A Buddhist monk walks up to a hot dog vendor and says “Make me one with everything”. The hot dog vendor hands over the sausage and bun with all the trimmings, and the Buddhist hands over a twenty. The vendor pockets it. The Buddhist asks “Where’s my change?” and the vendor replies “change must come from within”. A gun then extends from the Buddhist’s chest and he asks again. The vendor says “Whoa, man, where did that come from?” The Buddhist replies “This is my inner piece”.
Same friend. Before playing a monk I wasn't very convinced of them. Then I started playing that. If it weren't for our Barbarian's totally overpowered legendary weapon, He would be the most mobile, most attacking and dangerous member of our party.
Somehow I know want to build a western style monk: High Wisdom, Decent Intelligence, Bald, Overweight and with the Special Skills "Gardening" and "Brewing Beer and Wine"... I'm sure it will be usefull...
@@nctpti2073 The D&D clerics are a lot closer to the Knightly orders (Templars/Hospitaliters/Knights of St John/Teutonic Knights (actual Western Style Warrior Monks) so armour does not need to be limited. People think that these are represented by D&D "Paladins", but D&D Clerics are much closer to the Military Orders than D&D Paladins. D&D Paladins have less to do with any real world counterpart than D&D Monks.
@@glenbe4026 While I agree with you with respect to history, I would argue that the Paladin is designed primarily on fictional depictions of such orders, Sir Lancelot, for example.
@@nctpti2073 aah, Arthurian Legend. I do not really disagree that the D&D Paladins draw a lot from Arthurian myth, but for me, I do not think any of the Arthurian Knights except Galahad really fit the concept of D&D Paladins. It sort of feels like maybe the founders of D&D drew influence from the popular culture version of Arthurian Myth rather than actual Arthurian myth. Sort of the same thing they did with D&D Monks. Off topic a bit, but Lancelot is one of my least favourite of the Knights. Gawain, Kai, Percival are all much more interesting imo. Though I guess that makes sense since all three are older parts of the myth, so have a lot more depth, whilst Lancelot is a later addition. I am always disappointed that popular culture focuses so much on Lancelot and gives short shrift to the other Knights.
4:00 Lee died in 73, Kung Fu TV show aired in 72, a year after Lee pitched it in 71. Warner Bro/s Stole the idea, cast Carradine because they didn't think viewers in early 70s U.S. were ready for am Asian lead actor, and ran with it. The change was due to racism, not because of Lee's death
@don't matter Lee died July 20, 1973 Kung Fu aired October 14, 1972 Lee was alive when they started the series, so no, the not only would not, they DID not
Yeah I was surprised to see the evident complete lack of fact finding before putting that incorrect info in this video. Not a bad documentary otherwise.
I remember playing a monk at a good friend's house. His dad was the DM, and a really good one. He actually made his own advanced rules before the official ones came out. Our team had gone into a dungeon to the 3rd lvl. and gotten in trouble, almost all were down to 1/4th hpts or more, and i didnt have MPs to give out for healings. I had to be in front of them as we attempted to leave the dungeon and attempt to 'turn' everything that got in our way. The DM was snickering, as I needed to role 18-20 on a 20 sided dice to turn these things. It took 12 rolls to leave and I turned them every time and we left the dungeon. Everyone including me were dumbfounded, Damn fine monk, lol.
Monk manages to still be worse than Ranger, in all honesty. Monk is incredibly MAD. To be optimal you MUST have 16 dex and 16 wis at level 1 and you must pump those ability scores with ASIs to keep your damage, AC, and stun saves competitive. Without Variant Human, monks are massively gimped in terms of both flavour and mechanics since the only time they can realistically spend an ASI on a feat is level 19. (You might argue that Ranger is also MAD, since it uses Wisdom, but that's actually not the case. It's very easy to play a 10 WIS Ranger since so few of the Ranger spells that are actually worth a damn require a saving throw or spell attack roll.) Add to this the fact that your typical Monk doesn't use weapons, it means he misses out standard damage optimisation feats like Sharpshooter or Great Weapon Master. At best, a Kensei monk can remain on par with a Ranger by using Sharpshooter. But he lacks spellcasting, which means he ultimately loses out in damage, and still loses out in damage to a Fighter, Barbarian, or Paladin. As far as defense goes, unarmoured defense just requires way too much investment to get working. In my opinion, the best thing Monks have going for them is Stunning Strike. CON saves are usually pretty weak, since almost every monster in the game has a positive CON, but being able to force 4 saves in a row is a good way to shut down important enemies or burn legendary resistances. That aside, I think Monk is decent in tier 1, but still typically outclassed by other martials with bonus action attacks (TWF, PAM, etc)
@@everice3310 Having played a dwarf monk (way of the open hand), I disagree. I don't feel that the class requires many feats to be efficient. I only got Mobile and went for ASI otherwise. Tier 1 is actually where it lags, due to lack of stunning strike. But as soon as you get that, it starts to shine. Flavor wise, I played my character as a dwarf boxer and it still feels like the best RP experience I had to date. Depending on what subclass you choose, it can be MAD, but it doesn't have to be. Honestly, with Way of the Open Hand, you only need to focus on Dex. That's your only investment and that will get unarmored defense to work easily. And instead of magical weapons and armor, you might get bracers of defense, ring of defense, etc. BTW, your fists end up being considered magical, and sometimes, you might be the only one in the party that can do melee damage. Damage scales in a strange way, but you end up hitting a lot of times per action. Still, that's not the purpose of the monk. It's not a fighter or barbarian. It's more based on mobility and avoidance. You can stun a group of enemies in one go, and that's basically two turns for everyone in the party. Not to mention the boss fights, in which, without minions, you can stun the BBEG all the way to his demise. And yes, to the frustration of the DM, this did happen. Climbing on walls, running on water, jumping off buildings, catching arrows and sending them back, those are part of the fun stuff you can do. Later on, it gets even better, to the point of that insta-death punch, which remains one of the craziest abilities in the game. And the best part is, you kick ass with no armor, no weapons, no spells, just your fists. That's what makes the monk badass.
@@-POISON- If you ignore Wisdom, then your stunning strike save is poor. Not to mention your Quivering Palm save (which is an overrated ability, since anything worth instakilling has legendary resistances anyway). Like I said, stunning strike is the best thing monks have going, but they're not hard for enemies to shut down with spells or mobility, and stunning strike is an incredibly boring, linear (and arguably weak) trick compared to the tools available to spellcaster PCs.
I feel this video is failing to take into consideration one of the Monk's greatest advantage; the situational advantage of having a unlimited-use weapon which cannot be disarmed or confiscated (such as in moments when the character has been captured or imprisoned). And before anyone argues that someone could always cut off their hands, I'd point out that such a punishment would also hinder a fighter or wizard (perhaps moreso, as monk attacks do not have to be made with their fists).
You betcha. Once I ended up being the only chance my team had against a bunch of homebrewed monsters in a loot-scarce, magic item-lacking campaign. The homebrewed monsters melted any manufactured weapon that came into contact with them (believe it or not, he simply added an acid aura to kobolds). My character? A Dwarf Monk. He simply blitzed his way through the homebrew critters like they were so much wet cardboard - his fists were immune to the weapon-dissolving aura, and he needed neither loot nor magic items, just a healing spell or two. The DM HATED him. Oh, he later tried to play on the monk's "weak spot", his Lawful Good alignment - he had a pseudodragon (who, for some reason, could grant wishes) give the team the equivalent of the Toughness feat: 3 whole HP. Whoop de doo. Then the little lizard told my character "I paid you, now you do what I say". I could have simply said "I signed nothing, I agreed to nothing" - but I wanted to make my point. My monk had the fighter slice off both of his pinky fingers, and handed them to the dragon: "Here, a full refund.". Then I lowered my character's HP by 3. The DM liked this even less, and called for a full stop of the campaign.
even if they do take a monk's hands, which would cripple almost every class, it actually doesn't cripple a monk. Monks have unarmed strike and martial arts, that doesn't just mean punching it's kicking, elbows, martial arts isn't just punching after all
Wu Shu is an umbrella term for Chinese Martial arts. Wu = Martial, Shu = Style/art. Kung Fu itself means skill. While often used in reference to martial arts, generally means skill. So in essence, "Your skills in the kitchen are great." You can say. "Your kung fu in the kitchen is great." In mandarin of course. "Shaolin Kung fu" Would be saying akin to. "Shaolin's Martial Skills" More as a labeling of specific styles of created / originated from Shaolin.
@@danilonascimento9866 The source? Do you mean like a dictionary? Wu means military shu means art, the combination is synonymous with all martial arts. kung/gong means merit Fu means master. The combination is synonymous with honing skills to a great degree. This is also well known in Chinese martial arts circles in the north America. Instead of asking for a source of a word. You can just translate these words yourself with Google translate if you are skeptical. Kept in mind, this isn't peer review research it's a language. I suppose you can go into the etymology but this does seems like a really strange request.
