Does Anyone Care About the Monk (really?)

Personally I have a purely irrational hatred of the Monk. One ran over my cat- true story honest. I did not really like them in 1st ed let alone third ed. They are also the worst class in Pathfinder and my apathy towards them in 4th ed means I know they were a striker and that was about it. I like the gunslinger class in PF better than a Monk. Even if they had full BAB, level 9 spells and wildshape I would still dislike them.

 As I said purely irrational. I'm not a massive fan of 4th ed either (I don't hate it had some pure gold in there) but I like 4th ed better than the Monk. Other people have these things called "opinions" and some of them disagree with me even. Stupid democratic ideals and all that. Anyway I was hoping D&DN would have all of the 3.5 core classes and the 4th ed core classes of Warlord and Warlock but that adds up to 13 classes and thats a messy number. 12 is a much nicer number and if they have to cut a class I would nominate the Monk based purely on irrational dislike of the stupid class. Class number 2 to cut would be the Warlord although I did actually like the class in 4th ed as it seems a but redundent with Bards and Paladins floating around and with no leader mechanic in DDN. On the plus side for the Warlord though at least the class is not a Monk.

 World War II and the Nazis? Monk did it. The cold war, Monks fault. Disease, plague, death, Spiceworld movie and Britney Spears blame the Monk. 4th ed/Pathfinder depending on what side of the fence you like the Monk seems to be an obvious scapegoat IMHO.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

You Godwinned yourself in your initial post.  Well done.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
 I do my best.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

The Monk is my all-time favourite class, has been since 1st Ed, I have already done a monk conversion (using the 1st and 3rd Ed monk) for 5th Ed; that's one of the things I really dig about 5th Ed: it's very conversion friendly, next I'm working on Incarnates and Truenamers.
Well as long as the fighter is competant unnarmed and capable of specializing in that even, who cares if one has a monk...
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I find that blame list highly offensive and out of line, and I am deeply offended.







You can't just go blaming someone for Spice World like that!
The 4e monk is actually pretty awesome and gives its own unique take on the AEDU mechanic. The Full Discipline. 

The 13th Age Monk takes this idea and goes straight into incredible with it.  
Well as long as the fighter is competant unnarmed and capable of specializing in that even, who cares if one has a monk...




Fighters don't have increased speed, can't talk to animals & plants, don't have extra resistance to ESP/mental attacks, cannot fall great distances unharmed, self-heal, etc, etc.
I love the Monk. It was  my favorite PH class in AD&D, I was disappointed by it's Pathfinder incarnation, and the Monk is my almost-most played class in 4E.

I would like it if Fighters, and other melee classes, could be competent in unarmed combat with just a specialty... but, to me, a Monk needs missile deflection, the ability to teleport/fly short distances, self-healing, slow fall etc.
"but, to me, a Monk needs missile deflection, the ability to teleport/fly short distances, self-healing, slow fall etc."

Based on discussions in other threads, I believe it is Garthanos' position that a heroic fighter should be able to do all of those things listed, and thus a distinct "monk" class would not be required.
"but, to me, a Monk needs missile deflection, the ability to teleport/fly short distances, self-healing, slow fall etc."

Based on discussions in other threads, I believe it is Garthanos' position that a heroic fighter shoudl be able to do all of those things listed, and thus a distinct "monk" class would not be required.




Something I heartily disagree with, Beowulf is not a monk, despite being great at unarmed combat. 
The animal and plant thing is stupid, that should be a druid ability if anything. No one has good will saves any more so the mental resistance can be covered by a high stat and/or feats. Falling damage can be potentially resisted by an acrobatic skill, etc.

Monks in 3e and 4e have a bad case of class ability dissonance, with all sorts of strange abilities and limited synergy between them. It's a less outrageous form of the wizard's same problem both classes are trying to represent a massive range of character types from multiple mythologies that are in many cases only superficially related.
I like monks. Even the feeble 1st edition version, the barely existent 2nd edition version, and the crushingly disappointing 3rd edition version. After 25-odd years of patiently playing terribly designed monk classes, it was great to have a monk in 4E who was finally all a monk should be. I'd hate to give that up. 
"but, to me, a Monk needs missile deflection, the ability to teleport/fly short distances, self-healing, slow fall etc."

Based on discussions in other threads, I believe it is Garthanos' position that a heroic fighter shoudl be able to do all of those things listed, and thus a distinct "monk" class would not be required.



