Monks and such

Let's talk about monks, and unarmed combat characters in general. From the underpowered MAD-riddled class of 3.5, to the game-breaking punchgod of ASOIAF. Tell me what you think of them.

Do you love characters like this, liking how they stand out in settings that greatly favor traditional weapons?

Do you hate them because it pisses you off that the rules allow someone fighting with their bare hands to prevail against an equally skilled and experienced opponent with a sword, even though that should be almost impossible?

Opinions are like assholes, Veeky Forums. Show me yours.

I like those couple of feats that let me do like 20d6 with each strike by changing the functional size and progression.

I always liked the idea of the man who could DGAF so hard that reality started letting him break steel with his fists, or simply beastmode the whole world. It's a shame the only thing people think of is weebshit instead of something like a fusion of Nietzsche and Romanticism.

>Are you walking on air?
>Yeah, I guess so.
>But how?
>You've heard about that gravity thing?
>Of course, everyone has.
>Well, I haven't.
>That doesn't make any sense.
>Your face won't make any sense if you keep asking questions.

It's funny when people use Nietzsche in concepts which amount to pure savagery.

Now I want to play a Gandhi that brings peace not with weapons but his fists cleaving the earth and skulls of his enemies.

I think it has it's niche.

Against an equally skilled opponent with a weapon? Probably advantage goes to the guy with the stabby.

But the "monk" archetype should prevail against combat dabblers (rogue and bard archetypes, for example), as well as have a toolset to partially deal with combat-focused types (your fighters and barbarians), and completely shit on those who know nothing of combat (your wizards).

In Pathfinder, given Unchained, it works pretty well –

UnMonk can be wrecked by a high AC, high attack enemy who targets conventional AC.

They have a big edge over 3/4 classes that are easily disarmed/tripped/grappled, or otherwise have low Fort to resist a Stunning Fist to the face.

They are the worst nightmare of casters, passing most saves easily and having high touch AC.

I think the concept has a place, even if the execution is usually lacking.

Monks are literal punch wizards. I can accept some asshole peeling plate open with his bare hands if that is the result of a lifetime's harrowing training and intense spiritual meditation shit. You want to preform superhuman feats of physicality? gotta put in the time

i like to mix a level or two of monk in with normal fighters so when i get disarmed in combat i can just welcome my opponent to the thunderdome

>Do you hate them because it pisses you off that the rules allow someone fighting with their bare hands to prevail against an equally skilled and experienced opponent with a sword, even though that should be almost impossible?
it's fantasy with dragons and shit... what did you expect?

Well, all thing being equal it's
>Abilities+skill+gear
vs
>Abilities+skill
In a system that's well designed, those things shouldn't really be equal.

The system has dragons and shit.

It's supposed to represent the badasses who can live in that world.

the virgin sword
vs
the chad unarmed

>Do you love characters like this, liking how they stand out in settings that greatly favor traditional weapons?

They are in settings where people wield magic to bend the laws of the natural world.
So why not temper your body till its superior to a magic item?
I like that pholosophy about them.
Also loved the lvl 20 and onwards feats they had.
They are the class that gets the earliest form of immortality in 4E.

>Do you hate them because it pisses you off that the rules allow someone fighting with their bare hands to prevail against an equally skilled and experienced opponent with a sword, even though that should be almost impossible?

When a world allows for magic then a guy being able to punch through concreete doesn't seem as silly.
And they are by no means better than another martial class of the same level.
It's just that they are more mobile and have better survival ability in face of ranged combat and magic.

4E so far did monks best...mostly because every martial practically was a monk with their spell-powers.

5E is far more streamlined but lacks feat support and the Core Monk suffers greatly from not getting an extra attack at the lvl 9-12 range. Just letting FOB deal 3 hits from level 11 onwards would suffice.
Also time to fix that godawfull 4 elements archetype.
It crammed too many bad features just for the ''Avatar'' flavour.
Instead i'd like to see 4 sepparate elemental archetypes that are well thought of.

Don't talk about it.

Make it

I'm on my phone, might rev up mspaint when I get home

I honestly think monks don't fit into most games mechanically.

Monks either is a redundant melee class, wizard with limited power, high speed maneuver guys in games that give a shit about neither.

I play monks in every game, but I've never felt good playing them.

Well, that's a system thing. If 3.5 had more options for monks, they could be made as a backup frontliner for the tank, a more combat capable backup for a rogue (no armor, and Hie/Move Silently are class skills), and just using their mobility to play support for the whole party, the class would have a niche. Plus, that unarmed damage make them very good grapplers, making them a potentially good option for disabling enemy mages. Again, this assumes they had the options available to really do these things. They COULD have made a series of supernatural ki feats to add to the monk's bonus feat list, but instead we got some half-assed BS in PHB2.

This.
Monks are shitty fighters the rely on needing more stats, and when everyone else gets their fancy fire swords and mythril armor and shields that can reflect magic, you're still stuck with your thumb up your ass because your class doesn't use worldly possessions.

4e made them godly because it actually cared about positioning. They got to do fun melee stuff like AOE attacks and jackie channing people into hitting their buddies.

They were the only impliment (Normally used by spellcasters) melee class. Rather than having weapons, they had Ki Focuses that helped them channel their Ki.

If monks are so great how come they can’t ground and pound?

>Kung fu
>weeb
China != Japan

4e monks were so fucking cool.

Should he have just used the more inclusive “Rice Monkey” instead?

...they can. Heck it's a level 1 at-will, Dragon's Tail into Flurry of Blows.

You knocked him flat on his ass, moved into his space and started beating his face in.

>No armbar or guillotine choke
Miss me with that gay shit, boi.

How many systems actually have a meaningful cost for gear? Any loot focused system will be handing out cash and magic items left and right. Any system that's less concerned with this gives players access to pretty much everything from square one.

>grapple
>choke a bitch, dealing unarmed damage until they tap

Grasping Tide or one of the many, many immobilise powers.

Monk is flighty kung-fu bruce lee/jackie chan guy, not wrestler guy; that'd be Brawler.

You can hybrid them to be like that guy from that movie.

>Instead i'd like to see 4 sepparate elemental archetypes that are well thought of.
So a revisit of the 3/3.5 elemental paths.

So your telling me I can be Casey Ryback? Sign me the fuck up then.

I've always rolled Monks or Fighters (Brawler). I don't hate either. I love the punch my problems.

My Monks usually turn out to be Drunken Fists. My Brawlers usually turn out to be Ali.

The RQ6 Azure Mystics have no truck with this thing called "gravity". When you monk hard, even your monasteries can just fly.

My group is running L5R soon and I'm opting to be a Dragon monk. The character concept really interests me, I just to find a better way to do it mechanically.

>5E is far more streamlined but lacks feat support
Having recently played a monk for the first time, my issue is mostly that rogues seem to be able to do a lot of what a monk can do without any resource cost and without any of the trade offs. No ki to manage, can wear armor, use shields, can easily attack at range, etc.

Monks are fast, but they don't have great AC, so their mobility is limited by virtue of enemy opportunity attacks. This makes a feat like mobility feel like a tax to take full advantage of their speed. Of course, UA rogue swashbuckler archetype gets this ability baked in without any feat investment required.

I'm pretty sure Brawler/Monk is considered the Judo guy, so yeah.

Punching shit is my bread and butter, I can never resist making brawler characters