@@danilonascimento9866 He is pretty much right. Its maybe a bit overly literal but yeah WuShu is general term and not specific to Shaolin. I wouldnt trust google translate or separate the component characters of words too much because Chinese doesnt exactly work like that. Sure you can break down a word like WuShu to mean MilitaryForm but you could also break down MaTong (toilet) to mean HorseBucket.
Fun fact, maybe you already know, Kung Fu (or in Pinyin "Gong Fu") also means "time"/"effort" or "availability" - "It took me a lot of Kung Fu to accomplish" "I don't have the Kung Fu to talk you you".
Great production value, very nice timeline presentation, good detail of edition differences. Halfway through, I thought "Wait! You skipped an entire edition that had the Mystic!" but then you went back briefly to cover that, so that's cool. My wife plays a monk in the 5e game I'm running and she loves it. I've subscribed due to this video.
i did, but honestly if the first or second hit, you dont need the others. stuns do not stacks. and as was mentionned... stunning strike works only on creatures without any real constitutions. something most creatures have plenty of because thats literally the only way to make them tougher.
@@dndbasement2370 that's why you put multiple on the same one. It's easy to save against one attack but 4 or 5 is not gonna happen the majority of the time.
big bosses only have so many legendary resistances. the most I've seen is 5 sooo. Main action flurry of blows+stunning strike on both, extra attack rinse and repeat, and since you can bonus action attack you bonus action flurry of blows and stunning strike. if my math is right that is 6 STUNNING STRIKES with the entire action taking 9 KI points which will use up *most of your KI* until really high level.
@@giraffedragon6110 but just to get that 1 stun effect, you just ripped out like 5 ki points. to me thats literally just useless from you to do. even more considering they can roll the die see if they fail or not and then just decide to use it. which means he might still have legendary resistances after all 4 strikes. yet you still lost 5 ki points and have a maximum of 15 left if you are level 20. sorry but 5 ki points is not something you should spend just to try and stun a boss. but thats just me though... i've seen enough monks thinking i got ki points for days, but after 2 rounds they are all out of them and have done next to nothing in the end. boss fights shouldn't be lasting only 3 rounds, they should last at least 5 to 7. and i will say... when spells are involved, your monks not gonna have much to do once the boss just banish him off. overall, in 5e magic users are much more powerfull then your monk. and again... your monk isn't capable of doing 100+ damage in one round, which both the rogue and paladin can do while being as low as level 9. but your call, if you like monk enough to think they are overpowered then be my guess... but to me, reguardless of how much i love kung fu masters and their ways... monks aren't all that great in 5th edition.
DnD Basement the point I’m trying to make is that you can utilize the stunning strike to make the boss eat through their legendary resistances. Monks are natural dodge tanks, at high enough levels they gain proficiencies in EVERY saving throw, their fist attacks use dex which is also your dodge stat, wisdom is often used for save or suck spells that either trick you with illusions or turn you on somebody else, they gain pretty good movement so they can rescue party members or run from danger, and majority of the subclasses do really neat or cool stuff. I don’t think they’re “overpowered” but I do believe that they have MANY good options.
It should be noted that many things in D&D and otherwise we take for granted nowadays were actually weird and new when they were introduced in D&D. The Cleric being a heavily armed undead hunter is completely standard nowadays, but it's not something a person back then would have grokked. In fact, it's ostensibly a character concept originally influenced by the Hammer Horror films, what with all the Dracula hunting such. Classes like the Ranger and Paladin are very D&D as well, to say nothing of the game's vision of bards, druids etc. The monk isn't weird so much because it's such a homebrew concept (as many of them were), but because they never actually managed to pin it down well and always struggled with it and its countless weird abilities. Many of the other classes manage to tie it all into a much neater, easier-to-conceptualize package, whereas the monk has always been just "Mystic Kinda-Eastern Stuff."
Right on! In many cases these evolutions were weird and had a life of their own. The early cleric was supposed to be something like a Knight Templar with a strong military bent, and the actual Priests from the Complete Priest's Handbook were generally a lot softer in combat. The basic edition Cleric didn't get spells at 1st level and the 2nd Edition Priests capped out at spell level 7. Third Edition gave them the best of all possible worlds at all times, giving them better combat ability and magic-user equivalent spellcasting while also treating them as priests of a specific mythoi...which left conceptual room that the Paladin was drawn into. Paladins in many people's minds became the Templars that Clerics were always meant to be, and you can't even play a "real" Paladin (the virtuous knight) anymore without most people expecting you to play him as though he were a 2nd Edition Cleric. The traditional Priest concept is even harder to realise, because you just get all the cleric stuff handed to you and have no mechanical excuse not to use it; If you're hoping to play a robed priest then you generally have to look for a multi-class with mage, hope it doesn't suck in the Edition that you're playing, and that the armour proficiency doesn't carry over, as it does in 5th Edition and even one of the 2nd Edition computer games!
I disagree with the statement about clerics, rangers and paladins being D&D originals. Arguably the most famous fantasy warrior of all time is Aragorn, and he fits many of the classic ranger ideas and abilities much closer than he does a fighter. Furthermore on Clerics, many of the saints such as Saint Andrew, Saint George, Saint Martha and of course Jeanne D'Arc are famous for the likely exaggerated warrior and battlefield accomplishments. If they don't fit the idea of a warrior priest I don't know what does. On Paladins, what else would you call the twelve paladins of Charlemagne other than mighty warriors who's faith and loyalty gave them supernatural abilities. How else would you define Arthur Pendragon other than a paladin? In fact much of what paladins can do was biased off of the powers that either Arthur possessed or that Clarent or Excalibur were said to possess.
@@TheLordofMetroids I'm not saying there's no precedent for them in fiction or history. I'm saying D&D codified them and made them the fantasy staples they are nowadays, instead of just an intresting idea from history. I'm saying that if you took a person from before D&D had gained a major foothold in public consciousness and pop culture, and told them to tell you about a paladin, they'd probably cite that same exact bit of historical lore, not the clearly defined toolset of supernatural abilities and capabilities they're expected to have in a game or a story nowadays. If you asked people what a group of heroes in a fantasy setting would look like in general, their answers would have been VERY varied, since fantasy wasn't as codified in general. That's the point I was trying to make: D&D codified all these things, so the monk wasn't an outlier because it didn't fit the code (the code hadn't been written yet), but rather because they've always struggled to codify it into a package that worked well and neatly. Naturally, these classes were inspired by history and mythology when coming up with the abilities of these classes, but you could have just as well come up with an entirely different set of abilities, equally inspired by different bits of history, or codified differently into the game, and they would be just as iconic now. You could even have come up with a completely different set of classes that would now be taken for granted as *the* fantasy archetypes. It's all obvious in hindsight, where they come from and what they do, but back then, looking forward, you had this whole open field of possibilities. Mainly, I was commenting on the premise of the video that the concept of the monk was supposedly weirder in comparison to the others, as if they didn't come to be with the exact same type of process. Namely, someone during the early days wanted to try out a character concept inspired by some fictional, mythological and/or historical idea and people liked it well enough that it stuck. There wasn't a preconception about what was "standard", is the point. When they were coming up with these classes, no one had a clearly defined idea that there just *had* to be a cleric or a paladin class or anything else.
@@TheLordofMetroids Though I agree about rangers to an extent, D&D Paladins ARE pretty much D&D originals. Despite what people think, D&D Clerics are very closer to the historical military orders (Hospitaliters/Templars/Teutonics/OoSJ/etc) than D&D Paladins are. And certainly neither Arthur or any of the Arthurian knights (Except for Galahad) fit the concept of D&D Paladins. And neither do Charlemagne's Paladins (other than being the source of the name). And even the word "Paladin" comes from Palatin, which means "of the Palace", nothing to do with divine purpose).
But Rangers were introduced as literally the "Aragorn Class" because someone wanted to play Aragorn. Clerics came about because, yes, the Van Helsing thing, but also because one of the players at Gygax's home game was playing a Vampire and was total bullshit so Cleric was made to counter that. It's all pretty wild.
I liked the history lesson, but I gotta disagree when it comes to 3rd ed and pathfinder. Monk is the only class I've gotten banned from playing in multiple gaming groups due to them being overpowered. Lol my favorite moment was a dm asking me, "What Mortal Kombat character are you going use to ruin my day this time?". It was Sub-Zero btw and I single handedly beat a kraken to death.
Pathfinder's "Style" feats make monks fantastic fun. And with some combos with "Master of Many Styles", you could be monstrous, with big bonuses to damage on charge, free attacks on those you charge past, AND a full attack on the target, or nigh inescapable, heavily damaging per round grapples that don't even penalise the Monk for being in a grab, as 2 I've seen.
3d Monks were broken depending on the campaign and the DM, i had a monk with the grappling abilities in a campaign where most of the enemies were humans or humanoids... and i kinda feel bad for the DM, because he would introduce this big villain guys and they all would be dispatched with "i run to him and grapple"
My favourite "broken class" was a Rogue/Wizard/Arcane Trickster Grey Elf wererat with 19 starting intelligence. The hardest class I ever played was a paladin/fist. LG was hard for me becuase I love my personal alignment of NE. I also gave him an intelligence of 8 for most of the campaign, one of the mages was evil so i needed to be dumb enough to never catch him being evil. Dumb was hard to play I could not come up with any of the plans but had to some how stumble into helping the other characters develop one. GM had a field day watching me NOT come up with the plan. the only plan he let me have was Detect Evil is it evil? yes. Hit it until it stops being evil.