PDC ... pretty darn close.. definitely on the missile deflection, and skilled falling... and awesome movement which isnt a teleport but may be extremely hard to stop, and isnt flying short distances but is leaping (and pole vaulting) with a heaping dash of parkourp climbing at near run speed on top 

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I like the monk not really in my top ten, but when you need to kick some ass kung fu style accept no substitutes.
The animal and plant thing is stupid




More like kick-ass, communing with nature (hermit monk), nice.
As an advocate of a purely Martial Monk, I have to say I do care about them. I'd like to see them reflect a little more of the reality behind the concept to give them a better niche. More attacks per round at a lower damage potential (although I can hear people complain about this slowing down combat already), throws, trips, joint locks, kihaps to inspire the party/rattle the foes, etc.

Immunities to poison, aging, talking to animals, self healing and the like I always felt ended up watering down the concept. 4E making them Psionic then giving them static damage dice was also a bit of a deal breaker for me.
I've always been intrigued by the Monk class in 3E, and v3.5 but never played one due to the (IMO) pitiful mechanics. Giving a class 3/4 BAB that is nearly ALWAYS in melee-combat is just dumb and the list grows longer as the levels pass. Still, there is this wanting to be a unarmored and unarmed melee combatant that kicks serious butt. This came true with the 4E Monk class. It still has some pretty significant problems but it was still functional and fun. The ability to Move in unique ways AND attack in the same round (and off-turn) was something I thought was pretty special. Add in some unique Elemental factors and quickly your starting to look like a character from Avatar: The Last Airbender and I thought that was pretty darn cool.

But alas, they've brought back a form of BAB, to which I'm sure the Monk will get crappy bonuses too and fall far behind the Fighter in the combat pilliar of the game.
Personally I have a purely irrational hatred of the Monk. One ran over my cat- true story honest. I did not really like them in 1st ed let alone third ed. They are also the worst class in Pathfinder and my apathy towards them in 4th ed means I know they were a striker and that was about it. I like the gunslinger class in PF better than a Monk. Even if they had full BAB, level 9 spells and wildshape I would still dislike them.

 As I said purely irrational.

Even irrational dislikes tend to have a reason, if a bad one, and I doubt some shao-lin priest ran over you cat.  How do you really feel?  ;)

I don't care for the Monk as a PC class, either.  There aren't a lot of good reasons to exclude a class (afterall, someone might like it!), but there are two, and the Monk hits both of them.  

The reasons are redundancy, and genre-inapropriateness.  

The monk doesn't mesh with the supposed genre of D&D.  You could say it's because it's "easter" and D&D is "western" but at this point D&D tries pretty hard to be culturally generic.  It has weapons from all over the real world, an assumed attitude towards gender that is alien to virtually all ancient or medieval cultures, tons of anachronisms and so forth.  It's not that D&D is too western, it's that the Monk concepts rests too much on the perception of it's cultural antecedants as 'exotic' and not enough on what they really were.  Without that 'orientalism' the monk has little foundation for the abilities its given.  4e dodged that by making the Monk, psionic, but it didn't exactly land miles away.

The inspirations for the monk were disciplined, highly skilled, fighters who learned their skills in a ascetic, spiritual/religious order.  Aside from the cultures they were in having restrictions on what weapons they could carry, that's not particularly unique.  Orders of knighthood, religious warrior-monks, and disciplined philsophical martial schools can be found in many civilizations.  Fighters and Paladins already represented such things before the Monk was introduced.  Mechanically broadening existing classes (ending excessive gear dependency, for instance) would have handled that, and also allowed the game to finally do a decent job with other 'light fighter' concepts.

So that's it, the Monk is just a fighter (or other martial class) that gets to have nice things because 'orientalists' consider a source of inspiration in Asia to be equivalent to magic, while holding similar western traditions in contempt.  

Maybe it's a good business decision to cater to that prejudice, and 5e will keep the Monk.  I can't object to it to strongly - I just won't play one.   I just wish 5e would give other martial traditions the same credit instead of gimping them with an over-restrictive double-standard of 'realism.'



 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I'm not overly enamored of the monk class itself.  However, I *do* want the ability to be a viable unarmed and un- or lightly-armored combatant, preferably a non-mystic/psionic one (though reflavoring can help with that).  Whether this is a monk class (that can be re-flavored away from the whole navel-gazing zen-spouting stuff) or a pugilist option for a rogue or fighter or whatever (which can be flavored as a navel-gazing zen-spouter) is irrelevant to me.

