard the universe bends to your will as the wizards run back to their rooms crying because your version of their spells is better than theirs and you get your casts back after meditating for half an hour.

>>44553428

Just throwing an idea out here.
Give the monk a feat that lets him hurt through armor. 17+STR, Power attack. You ignore armor, natural armor and shields when attacking.
Feat that lets him lower the enemies effective armor. You are adept at pushing, pulling and kicking in just the right places so that the scales and plates of your enemie's armor ceases to function properly. Any time you deal damage to an enemy, you reduce his or her armor by 1 (to a minimum of 1/2 of the armor's usual bonus). This can be used against natural armor as well. The enemy must take off and redon their armor to remove this condition.

Purchasable no-magic aura gear. (5-20)-ft around you, all magical effects except evocation ceases to function.
If that's too much, then an ability to sever or limit the spells that your target can dish out.
Feat, 15+WIS, monk. Your intense studies to the flow of ki has lead to the discovery of the flow of the spellcasting abilities of your compatriots, including on how to sever them. 3+mod/day you can take a full round action to attack your enemy. If successful, the enemy cannot cast their spells for 1round+1/5lvls(monk) you have attained. Any spellcaster trying to do so finds that the familiar energies simply do not flow. They do not lose their spells, or spell slots, nor any other Su abilities, but cannot use them for that duration. Fort save.


I'm only lightly familiar with pf, and not at all with monks. But we can theorycraft out the wazoo...

>>44549845

Thing is DnD is *the* rpg
It doesnt matter if there are better aystems for them, just that they are the best in DnD.

>>44568845
Because Vampire should be a damn theme so you can layer it properly over everything.

>>44559152

If I wanted a wizard, I'd play a wizard.

>>44560897

We had them since the start. They're called wizards.

>>44577662
you're an idiot

>>44577950

Then give me qn interesting class that isn't a lazy copy paste of the other. Make them feel differently from the mechanical root.

>>44578029
>Classes based on encounter abilities, high offensive and defensive stats, and skills are the same as a class based on daily abilities, low offensive and defensive abilities, and magic spells.

The idea that Tome of Battle is anything like Vancian magic is hopelessly stupid.