Pathfinder monks are still considered bottom tier, unfortunately. Unchained monk is 1 tier above because they can use weapons more effectively. I love monks, but they're not good in most games... By the way, in 3.5, monks technically didn't have proficiency with unarmed attacks.
@@NecromancyForKids that is false, the monk did have proficiency with unarmed attacks from lvl 1. The monk is the jack of all trades, the answer to all situations, and can land blows with the best of them. You don't need to wield weapons, and they can be completely broken with ki
I loved my 3rd ed monk, it totally kicked ass (especially at lvl 10+) by the time i was at 19/20th Lvl over half the encounters were over before the rest of the party were fully engaged. it is my best character in over 30 years of playing
One of the reasons I don't like going back to 3rd Edition myself is highlighted in that comment. If you weren't a spellcaster. "Wait until I'm level 10, THEN I get good". It kind of broke with what the swing balance was in earlier editions, and in a bad way. When you have a situation where, at level 1 the Fighter is stupidly good at his job and basically carries the party, while the cleric and magic user are of limited (but not inconsequential) use? It creates a dynamic where people look to the Fighter as "This is how shit gets done". When things go bad, when plans are ruined, they expect the Fighter to step up and fix the situation for them. The Cleric and Magic User are situational support and tactical weapons, not the everyday reliance. Now around level 5 this starts to, realistically, change. Clerics and Magic Users don't NEED the fighter so much. But because the growth from 1 to 5 is a lot longer than it was in 3rd Edition or later... you're talking about a lot of conditioning of the team and training to view the Fighter as "this is how things get done". So they remain relevant to the group because so many encounters have been built around the idea of the Fighter. Even as the spellcasters gain more and more power. It's an interesting dynamic to see these like level 13 characters who are convinced "The fighter is the key to our success" even though you know it's factually not true and the Cleric could have just called in some celestial creature to do the job as good, maybe even better. Your players just won't realize it after years of counting on the Fighter. Now in 3rd Edition? The dynamic was screwed with. Fighters, Monks, Rangers, etc. Usually needed to achieve level 8 or 10 to be "Competent" at their jobs due to the Feat System and how a lot of them were just meant to negate intrinsic penalties (like the Ranger's two-weapon chain all being about reducing penalties to fighting with two weapons until you're baseline average on rolls about level 8 with them, and level 12 to "I'm actually good with them"). So you had characters that weren't going to grow that much in those "Mundane" classes who were the chumps of the party to start out, were never relied on as "Our last best hope" because even first level casters had some 5-8 spells per day, more than enough to handle usually the 2 encounters of low level adventuring days. And they were just going to fall further, and further, and further behind. By the time they become "Competent"... everyone else in the party has achieved that in the get go. Which is probably why so many third edition games wanted to start at "At least level 10" that I saw across so many spaces. Because it's where the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, Monk, etc, etc, etc, finally got a chance to do the thing their levels and class had been building up to.
@@hitomisalazar4073 ok i see where you're coming from. BUT, your argument seems misleading after you realize the original commenter said "specially" You seem to have red "after" Like, just because there is a highest point, doesn't mean the other points are ass. The original commenter certainly doesn't seem to think that atleast. He seems to have had fun the whole journey
"Dave Arneson created the monk - Blackmoore play tests, between 1970 and 1975" ... So, when Bruce Lee films were a giant thing. Huh! Guess I figured out where the MONK class originated. How did I do that? I'M OLD! ... children.
Actually, the Kungfu TV show was created by Bruce Lee & made with David Carradine while Bruce Lee was still alive. This was explained by the producers as being because they believed it would be more popular with a white actor instead of 3/4 Asian Bruce Lee. This racism is why Bruce moved to Hong Kong to make films.
Monks are awesome if you play them right for one: Your hands our weapons. Perfect for if your dm has a fetish for capturing you and making you into a slave. Npcs will generally not have their guard up around you if you don't have any weapons, so it can be fantastic to get a drop on opponents. The class is all about making yourself into a finely tuned weapon like a psionic fighter (ignore psychic warrior).
Problem with "your hand as your weapons is perfect if your DM has a fetish for capturing you" is like saying "playing someone in a wheelchair is perfect if your DM has a fetish for running special olympics". Might be true, but it's a handicap in every other situation. For most of the editions, fighting with your bare hands just means you are worse than the fighter using a magical sword in about 99.99% of the time.
I usually find it just interesting how far something has to reach to try to deny that it's a bad idea however. I mean no complaint about your comment, just the monk in general. If you're talking about a point where you need basically the worst case scenario of "You are all stripped naked and now serve as galley rowing slaves on a Barbary Coast ship" or something... that does more to say how terrible the class is than any other. Nevermind that the monk, even in that situation, is far from the best character. For example the Fighter (Or Barbarian even) likely has a much higher strength and could say, break chains and kick open doors (literally were rules for that in old editions after all), and use their chains as an improvised flail to cave in people's skulls. Or the Sorcerer just gets their spells back the next day and uses their spells that don't require material components (there's a lot that fall under that, including highly powerful spells for getting out of a situation like that, such as Charm Person). Or a thief using Improvised tools to pick locks or sleight of hand a key off a guard or something. Well that and in the "You're all a slave" or something it's almost always done in service of the plot and to avoid a fail state/TPK so you kind of know you're getting out of it regardless one way or another. It's a situation where any token excuse for how you might get out of it is going to work. I think the biggest problem though is something that The Ranger shares with The Monk. It's just a list of features that are "Traditional" really. Like no one really sat back and said: "... what is this class actually supposed to be?" Instead it's just "That character who has Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain and Tracking and Animal Companions and some minor spells and dual wielding and archery and stealth skills". Similarly outside of like... 4th Edition design, the Monk was always more a laundry list of features that were "Traditional" than any sort of coherent design. 5th Edition is better than 3rd's, to be sure. But that's not really saying much either.
My first edition of D&D was 5e and I legit fell in love with the Monk. Mostly because I didn't have to worry so much on equipment. I misunderstood the class at one point and thought I couldn't use weapons so in one fight I threw the sword given to me aside and ran up and beat the guy to death. It was a gladiator arena that the whole party was captured and forced to fight in. The fight was a three on three and we had an npc on our side. The npc and my fight I think were the most intense. The npc almost died. The guy I fought refused to give up so I had to kill him.
Recently started playing a monk in 5e. Really enjoying it so far. Feels like a pretty big departure from the other classes I've played, but really enjoying it so far. Lots of fun roleplaying to be had and some of the combinations of skills feels almost like playing with MTG mechanics.
I believe David Carradine's character was actually half Chinese in the series, making him an outcast to both cultures. His name is pronounced Cara-deen.
Given how thorough you were in all other aspects of this video, I'm honestly surprised how much you didn't acknowledge with PF monks. The vanilla monk was okay at best, but the numerous additional archetypes, ki powers, and most of all, the Style feats, really made the Monk not just a strong class, but a versatile one as well. Regardless, loved this history lesson, thumbs up! :)
Monks haven't always been bad. In the old school Advanced D&D Oriental Adventures, which had an amazing martial arts system, the monk was actually quite powerful thanks mostly due to that system. Still, if you wanted to go with a pure martial arts build it was probably better to be a Kensai focused on an a martial art instead of a weapon. This was primarily due to the fact that the biggest weakness of hand to hand combat was it's lack of efficacy vs enemies with very low AC or ones that required magical weapons to hit. The Kensai got a + bonus on their attacks based upon level which was always applied to the weapon or technique they specialized in. This made them godly at hitting things with amazing defense and it even acted like having a magic weapon for the purposes of hitting incorporeal enemies etc. Still, in that setting a mid to high level monk was a formidable character that would generally seriously outperform a generic fighter of the same level. It's a shame they immediately turned around and removed the martial arts system and turned the Monk back into a turd with the very next release.
I think the reason I never thought of the monk as a weak class because we tended to play role-play heavy, combat light sessions a lot where being a member of a monastic order as opposed to being a simple fighter gave the character a lot of advantages. The fighter killed the orc, the monk convinved the lord of the land to compensate the sacred deed. And such. It definitely depends on game style what is powerful and what is not. That said, the time the monk tried to punch the Tarasque... yeah, didn’t go well.