Historically (3e wise), I'd take two or three levels of Monk, and then multi into something, anything else, because the class sucked that hard, and that was when the not-appropriate-for-my-character-concept stuff started kicking in.  Warblade was my favorite towards the end of the run.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Bah! I dig the monk.
Personally I have a purely irrational hatred of the Monk. One ran over my cat- true story honest. 

 World War II and the Nazis? Monk did it. The cold war, Monks fault. Disease, plague, death, Spiceworld movie and Britney Spears blame the Monk. 4th ed/Pathfinder depending on what side of the fence you like the Monk seems to be an obvious scapegoat IMHO.



Its actually the druids who bear ultimate responsibility for your poor cat, and those other disasters. 

I’ve always considered monks to be trained by and tools of the druids. They are in the world to maintain balance and as such are subject to alignment changes at the whim of the DM. They are an integral part of my campaign world. So I would like to like to see them as PC’s. I’m not hell bent on seeing them in the books though, I’ll be happy to use older stats.

I generally lump monks in with Ninja's and Samurai. Fine if you like that sort of thing and I liked 1st ed oriental adventures. Throw in a bit of redundency though and they do not really seem to have a role to me. A Samurai is a fighter FFS, a ninja is a rogue, a katana is a glorified bastard sword or long sword.

 I like Druids. Pre 3rd ed ones anway and the 3rd ed varients that were not broken in half.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

So that's it, the Monk is just a fighter (or other martial class) that gets to have nice things because 'orientalists' consider a source of inspiration in Asia to be equivalent to magic, while holding similar western traditions in contempt. 


I think you're being unjustifiably harsh.  After all, there is a class that uses western-inspired spirituality as a source for magic and blends this magic with martial prowess:  the paladin.

That's the monk's equivalent.  Not the fighter.
I generally lump monks in with Ninja's and Samurai. Fine if you like that sort of thing and I liked 1st ed oriental adventures. Throw in a bit of redundency though and they do not really seem to have a role to me. A Samurai is a fighter FFS, a ninja is a rogue, a katana is a glorified bastard sword or long sword.

 I like Druids. Pre 3rd ed ones anway and the 3rd ed varients that were not broken in half.



Going by 1st Ed OA rules, Ninja are Rogues that are forced to multiclass. I actually liked that restriction.

So that's it, the Monk is just a fighter (or other martial class) that gets to have nice things because 'orientalists' consider a source of inspiration in Asia to be equivalent to magic, while holding similar western traditions in contempt.  




So that's it, nothing, all you've provided is biased, cliched opinions on why you think not to include a monk class.

And genre my bottom, think Bannor/The Bloodguard. 
I've always loved monks after playing the greatest iteration of them in Everquest back in the day.

I've always loved that ascended fighting style where it's not psionic (facepalm 4e...double facepalm on you)...just extreme training and knowing how the body works in intimiate detail. Hence things like a body that does not age makes sense, killing with a palm strike days later, punching a brick wall to dust.

Sure I didn't get much play of the 3e Monks, and I hear they kinda sucked (more Neverwinter Nights monks than pen and paper ones for sure); but I would like to see them done up nicely in 5e. I feel the class can make it'self unique enough to not have to part of the fighter but it might be hard since it should essentially function as an unarmed fighter/rogue who can dodge almost anything but still take some hits and heal exceedingly quickly.

Might also want to see class features like Reverie where monks can meditate instead of sleep if they aren't an elf for instance, do insane acrobatics, apply damage and conditions with most attacks and hit/move very rapidly. Tumble (avoiding Opporunity attacks like a duelist can) would have to be core to the class imo, perhaps graduating to spinning leaps and whatnot to clear 10-20 foot jumps up and over enemies to reposition.

It does feel like it would be hard to pull of considering everything a fighter and rogue can do with expertise dice as a Monk, combat-wise, would be very similar just more a hybrid of the two classes even with tons of flavor abilities.
Its been a long time since I read 1st ed OA. I liked the book though as it was one of the 1st D&D books I had before I strated playing.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Personally I have a purely irrational hatred of the Monk. One ran over my cat- true story honest. I did not really like them in 1st ed let alone third ed. They are also the worst class in Pathfinder and my apathy towards them in 4th ed means I know they were a striker and that was about it. I like the gunslinger class in PF better than a Monk. Even if they had full BAB, level 9 spells and wildshape I would still dislike them.