I started with 2e and had a player who really, REALLY wanted to play a monk. Monks weren't core and we didn't have all those fancy books, so we made a monk class. I present the guts of that class below. We had a lot of fun with it. Also, props to the creator of the vid for including screens of Nightmare on Elm St. for NES. Aces. Monk Class Hit Die: d8 Armor: None, but -1 AC bonus (remember AC goes down) each level to a maximum of AC 0 at 10th level (can be further modified by items) Thaco Progression: As cleric/priest Weapons: Unarmed strikes Damage: 1d4 (1st-3rd) 1d6 (4th-5th) 1d8 (6th-7th) 1d10 (10th+) Weapon Speed: 3 Attacks per Round: 2 Saves: As priest Hide in Shadows/Move Silently: As ranger, fixed progression Special Features: Fade (7th), Dodge (5th) Dodge Once per round, you can ignore one attack that hits you and it deals no damage. Fade Make an attack at -4 penalty. If you hit, the target must make a Save vs. Death or lose 25% of their maximum hit points. A creature can be affected only once by this feature.
"Lore wise it's the most obvious exception to D&D's European Setting" We *are* talking about a setting that has included essentially-pirates, essentially-ninjas, assassins, katanas, and shuriken, right?
@@Fankas2000 Funny thing is that it's those sorts of exceptions that help prove my point D&D is an amalgamation of shit that you don't generally consider to be Medieval European which most people attribute to it but would have existed at the time: it having Ninjas, Monks and Katanas isn't weird, it's entirely in line with what would exist at the time. Oh, and Vikings were largely raiders and the traders, less pirates, more shock troops. While I wouldn't be surprised if there were some examples, viking ships weren't known for or designed for cannon battles or boarding as far as I know
@@Fankas2000 The point of my comment isn't "Yeah, there shouldn't be Pirates or Assassins in D&D either" It's "Let me point out some other egregious things that aren't medieval western-European but are in D&D and we can have a laugh at how silly that part of the video is" (And also that monks are bad ass and fun to play if done right)
My first DnD character was a Monk. I thought it was awesome. Until I started getting 1-shotted everytime we had an encounter. Sadly, he survived until level 4. Edit: I'm talking about 5e
I'm curious how it went? What style did you take for monk and how did you play? Just liking to hear stories and I'm at some point gonna do Shadow Monk Wood Elf, so would like to know if you have some stories what to do and what not to do ^_^
Yeah, Monk is still kind of a glass cannon - they can deal *tons* of damage, but can't use armor, lack the hit points for being a front-line fighter, and aren't quite as mobile as Rogues.
“Aren’t quite as mobile as rogues.” I would disagree greatly. I would even argue that with the Unarmored Movement and the bonus action Ki abilities, the monk is way more mobile.
depends on how you play, how you pick stats and so on and on... so far in my campaigns monks are the tankiest... because I do not throw armors +3 at everyone from the start... I'm trying to make my players feel that if they get the magical item it will feel magical, not just another +1 or +2 item for the party that they can sell.
Yeahhhhh I'm glad they finally fixed the monk class. I personally have a monk who has, while only having a +1 modifier to Constitution, has survived for a year to the present day at level 15 thanks to his insane maneuverability and AC. I love this roleplay character to death, he's grown and changed from his experiences, and he serves to defend his friends and pack the punch for our campaign. The others love his aid in any quest, and he's BFFs with the Cleric and boyfriend to the Rogue while possessing a (presently Young) Bronze Dragon companion named Vex. He's among my favorite characters in D&D, and I'm surprised by the troubling history behind this class that I've fallen in love with. At least they've finally gotten it right.
Dude monks have shit ac compared to all the other martials, 16 ac at level 1 is bad and your the only class who has to take ability score improvements over feats not to mention your useless against high level enemies due to them having over +10 to hit.
A 5th level 5E monk can just drive-by up to 4 enemies with extra attack and flurry of blows and use their stunning strike ability to incapacitate them - OR force 4 CON saves if its all of its attacks connect on a single creature. Imagine it at higher levels: DC 19 CON save (Wisdom +5 and proficiency +6) four times over (If all attacks hit). The stunning strike ends at the end of the monk's next turn - if you are lucky, then you could hold their actions throughout the entire battle! Edit: Typo
Rules "Whenever you hit a creature with one of the attacks granted by your Flurry of Blows" Am I understanding this wrong? -> Does not count for normal attacks? I mean you have to connect a hit to use 1ki to do Flurry of Blows and way of the open hand says that text, I would say you can stun only 2 different opponents? I have Dyslexia, I first for 1 month was assured to my self when I was studying monk that you could hit 7 times, untill I realised Flurry of Blows uses your bonus action :D
@@xezzee The special effects that can be applied to enemies via Flurry of Blows (being shoved 15ft, knocked prone, and negated reactions) do specifically only proc on Flurry of Blows strikes, but the Stunning Strike says "When you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack, you can spend 1 ki point to attempt a stunning strike." So, yes, a Monk could theoretically "Drive-by" and attempt to stun 4 enemies.
But then you have no ki left for the rest of the fight, meanwhile the ranger is dealing 2d10 damage with their longbow which can be boosted with hunters mark/favored foe, sharpshooter and most of their sub classes get some sort of extra damage on each turn not too mention their sub class abilities that do not drain a core resource that powers every other ability the class has and also they get expertise at level 1
I liked this overview of a class I've never thought to give a go before, although the title did make me think you'd do some sort of comparison between the monk and the more popular classes. either way, this was a well throughout discussion of the monks development and I would enjoy seeing you do some more of these overviews regarding some of the other odd classes and sub-classes such as the evil variants to the paladin like the oath-breaker and anti-paladin.
This is my monk in our current campaign. I'm essentially an armor-less tank. Very few enemies can hit me, and I can do a really ridiculous amount of damage and get all those bonus attacks. I take less damage than our actual tanks, and I deal more damage than our wizard. Monk is honestly kinda OP.
Think Open Hand monk is pretty popular for the added Flurry of Blows utility. However, if you really want to double down on tankiness... Long Death seems amazing with the ability to just say, “Nope, I live.” Add flying somehow and you have an excellent on demand fear bomb.
At level 16 my monk with only spending one ki point deals on a hit a minimum 38 damage(if i rolled all ones), an average of 55 damage, and a maximum of 79 in a single turn, with the addition of a few more ki points and half of those hits have a chance to stun. Combined with the lucky and mage slayer feats, as well as shadow monk teleportation (which doesn't cost any ki points and allows you to literally just teleport forever as long as the room hasn't been magically tempered with to get rid of all shadows) and i have an amazing utility rouge substitute with unmatched mobility and a hell of a lot of damage per round.
I think what many people fail to realise about the core strength of Monks throughout all editions is their self reliance. They do not need weapons or armor, they rarely need to be saved from a situation, they have skills or abilities that allow them take care of themselves. Fighters typically need pocket healers, healers need someone to help with skills, wizards require meat walls. Monks don't really care about any of that. Played intelligently they are usually in and out situations quickly. If they overstep and end up in trouble they have movement to get them out. They have the ability to deflect missiles as they flee, they have good saves to shake off effects. They are nearly never the party member asking for anything. This allows the party to distribute wealth, armaments, and treasure more effectively. I have only ever played 1 monk but I have been a forever dm for decades and have hosted for numerous Monks and this has always been my impression. They rarely ever take over a game by sheer brute forcing the way wizards or Chad fighters do, but they are nearly never in trouble. I often see them as a real measuring stick of the group. When the monk is in serious trouble usually the whole party is feeling that pressure. When the monk is breezing even when things are dire; the party feel hopeful.
i like playing monks and rangers.. but in their recent incarnation they are far from great at what they do. so no, its not just a question of likings... i really which the monk had more features worth picking levels for.
Except DND is a team game, if your character is weak, and can’t help the team, u ruin THEIR FUNas well. So no. Best class isn’t “ the one you enjoy playing “
@@rjboxxer1502 but regardless the moni can help in a certain way with perception and other ability checks or in other ways. Not everything is combat focused at all tho. Besides, a good roleplay can make a memorable event.
Monk have always been a class you either loved or hated. Both as player and DM. Tweaking to let them actually work (in earlier editions) meant they can overpower the game at high level (as they can in 5e) while they are difficult to have survive at low level without the whole party defending them or the DM giving them plot armor.
F Huber , in 1st edition, we tweaked the monk to hit on the cleric table and gave the monk thief hit dice. This gave the monk the chance to live past the first few levels.
I always thought one of the biggest flaws of the early monk was it was pretty boring. I mean you couldn't wear any armor or use weapons. So no magical items to upgrade your character or customize your style of play. You really didn't have any spells to skills to really spend any thing on. You just got stronger as you leveled up and were exactly like every other monk your level besides how high your stats were.
the monk is a great class. by the time i got to level 11, the DM was getting really frustrated cause he just couldnt hit me most of the time. he got me with an arrow finally, but, i used my reaction to deflect missiles and threw the arrow back. he just looked at me with a blank face when i said, nah im gonna throw it back at you and youll take 4 piercing damage. monks are fun
Sounds like you have a bad DM. DM's job isn't to try and kill the PC's, they simply are narrating lore and they let the characters and dice shape the story. The DM should always remain objective, even when a tough challenge they set is overcome by the players rather easily. It should just go into his notes, and move on. We have a Homebrew Monastic Tradition that actually thrives when the monk receives dmg from a target, so not being able to hit the monk would be absolutely devastating on the players end.
I think your mistaking the DM wanting to make you feel cool for him/her wanting to hit you . If a DM decides your going to get hit guess what happens you get hit , they control the whole world and can throw it all at you to destroy you ( be a dick move and not fun for anyone well maybe the DM)
The AD&D monk could not pick pockets and it started with 2d4 hit points, unlike the magic user. The monk didn't have to start defeating other monks, in combat, to solidify it's level up, until 7th or 8th level. Also, Dimension Walk DOES NOT have anything to do with traveling to another plane of EXISTENCE, it has to do with traveling greater distances, within the plane, the monk already resides in. I started playing, in 1980. Thank you for the video.
Also, It fought on the clerics table once the Dungeon Master Guide came out. I also started in 1980, played for about 10 years. Good times. Excellent video too!
@@valdezz789 They say it's the worst class ever and it's hard to argue against that claim, but I enjoyed playing the Monk. It was a challenge but they had some unique abilities, that could be very effective, especially at higher level. I mean, being able to dodge arrows and even fireballs and being immune to slow spells and poison and disease, comes in handy. One of the more effective aspects, of the class, was that they had multiple chances to stun their target, with an open hand attack, every round. I think the Monk dodge and that stun ability saved my ass, more than anything else. Definitely some good times :) peace
Am I the only one that Looks at the 3/3.5/Pathfinder Monk and all he sees is a Mage Killing Machine? Like Mages Crush Fighters By Simply Being out of reach and having things the Fighter's armor Can't Help him with, Ranged touch attacks and AoEs that Force Reflex Saves, which fighters have LOW, and that even if you Succeed you still take a ton of Damage... But the Monk Just Laughed at all those notions... 1.Their Class Given AC was all Dodging, so Touch attacks were NOT more likely to Hit them than a Sword, and the fact that they had Two ability Scores to draw AC from, that means it could get pretty High, Maybe not as High as a Full plated Fighter with a Giant Shield (Both with Maxed out Enchantment bonuses), but Still Pretty Damn High Passively, and Mages have Low Attack bonuses, so their odds of Hitting the monk with their Ranged Touch attacks was Laughable.... 2. All their Saves are High, and they even get Special Bonuses against the particularly Nasty Magics, like Enchantment (Which was Next To impossible to Enchant a Monk what with Wis Being their ONE Core Ability and their High Will save and Extra Bonuses Against Enchantment effects from still Mind... Playing an Elf Monk Makes this even More Impossible). On top of that they get Improved Evasion to Either Ignore the "Will always have SOME Effect" AoE spells, or Take Severely Reduced damage even if they somehow fail the Ref Save (Which again, High Ref Save Because you're Encouraged to Have High Dex Due to not being able to wear Armor). Fort is Also a High Save and they're Straight up Immune to poison Effects, so really the only kind of Fort Effect you can really do to them are Direct Enfeeblement (IF they Hit, cause Ray of enfeeblement is Ranged Touch attack, Refer to Point 1. to see why that's a bad Idea), and Transmutations... Which Hilariously Enough, Even if you turn the Kung-Fu Master into a Toad, he's STILL a Kung-Fu Master who Will Dodge you even MORE now as he Proceeds to Whoop you with a Death of a Thousand Licks.... 3. Monk is Literally the ONLY Class to have Built in Spell Resistance... So Even IF all the Previously Mentioned Features don't Save you from the Big Mean Wizard, there's a Less than 0% Chance that this SR will! 4. Remember that Bonus Speed That the Vid says is an almost useless Trait because you can't Full Attack After moving? Well the thing is, you don't NEED to do a full attack to use that Efficiently, you Just Need to Sprint at the Enemy Mage who was Hiding as far away as he could from your Party, Then Remind Him WHY he wanted to stay in the Back line to begin with by Pummeling that poor Mage into submission With your Fists, Stuffing Fist in Particular is Useful here because you can Stun Lock a Mage with it, They have Low AC Before they can Set up several Defensive Spells (Which they're not getting to Cast at ALL since the Monk with his High Dex Probably goes first and WILL be adjacent to him to prevent Casting within one round), Damn Near All Spellcasters have Low Fort Too, so that Stun IS Happening, wither the Mage Likes it or not... If Stunning's not your thing, at High Level you get Quivering Palm, an InstaKill Move, which is a Fort Save... Now what were Wizards Notoriously Bad at Resisting again?... While every other Physical type Character is going "Damn Mages are Just Too damn OP!" the Monk Just Goes: Monk: Omae wa mou shindeiru.... Wizard: NANIIII?!?! *Head Explodes while still at 100% Hp* At this point the Mage player is probably the one Whining that his Character Class is Useless in combat.... But I'm not Even Done yet... 5. Mages Like to Cast Spells that will Let Them Stay out of Harms way, Like Fly, or Illusions or Creating Walls or Obstacles to Stand on... The Problem here for the Mage is, the Monk can Still get to em because of his VASTLY enhanced Jumping and Parkour Skills... Not only does the Monk Get a Rather Substantial Bonus to Jump/Acrobatics Checks Just Flat out, but their Enhanced Move Speed ALSO Boosts their Jumping Distance/Height Passively... so when that Wizard Flies 40 Feet Straight up, thinking he's Safe from arrows Behind his Wall of wind, he Literally Gets pounced on by a Crazy Almost Naked Dude who Seems to think he's Tigger from Whinnie the Poh... Oh and One Guess as to what Happens to a Stunned Mage at 40 Feet in the Air.... Oh and if that's not enough, at Higher Levels the Monk Can skip the Middle Man of "Defying Gravity" and Just Teleport up there To do his thing... 6. Remember that Seemingly only thematic thing of the Flurry of Blows? Well turns out that shit can Straight up Deny a Mage from Casting if you use it as readied action when the Mage Starts Casting, Cause Low Mage AC + Way too Many Hits = Way Too Many Concentration Checks if not Casting Defensively, which itself can cause said mage to Loose his spells before they're even attempted... Special Pathfinder Specific Add-ons: P1. In Pathfinder Stunning Fist Got an Upgrade, and Specifically Monks that use it can Replace the Stun Effect with other status effects, Such as Fatigue, Sicken, Stagger, BLIND, Deaf (20% Spell failure on Verbal component spells), Paralize 1d6+1 Rounds (at this point Might as Well Just admit the Mage is a dead man walking) P2. the Step up Feat Tree Might as way be Called the "Screw you Mage" Tree, as it allows the Character to Follow someone using a 5 Foot step to get away From being Adjacent from an enemy to prevent yourself from getting Hit by an Attack of Opportunity for Casting... which is of course enhanced when used by someone with High Movement Speed and MANY Attacks (Since the Follow ups Step does NOT Count as your Round's Movement) P3. in Pathfinder, Monks "Jump Good", Check out Samurai Jack to see just what that means.... with a Bonus to Acrobatics Equal to their Level, an Extra +4 for every 10 Foot Speed Increase (Leaving them at +24 at Lv 20), and the Ability to Burn Ki to Both Increase their Jump Roll by +20 Flat, AND add an Extra +8 by adding an other +20 Speed... they can EASILY wind up with more than 90 as a modifier to their Jump Checks,and Since they always count as having a Running start, that means that they Jump INSANELY High... Flight will Help Save that poor sad Squishy Wizard even less now... Is a +90 Bonus on a Single Skill Overkill? Yes, Yes it is, but I don't Care because it lets me Leap over Castle Fortifications like they were a Fence for Sheep... Also Catch and eat the random flying Wizard... P4. Dimension Door is Now Fueled by Ki rather than being on a Once per Day Basis. Even Better, the monk Uses Dimension Door as a MOVE Action where the Mage uses it as a Standard, so he Just used his Turn to try and teleport away from his Inevitable Doom only to get Teleport Kicked in the face! Meaning that You Might as Well Call yourself "Nightcralwer" cause there's nowhere a Wizard can hide... P5. Style Feats... these are a New type of Feat Meant EXPLICITLY for Monks (though technically Any class can take them, Monks Come with all the basic Prerequisites to get them WAY faster than any other Class), Now these things are Varied and Some Are Weird, all are Useful in some way to Monks... The ones that you get from the player handbook are Pretty Much a Stun-Lock effect that Gives you even MORE Free Attacks, as a Side effect it Prevents the target from doing 5 Foot steps, so Concentration rolls become Obligatory for casting.... I'm Pretty Sure I've Said enough Already... but Next time someone Tries to Convince you that "Monks Suck" remember, they're the guys that can Curbstomp the Classes that are Considered "Way Too Overpowered".... DMs who are sick of their party Wizard Steamrolling everything, Take notes!
@KG Motte , love your essay I also notice that when AD&D2e went over to 3.0e They did away with the Boxing/ Wrestling Chart with the Knock Out % If a Monk: cleric/ fighter did a punch/ kick for 6dmg, there was a 70% of K.O. They foe that got hit had to make a Con roll to stay upright. My group was like, forget swords, just club a guy on the head and roll for K.O. DM: call shots to the head is a --8 to hit.