 As I said purely irrational. I'm not a massive fan of 4th ed either (I don't hate it had some pure gold in there) but I like 4th ed better than the Monk. Other people have these things called "opinions" and some of them disagree with me even. Stupid democratic ideals and all that. Anyway I was hoping D&DN would have all of the 3.5 core classes and the 4th ed core classes of Warlord and Warlock but that adds up to 13 classes and thats a messy number. 12 is a much nicer number and if they have to cut a class I would nominate the Monk based purely on irrational dislike of the stupid class. Class number 2 to cut would be the Warlord although I did actually like the class in 4th ed as it seems a but redundent with Bards and Paladins floating around and with no leader mechanic in DDN. On the plus side for the Warlord though at least the class is not a Monk.

 World War II and the Nazis? Monk did it. The cold war, Monks fault. Disease, plague, death, Spiceworld movie and Britney Spears blame the Monk. 4th ed/Pathfinder depending on what side of the fence you like the Monk seems to be an obvious scapegoat IMHO.



I laughed so hard I fell out of my chair :P I'll be sending the hospital bills.
My two copper.
The inspirations for the monk were disciplined, highly skilled, fighters who learned their skills in a ascetic, spiritual/religious order.  Aside from the cultures they were in having restrictions on what weapons they could carry, that's not particularly unique.  Orders of knighthood, religious warrior-monks, and disciplined philsophical martial schools can be found in many civilizations.  Fighters and Paladins already represented such things before the Monk was introduced.
...
So that's it, the Monk is just a fighter (or other martial class) that gets to have nice things because 'orientalists' consider a source of inspiration in Asia to be equivalent to magic, while holding similar western traditions in contempt. 

I think you're being unjustifiably harsh.  After all, there is a class that uses western-inspired spirituality as a source for magic and blends this magic with martial prowess:  the paladin.

That's the monk's equivalent.  Not the fighter.

The Paladin draws his power from a deity, while the fighter and monk develop power from within (whether they use a label like 'Ki' or not).  Of course, some monastic traditions do involve deities, so the Monk manages to be redundant with both, as I acknowledged.

If 5e were to go back to the 2e CPH concept of philsophies empowering believers in the same manner as deities, though...

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

The monk debuted in Supplment II:  Blackmoor.  It's been a part of D&D for longer than the druid.  Arneson had a player in his group who liked martial arts tales and wanted to play a character like that, so Arneson put a bunch of pure 70s martial arts story ideas into a single class and let the player play as one.  That's because Arneson was concerned about his players having fun and was willing to work their ideas into the game rather than hold a campaign setting as some sort of sacred platonic ideal of fake Europe (which had the odd Eastern trade for centuries, and that's in a setting that didn't have access to teleportation).

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I've always loved that ascended fighting style where it's not psionic (facepalm 4e...double facepalm on you)...just extreme training and knowing how the body works in intimiate detail. Hence things like a body that does not age makes sense, killing with a palm strike days later, punching a brick wall to dust.



Uhh... isn't that part of what psionics is and has always been?  Understanding of mystic human potential, trained to its limits to the point where it can completely surpass all human ability and take things to the next level?

Unless you're saying that monks are martial, which is a pretty bold position to take given the backlash people had over the idea that martial characters might be able to do some nifty things that weren't anywhere near the "run up walls, dodge bullets, punch time/space" stuff that monks could pull off.
Perhaps, it just sounds wrong to me...I see psionics a little differently than "spiritual enlightenment coupled with uparalleled anatomy and martial prowess" however I would be hardpressed to argue the point in reality.

It stems more from how I view things (very much differently than most people, hence finding oddities to explain something that other's see a different way...whcih in the end isn't an argument since we both say the same thing anyway).

I'll admit I haven't looked at how the 4e monk powers work or are worded, just the idea that they are Psionic kinda grates at me after my long love of the Everquest style of monk. I would be interested to see the powers and theme for 4e..but I can't/won't spend the money to do so: so oh well :P

TLDR: it's all semantics really

In 3.5 and 4E, the monk starts out as an unarmed fighter, and ends as an unarmed gish. There's nothing wrong with having more character classes, and even if the monk doesn't make the cut, I'll end up building a monk-like character just to test the character creation system. I'd just like to know what the monk class would bring to the table beyond unarmed weapon proficiency and a bit of flavor text.