Meh. You need dex, str, wis, con to make a monk. A caster needs one good stat, and maybe one or two okay stats. Your monk will always be playing catch up on those numbers. Casters are able to focus on their one stat and will get past a monks defences. Even in the beginning, mage armor, or expeditious retreat, and magic missile will put a caster in a safe range to put down a monk. Heck, casters who focus on dex as a secondary stat will out initiative a monk more often than not, and that will doom a monk. Check out the gitp forms for more in depth discussions.
@@MrKezzerdrix You don't Need Str, You can EASILY replace that with one Feat, a Feat that pretty Much all Rogues Get (Weapon Finesse, Or did you think that your Bare hands were not light enough to qualify for that feat?), and with the "Agile" weapon trait Slapped on an amulet of Mighty Fists you have literally no reason to have ANY Str at all, you don't Need to carry ANY Gear, and both your Offense and Defense Come from Dex. As for Con, you only Need that exactly as Much as Literally Every other class, so it's not really a Flaw that You need that... Actually you Need it less than most Classes, Since your AC will Likely be Higher than Most (It takes a +5 Full Plate AND a +5 Heavy Shield to Get Higher AC than a Well built Monk who exploits his Wis to AC bonus with all the same Gear), and you Have Evasion and all High saves, so you'll be Taking Less Damage overall, don't Need more Meat if they can't even touch what you have!.... Plus Unlike a a Fighter, a Monk can Self Heal without Magic Items or External Input, Which Means the only Class that can actually outlcass the Monk defensively is the Paladin, THE Tank of tanks, but who's Offense is low Except for Against Very Specific Enemies....
I don't know if you read the comments at all but I just want to say that you're my favorite D&D guy on youtube. Your editing is great, the clips you choose as visual "fillar" are spot on, and you don't talk like your tongue is aggressively fighting your attempts to form normal words, like so many other random channels I come across.
(in pre 4th edition and Pathfinder) they require 4 stats to actually function. If not rolling great ( or having a high point buy pool) they will be alot weaker than other classes. They can be really good if built properly but still get outshined by a mage in 3e-ish editions and fighter in adnd2
not really ones your level 16 and higher you basically dont take full damage for anything even on crits you immune to 90% of magic and all poisons and disease a monk if done right are mage bane because they really cant hurt you i have build monks that have bet level 20 paladins and all manner of casters as a level 17 monk
@@duburakiba especially with certain martial arts feats that in the end will have your weapons be damage of a higher level monk than you are of a larger size category with fists treated at magical, all the flurry attacks and with certain vows from complete divine you're basically untouchable
I've found modern monks from 3.0 on to be rather powerful. I've played them in every edition from there on up, and in most battle situations, they're quite good, especially in 5th edition. By 5th level, expending 3 to 4 ki is a devastating attack sequence once per short rest in almost every archetype. I've always liked them as a disciple of a rare ascetic art, or as a stranger from a strange land. They're fun!
The key problem with the monk class has always been the specialized monk items. Most modules must plan for the presense or absense of a monk, meaning there are always either too many or too few monk items.
Any experienced DM will be writing their own material, or at least modifying store bought modules to fit their campaign. Now if your argument is the specialized items is a problem for anyone trying to write modules for sale, then I agree with you. This might also be a significant part of why Gygax objected to monks in the 'regular' (i.e. not specifically oriental) D&D settings.
@@nctpti2073 But how hard would it be while making a module to put a list of objects and let the DM decide based on if they will be useful to the party?
@@Jake007123 It is extra work that would cut into profits, all because some players think that everything their characters find should be useful to their characters, completely oblivious to the fact that neither reality nor most better D&D campaigns do not actually operate that way. At the end of the day, the easier solution of accepting that there is no practical perfect solution rules. Some problems have no easy solutions.
@@nctpti2073 I see. I'm not a big fan of modules, I always use my own campaigns, but I can see there's a limit to which items you can put on a module destined to be used by everyone. I would say if I made a module, I would always put items that don't need classes, like amulets, circlets, rings, and so on, and the weapons and armor I would leave them nebulous as to wichi kind of them were (X of Slaying-The-Evil-Dragon, change X with an appropriate weapon for the party).
@@Jake007123 As a DM, you can add or subtract anything you want from any given module. There are no 'module police' that would show up at your door to chastise you, and if a player complains about you having changed something, the question arises why they have been reading the module and why they would be expecting no changes.
Yeah, this guy usually skips from 3e to 4 without even mentioning 3.5, where every class except fighter has it's own awesome sauce applied. I took out a red dragon single handed with a high-mid( lvl 16-17) level monk once in NWN2, which uses 3.5 rules.
I'm a 2nd Ed dinosaur. I home-brew recreated the Monk class and I was a fan of D&D's Mystic as a player class. I made its core naked and weaponless combat abilities the same as a fighter with maximum strength mastering dual weapons getting full attacks (pretty much double) with +5 weapons while wearing +5 full plate mail armor. By level 5, my players using a Monk of MangDuFai (a specialty Priest) shunned using found weapons and armor even though they were allowed to use them. The armor interfered with their martial-arts abilities in a more severe way than armor inhibits thief abilities and their martial arts tended to be better than any weapon they picked up. Also, they progress in their abilities "to hit table" the same as a priest. They get bonuses when unarmed and unarmored to-hit that made them equal to a fighter using a steadily improving weapon that he devotes himself to. On top of that, the other abilities were gravy. Oh, and the Monk could be any alignment. The ethos (and some abilities) to be followed was the only difference with each alignment. The ethos is more Taoism-like so the best ones were True Neutral, akin to a Druid that is not obsessed with nature. So yeah, you got to home-brew a Monk for it to not suck.
FYI, Bruce Lee tried out for the lead role in Kung Fu in around 1971-1972 before he died, and the producers went with David Carradine because Lee had a fairly thick accent and he was not a good actor. Lee's family side of the story is he created a show concept called The Warrior and the concept was stolen to create Kung Fu. For more about this, see Part 2 of David Carradine's interview on UA-cam from 1989, starting at 3:20 ua-cam.com/video/V6_IbptG54k/v-deo.html.
For 1e DnD Monks I recomend .... first of all note that contrary to 7:00 the DM's Guide explains Monks use the Attack Table (To Hit matrix) of Clerics, not Thieves ... #1 Allow STR and DEX bonuses like every other class, and the superior CON bonuses of Fighters #2 start a Monk with AC 8, and any DEX bonus #3A use the somewhat obscure Parry rule (Players Manual pg. 104) - allow a Monk one Parry even while attacking, with or without weapons #3B adopt the "Tumbling" defense of the Thief- Acrobat in the original Unearthed Arcana #4 give Monks a "leaping Attack" (Flying Kick) comparable to a long polearm that adjusts their place in the Initiative sequence #5 I give 3rd Level Monks an equivalent of Spook as an option, the classic demo of their prowess may frighten off would-be foes
The other thing that the 4e version of monk had going for it was that it had a very specific intended playstyle on the board. In addition to its high mobility, it was a damage dealer geared around melee AOEs with some control effects. Most of the other strikers, like rogues or rangers, were more into single-target damage.
The Monk works with adventures that play to their strengths: lots of saves, lots of physical checks, combat against foes without too high ac or hp. If movement is important, say with pursuits or chases, monks shine. In intrigue heavy games, where you may be disarmed, the monk can save the party. Good in urban areas, good when he can move around, but not the best in very challenging dungeons of constant difficult fighting. Good at killing wizards also, and sometimes rogues or low fort and easily overwhelmed characters. Catching arrows is hilarious, and can shut down low level archers and draw fire.
@Daniel Tanner oh its very good and has alot of utility that would pull out of situations you wouldn't believe. But i normally run this or monster slayer
I've been saying a long time, I love rangers so please just do away with them entirely rather than keep mangling them worse and worse with each new edition.
Really like the video and agree with almost every point made. However 3E didn't come out in 2003. 2003 is when 3.5 came out, which had some changes to the Monk class as well.
@@DMItAll 3.5 Edition monk was actually kind of over power. It regained the scaling damage and scaling Armor class. It also gained an increasingly magic Fest that skilled effectively the same rate as the party would be finding magic weapons on the same level if your DM was not just giving away magic weapons like they where candy. The first two or three levels of Monk were pretty hard play you were pretty bad, but I believe it was by level fifth level they started out class in the fighter and number of attacks a well-made monkhood hit more do more damage and was effectively untouchable. By Tenth level a monk was ridiculous and we won't even get it started talking about 20 Level Plus. The biggest thing with Monk was you had to be patient and yet to be careful in the early levels but once you got to even a couple levels into the game you were very quickly overpowering every other melee class. It was a lot of her class where you had to know how to play the game
I played a monk level 1-20 in my first campaign (5e). Although I didn’t know any better, I still had the time of my life and am still playing to this day. I look back on my time as a monk with fondness and miss being able to punch bad guys multiple times in one round. I had an amazing DM who gave me some very “monk” specific home brewed items that made the game even more fun. Play what you love! If that’s a monk, enjoy punching the dragon several times. The best thing you can do is embrace the game that you and your friends create together.
Monk's depending on which edition of the rules you're talking about makes a HUGE differences. 3rd and 3.5 Edition monks are easily some of the most broken classes in the game for combat. Capable of dishing out so much damage it's quite easy for a Monk at 15th level with some magical gear or the right feats to solo a Balor(CR 20) and take it down in a turn or two AND completely avoid all damage from it's explosive death. So which Edition we're talking about matters quite a bit.
@@shaesullivan Honestly I don't know why Wizard's didn't just keep tightening those rules, without completely destroying the ability to customize a character. Paizo was smart to do so.
@@danschaeffer2488 Honestly as much as I enjoy Pathfinder at times it literally ended up doing what it said it wouldnt do from the start. Make tons and tons of supplement manuals and now working on Pathfinder 2.0. Pathfinder plays more like an MMORPG where it's all about being a Min-Max character. In fact.. the game often encourages it. That being said, 4th Edition D&D was a total wreck... it gave the DM more power, which is nice sometimes without having to make arbitrary rulings and etc. But your characters never really grew much in capability. 5th Edition seems to be alright but there's still a lot it needs to work on. I namely like how Pathfinder tries to keep as many things as possible on an active player's turn. None of the opposing rolls nonsense, poison is actually useful, consolidating skills, and allowing for more class AND race variation.
I find it weird that in a world of magic and the supernatural, people find it "out of place" that a fighter could use mystical powers to augment their unarmed and physical feats. Honestly, monks would work better as a fighter mixed with a mage or cleric, using magic or their god to augment themselves. They go unarmed cuz touch is a better way to channel their powers. For example, using a Shocking Grasps-like power to make all their unarmed attacks deal extra electric damage. They can hit much faster than mages so they can get more mileage out of it.
In 3rd, once you throw in a couple supplements, the most powerful class ability is a feat, high level fights with some decent equipment and the right feats could out fight anyone. Also don't give the monk the Red Feats Book, not an official supplement but everyone seemed to use it, or it would become nearly unstoppable.
I don't think any Fighter had a chance versus a CoDzilla, your cleric just has too much all day metamagic for the fighter to ever come even close, plus the Cleric will still have spellcasting left over to shut down the fighters equipment. Sure you can be fine, but you can never be better than the optimized spellcasters, which in a game like D&D I find to be fine because as long as you're playing as a group and one of your players isn't a dick then nobody actually plays CoDzilla to the fullest and lets the fighter do their fighter thing. Plus the DM can nerf the crap out of CoDzilla mostly just be banning or never giving out nightsticks (or whatever they were called, its been a while).
I did when I started playing in 1989, but my only exposure to monks at age 5 was the bald-spotted Franciscan monks I'd seen drawn in pictures at church. I had never seen martial arts films at that age.
@@nctpti2073 I know, but I had fun. My longest-running character was a 2nd edition gnome illusionist/thief who liked using illusions to create openings for backstabs. I based his personality mostly on Bugs Bunny (if Bugs had an obsession with collecting gems).
15:20 Dimension Walk did not allow the monk to travel to another plane of reality - instead, it was a form of warping fast travel, but only on the same plane of reality.
What happened to the 2nd edition Ninja's handbook? It reintroduced a 2nd ed. Version of the Oriental adventures martial arts. Pretty well in fact. The monk class pretty much revolved around the idea of using unarmed martial arts, so ignoring just because of the word ninja on the cover is an injustice. With the shinobi kits it pretty much allowed any class to become a monk version of that class. You did mention the priest's handbook, so I know the "handbook" series was included in your research. Also the monk in there was actually a powerhouse at low-levels, able to get a +1\+1 to hit and damage every level till he ran out of weapon and non-weapon proficiency's, of which he got a couple extra just for this purpose. I think he also stated off with 2 attacks, on top of cleric spells! Later this kit could instead use the extra proficiency's to use the Ninja handbook martial art rules to get more abilities.
There's so much stuff a monk can do. Stunning strike, free magical bludgeoning damage, all the movement speed in the world, immunity to disease and poison, bonus action dodge, proficiency in all saving throws (including death saves), non-concentration greater invisibility, and some of the highest tier 0 damage potential in the entire game. Seriously. Three attacks before level 5 is insanity. And all of this is before any of their subclass abilities
2d4 damage is not great pre level 5 either especially when you have to get in melee and spend 1 ki point which you only have 4 not mention if you run into an enemy with resistance to bludgeoning damage pre level 6 or a ooze your fucked plus the fighter has cooler sub classes
Around level 11 is when they really start to shine. Getting them to level 11 alive can be a challenge as they are rather squishy. they become nearly impossible to hit and stunning fist is pretty much an instant death when a group member coup de gras them. I had a were rat monk named Splinter. 8) And i didnt take skill points to control the lycanthropy. made it nice and random. It had mad dex when were rat form.
Monk was never considered the "worst" class in DND until 3rd edition hit. They had the chance to instantly kill someone, instantly knock people out, and avoid fall damage. They were broken, but only slightly. You also seem to have left out the fact that the Monk in AD&D was capable of healing damage on themselves, and that their psionic abilities were based on Mind Flayer abilities, making them extremely useful, since they had telepathy, but also mental mind blast attacks, AND that in 3rd Edition, the Monk was able to take different paths with their bonus feat ability and also their ki strike ability at 4th level while at 16th level her strikes were considered *ADAMANTINE* meaning your fists were considered magical lawful adamantine weapons that could single-handedly destroy virtually all constructs in the game since you completely bypassed their damage reduction *naturally* - Don't even get me started on the fact that Monk's gained a natural spell resistance score that was equal to 10 + their current level. You need to do your research better.
I never understood why people though 3e monk was bad. It seemed to me they were good, but I guess it's like every other martial class, they compared him to the fighter, and of course you are going to be inferior in a fight to the class whose name is "fighter". I never saw a 3e/Pathfinder monk having problems past the first or second level, but at those levels everyone if having dificulties.
mokn friggin owns. I'm doing triple the dmg of any other party member, I've only been hit twice in the game so far, and he's got the entertainment background, with lute, and profficieny in playing it, so I've cast him as a bard, but on paper he's a monk. I'm having as much fun with this level 2-3 character, as i did with my lvl 15-18 gestalt cleric /fighter.
@Tommaso Grillo Having not played 5e past 2nd level just yet, I have a hard time seeing this be the case. At 5th lvl, my Monk will be capable of doing 3 or 4 attacks, depending on whether or not I use a ki point. These attacks (assuming they all hit, of course), will be doing a whopping total of 2d8 (2 spear attacks)+2d6 (Flurry of Blows or 1d6 for straight Martial Arts) +16 (12 if MA), for a minimum of 20 damage (15 if I don't Flurry), and a maximum of 44 (34) and an average of 32 (24). That doesn't seem so weak to me. Meanwhile the fighter is doing 4d6+8 (assuming he hits with both), this averages out to 22, which is less than my Monk hitting with his 3 attacks he get every turn, not mentioning my 4th attack. Again not mentioning that I can stun enemies with these attacks, or send them flying 15ft away, or knocking them prone, or negating their ability to react. Please, if I am misreading something, explain what that is.
Honestly, people underestimated monks, even in earlier editions. Having multiple attacks per round is devastating early on, and even at higher levels the action economy & RNG favors those that can deal damage multiple times, rather than all at once. And especially in protracted fights or dungeons, a reliable source of multiattack is a godsend. While the wizard is still queueing up spells, a monk will already have pummelled their first enemy into submission, and be looking to the next nearest one.
Wow! Genuinely blown away by the quality and care of this video. Obviously well researched and formatted, I can't fathom how you don't have thousands of subs!
Omg, there was an old arcade D&D game and I was wondering why there were elf, dwarf and halfling classes. I can't believe it was actually a thing at some point xD
It makes more sense if you remember that the archetypes were much less flexible in the beginning. No dwarf wizards, halfling paladins and so on. In 1st edition AD&D, most race/class combinations either had low level caps or were prohibited outright. If you played a dwarf, your only options were fighter and thief and dwarf thieves were pretty terrible. As a halfling your only realistic option was thief. On the other hand, if you played an elf your options were a little broader but by far the best thing to be was a fighter/magic user combo. ...So... by having the races be classes you're making the game mechanics a lot simpler (which is good) without actually changing the play experience very much. Personally I've always sort of hated the race mechanic in D&D. I kind of wish Gygax had just told the Tolkien crowd to get stuffed and concentrated on the Fritz Leiber/RE Howard elements that he clearly preferred.
lol 1e Bard was the god class that can do just about everything as good as the other classes. 1e Bard required higher strength stats than the fucking paladin.
@@5-Volt People who used to say that bards suck didn't know shit. Bards were and still are a wonderful class, for too many reasons, but one of the best for me is the roleplay.
Playing 1ed decades ago, I finally got lucky and rolled a character good enough to eventually become a bard. Game fell apart before I hit 3rd level fighter. I probably have that character sheet somewhere.