I like monks all right, but I think the monk needs to get its act together. The edition in which the monk is most prominant - 3rd, where it's a core class - is also the edition where it's the most incoherant, with a random hodgepodge of abilities and the status as the class most afflicted by 3.5's design dubiousness regarding "rapid attack" melee classes*. I wish the 4e monk weren't burdened with the psionic label; even amongst a lot of people who like psionics, that's a bit of a conceptual stretch for some, and it is literally just a label, since there's nothing connecting the monk to the other psionic classes whatsoever besides the loose thematic elements.

I see monks as sort of occupying the barbarian/paladin space where they're largely martial, but they have a sort of distinct non-martial edge. (That's not the same as necessarily being overtly supernatural.) I like the 4e monk for actually building mobility into the class in a big way, in a way that makes a big impact and to the best of my knowledge is pretty much unique in the history of the game. I do think it's important for the monk to be more than a set of compensations for fighting without weapons or armor, and mobility I think is by far the most iconic schtick for martial artist characters. Slow Fall and not aging and talking to plants feel tangential, super tangential and just kind of weird, respectively, and feel more like side things at best. They're neither iconic of the archetype nor mechanically very meaningful.

*Essentially, the sorts of characters that you'd archetypically think of as the most mobile, like monks and TWF characters, suffer the most when they have to move or are involved in mobile, dynamic combats, and are best when they're sitting there whacking at in immobile blob of tofu. PF exacerbated this issue for monks.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Huge fan of Final Fantasy Tactics monks, and even moreso with D&D 4e Monks (where it was an awesome choice for any unarmored warrior, with any weapon).

But in other editions of D&D the class completely fails to resonate with me.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
I just want to see some coherency for once.

Y'know, you could take everything the Fighter, Theif, Rogue and Monk have ever gotten, roll it together into one class, and that class /still/ wouldn't be overpowered compared to casters, though it might run the risk of being worthwhile in all three pillars...

....and would be really MAD...

Heck, you could probably throw in everything from various other non-casters - Knight, Slayer, Duelist, Scout, Warlord, &c - and still not break the bank.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

The Paladin draws his power from a deity, while the fighter and monk develop power from within (whether they use a label like 'Ki' or not).


Under the D&D maxim of "religion = magic", paladins are magic-Catholics and monks are magic-Buddhists.  They can of course be adapted to be other things, but those are undeniably the traditions the classes are drawing from for their foundations.  That there is no deity involved in magic-Buddhism is based an unusual feature of RL Buddhism, not a sign that magic-Buddhism isn't a valid magic-religion (with unfortunate implications for real Buddhism).  So it is absurd to say that there's a double standard between east and west at play when religious archetypes from both traditions both get supernatural powers.  And it is just absurd to say that fighters and monks are the same thing - unless you want to assert that fighters are magic-Buddhists too.

tl;dr:  Paladins are religious.  Monks are religious.  Fighters are not religious.


tl;dr:  Paladins might be religious, but might not..  Monks might be religious, but might not.  Fighters might be religious, but might not.



Fixed that for you.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
The 4E monk was the first edition of the monk that ever felt like he might be a class, rather than a random collection of horrible abilities strung... you know what?  I'm just quoting the "why each class is in its tier" thread.


-------------

Cons: They aren't exceptional tanks due to lowish HD, medium BAB, multi-attribute dependency (and thus comparably lower combat stats than melee monsters; this also hurts their supposed strengths in Grapple, Tripping & other combat maneuvers, along with Stunning Fist; all of those heavily reward straightforward dedication to a single stat over all else, and a Monk really can't pull that off), the fact that you can't combine their movement speed with Flurry (Flurry requires full attack, movement allows only one) and lack of weapon proficiencies (unarmed strikes getting decent dice later on, but lacking in special abilities and enhancing them costs a ****ton; oh, and no reach, no AoO-builds). Flurry is needed for them to do decent damage forcing them to ignore their speed boost in combat.

They aren't exceptional scouts due to lacking Trapfinding and having relatively low skill points and being unable to afford decent Int thanks to multi-attribute dependency (Hide/Move Silently/Tumble is all good, but if you don't have Trapfinding, scouting ahead in a hostile environment is like to get you killed).

They aren't exceptional mage killers (*chuckle*) because they really have nothing to especially threaten mages with. Just like every other warrior type, their movement is inferior to teleportation (once-per-day Dimension Door doesn't cut it), they have few if any ways to locate the mage and penetrate magical defenses (Mirror Image + Displacement + Blink: good luck hitting... Or Wall of Force) and they can't even reasonably use bows so their ability to act at range is infinitely diminished. Oh, and if they somehow manage to plop an Anti-Magic Field around themselves? They just gave up like 70% of their class features. Thanks to Greater Spell Penetration (in Core)/Assay Resistance (out of Core), their multi-attribute dependency, spells that ignore saves (even just good ol' Rays like Enervation/Scorching Ray/whatever, or Forcecages or something dumb), spells that trivialize touch AC (hello, True Strike!) and so on, all their magical defenses really add up to jack ****.

They aren't exceptional skirmishers due to not being able to Flurry with standard action and their speed bonus being enhancement thus, while probably being able to somewhat remain out of the harm's way with Spring Attack, not reducing the damage their allies take one bit and dealing negligible damage themselves. Indeed, this is the worst thing a Monk can do since it means the people who do the fighting are now taking all the beatdown while the Monk isn't contributing to the team's damage in any meaningful way either. In other words, the Monk isn't taking any hits and he isn't dealing any damage this way; thus he's as good as an empty slot in the party.


And overall, their class features kinda suck. Mostly, you can look at 'em like this:
-Flurry? That's nice! Now if only I were able to focus on one stat and have full BAB, I'd be doing a lot with my extra attacks on highest bonus!
-Improved Grapple/Trip/Stunning Fist/whatever? Nice! Now, if I only were able to focus on one stat and have full BAB, I could be landing these and winning the opposed checks!
-Speed boost? That's nice! Now, if I only could move and attack with my Flurry (which "almost" makes me equal to full BAB types), I could be doing something! Oh, and if this only stacked with magical speed boosts I'd actually be faster than the other classes.
-Unarmed Strikes? That's nice! Now, if I only got size increases or something so the damage dice would actually add up to something, and got 2x Power Attack returns and full BAB, this could add up to something!
-Ki Strikes? Nice, my unarmed strikes pretend to be weapons and get some minor abilities that almost replicate what my 1000gp weapon does! If only my WPL wasn't 100000...
-Slow Fall? So I get to replicate a 1st level spell by level 20? No? It only works next to walls? Well, almost replicate a 1st level spell!
-All this nice stuff, Abundant Step, Quivering Palm, Empty Body, I can replicate many kinds of spells poorly...once per DAY! Oh, make it Once per WEEK for that scary scary, broken Finger of Death With Save DC Derived Off Secondary Stat That Requires An Attack To Hit To Be Used.
-Oh, there's more? I get to replicate few more random low level spells? Cool. Oh, and Evasion? Yeah, nice, my Reflex-saves actually matter something! That's like...25k saved on the Ring.
-I get Spell Resistance? Just to ensure my team can't waste a Heal on me when I'm about to die? Cool!


Lack of synergy and multi-attribute dependency pretty much screw Monks up. Oh, and the good class features being limited to Very Few Uses Per Day. Seriously, if Monks had the ability to use Flurry whenever making an attack, if they got like Wis x uses of their now-daily abilities and the ability to use Dex for combat maneuvers, and Wis/Dex for damage, they'd be just fine. Grab Weapon Finesse/Intuitive Attack and they'd be able to go to town. As all those things are ****ed up though, they don't. As I mentioned above, those multiclass builds easily sidestep these issues. Mono-classed Monks don't though. -Eldariel 
The Paladin draws his power from a deity, while the fighter and monk develop power from within (whether they use a label like 'Ki' or not).

Under the D&D maxim of "religion = magic",

Outside of the 2e Complete Priest's Handbook, I'm aware of no such maxim.  D&D clerics and paladins (and Druids, until 4e) gained their power from deities.  In 2e, it was possible to design clerics that whorshipped a philosphy or force.  That's about as close as it got, and it was just for the one ed.  2e was also the only time a 'Monk' was presented as a Cleric kit, AFAICR.  

The inspirations for the D&D Monk include both religous and martial traditions, though the religous ones /also/ practiced martial arts, and it is the martial aspect that is the core of the D&D monk's identity. 

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!