I really monks in general, and they even usually feel really well assimilated into D&D and RPGs in general. However, it always feel like they're centered around trying to catch up to the other classes. Every feature of the class usually seems to be focused on making up for it's own self imposed shortcomings.
I played mostly 3.5E and monks were devastating in their proper role. They are caster killers. Crazy movement, best saves in game, huge spell resistance, improved evasion, a teleport, and an ethereal state, immune to poisons and disease. oh, and they will hit like 7 times per round. Seriously, if players tried to use a monk in the fighters role, yeah bad things, but that isn't their role. They are seek and destroy type to take out enemy back line units, and they are damn good at it.
@Stirgid Lanathiel Meh, I don't really care much for "class fantasy," and even in 5e there is a lot of room for making your monk whatever you want it to be, in terms of character archetypes and tropes. If my current monk dies, I am 100% rolling a Kenku Shadow Monk dual-classed (possibly) into either Warlock or Rogue. Maybe both. I've seen some tri-class builds out there that look extremely viable.
@@squattingheads - "Minions" in the sense of "I-only-have-1-HP baddies" weren't a thing back in 3.5. They would have been good at it, but a fighter with Great Cleave would have been even better.
@Stirgid Lanathiel I agree the monk is a caster killer, but the problem with 3.5 is that casters were often too powerful to overcome even for a class dedicated to killing them. A smart DM controlling a decently leveled wizard, sorcerer, or druid was effectively untouchable. Between contingencies, self crafted magic items, the ability to warp reality at higher levels, being able to summon a multitude of helpers, and actually making use of utility spells in battle, high level casters are campaign bosses. I mean, wizards are supposed to be some of the smartest people around. Why would they challenge the party on even ground? They'd be up on a balcony raining down fireballs, or flying around like Superman; and that's if you'd even get them in a fight. They could just as easily warp in a bunch of minions on top of your group while they sleep, or use various illusions to split and dispose of the party, or make use of one of the many persuasive type spells on the town constable to turn the party into wanted criminals. There's a reason a "wizard's tower" is a stereotype: a high level magician will never fight fair. They'll make you go through minions, traps, and mazes before confronting you at the top... before teleporting away while triggering exploding glyphs to level the structure. If your DM is any good, you really should have to put in a lot of forethought to kill a high level mage. To put the cherry on top, if anything a rogue could be seen as a comparative ( or even superior) caster killer. One good sneak attack to the eye socket from the shadows when the wizard thinks he's safe, and it's a one hit kill even quivering palm would be proud of. Hell, I witnessed a session where our rogue stalked a sorcerer for *two days* before ending her life when she took off all her magic items to have a bath, and even then it could only be done with an anti-magic zone from a magic item we bought for that explicit purpose.
@Stirgid Lanathiel I will agree that the 3.5 monk isn't nearly as terrible as the versions that came before. But that's not a high standard to beat either, so it's praise with a grain of salt. Even though monks are supposed to be caster killers, in practice I find them to be better archer killers and minion mashers than mage murderers. If there's a group of lowly goblins around the boss, the monk can be the one to handle them while the rest of the party concentrates on the hobgoblin. Or if there's a guy with a crossbow that's being really effective, the monk can close the gap and start melee alarmingly well. It's hard to shoot someone with a ranged weapon when you're getting punched in the face, after all. That being said, I still find the monk to be the weakest of the base classes by a large margin. It seems like anything they can do, another class can do better, outside a few niche cases. You could even make the argument that due to how BS the magic system is in 3.5, the best caster killing class is another (similarly leveled) caster; since things like counterspell and dispelling magic can really ruin a mage's day. There's a reason a lot of DMs houserule monk buffs: people just find them lacking even when you're not powergaming min-maxers. Of course, if you know the campaign is going to be in a low magic setting (i.e. the legendary sword Excalibur is a +1 weapon), a monk with Vow of Poverty can and will become a god.
I haven't played 5th ed yet. But the Monk and Fighter in 3rd ed were awesome to take for a dip or multi-class. The monk dip could share out extra attacks and better use of Wis stat as an armor substitute; Making Dex fighters truly hard to hit without that annoying dex limit armor imposed. Even in 2nd ed the Monk was saved by the optional Parry rules, allowing him to deflect attacks rather than rely on armor. Some of my strongest characters have been monks... My kama wielding monk in Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2 could dice enemies up with ease a fighter couldn't match. And by end game had a much better AC.
@@DanateDMC That's about the only way a grappler can make it is if it's a home brew. I personally always thought a grappler could make it if they just it like the battle rager from the Drizzt books. Instead of making the grapple a opposed strength test (3.5) why not just make him a walking cheese grater? Imagine being a giant and a smaller race decked out in spiked armor latches onto your back and just slides or crawls up and down your exposed flesh.
Incorrect - The Kung Fu television series debuted in 1972 the year before Bruce Lee died in 1973. He was not planning to star in the series and was disappointed he was not granted the role
Played a 1st ed. Monk all the way to Grandmaster of Flowers, and the Oriental Adventures version. I understand it's not everyone's cup of tea, but if played within the parameters of its own style it excels in a utility position.
Funny thing since Monk’s in D&D are most influenced by Dragon Ball which puts Ki fighters in same position as essentially wizards if going by Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards. Monks could be improved if were given more physical output like DBZ Ki fighters to at least balance out their lack of versatility. In DBZ they were versatile and powerful but were limited to Ki output, they didn’t have fancy shapeshifting unless they were a different race.
However, when played in the right style of combat for the order and tradition, 5e monks are actually kinda monsters. They aren't broken so much because the different traditions have different intended play styles. Pretty good at everything, great at a few. I think there are 7 or 8 different kinds orders and traditions, the Way of the Four Elements being overly all the weakest one (their attempt at last air bender). My monk is a Way of the Long Death monk, and in his zone he's a monster, and out of place I can still keep him alive until assistance comes or very easily relocate. He's got a passive HP buff, a 30' radius fear CC ability that takes 1 attack action (by that point you have 2), and ability to spend a ki point to go to 1 HP instead of 0, and the touch of death , basically a neurotic quivering palm (less damage doe), but it says you just have to touch them, it actually doesn't say anything about it being an attack so much rather than just an action, the general consensus I find only says if you can reach it is an auto hit. It seems that WLD monks are meant to be like front line defenders CCing everyone who can see the monk in that radius. So our DM and I talked it over and we think, though you don't have to because not every situation needs it, is to use one attack action to fear, the strike those that aren't running, and repeat, with each for you drop adding temp HPs. I use him to protect our healing focused bard and to assist other PCs or just CC the hell out of the mobs to keep them off us if we need time. He's our party's CC\striker\buffer.
Btw, Extra Attack doesn't give you 2 attack actions, it lets you attack twice in 1 action, so if you use the fear CC you can't attack that turn unless its with your bonus or reaction in some way
Thanks for the video and all the background info you presented, and for mentioning the monk in the Oriental Adventures book as it was my favorite book in all of D&D.
What you said about the TV show Kung Fu & Bruce Lee is such a horrible misrepresentation of the facts. Bruce Lee DID NOT die before filming Kung Fu, the studio SKIPPED right to Carradine BECAUSE he was a white man & they felt "Americans weren't ready for an asian lead". & then later, Bruce died. I apologize, I realize that isn't the point of this vid, BUT, he is a hero of mine & I cannot stand to see his life told wrongly.
In 1st edition, Monks started with an AC of 10, and were NEVER allowed an AC DEX bonus, as per the PHB. AND all monks could NEVER wear armor. So, despite having [2 d4] hit points a Monk is worse than a magic user. Except, a 1st level Magic-user CAN cast a shield spell. Monks can not. Again, 1st edition, people.
@@Cyberpuppy63 yes...I know it by heart. One minor exception: the , lets call them 1.5e, versions. OA , for example, has a base AC for martial arts form (ac 8, 7 or 6)
The monk always seems like a character from another RPG that was converted into D&D. Speaking from my experiences with pathfinder, the most effective way to play a melee character is to get close to an enemy, preferably flanking position and do full attacks all the time - and when building the character, it is prioritizing everything that gives flat bonuses to AC, damage or attack bonus. Even though combat maneuvers were a neat option, being decent at them came with a high feat tax and still wasn't worth the opportunity cost in most cases. Maneuverability wasn't often important after melee started. Also, the tendency for monsters to be beefy melee fighters instead of ranged glass cannons played a big part there. That said - I'd argue that this isn't necessarily the best way to play. The monk can easily sneak into position, start combat by stunning a spellcaster (stunning fist) and get out of melee once the enemy reacts to that disturbance. Basically, the monk can throw shuriken, run away from enemies that want to get into melee, deflect arrows against ranged attacks and make most saving throws due to being strong in every save. And if nobody deals with the monk problem, they can charge into melee against spellcasters to annoy them with attacks of opportunity. Another aspect of the monk I enjoy is their number of skill points and their class skills. Basically, the monk could climb to a higher position (climb) and silently (Stealth) scout ahead (Perception) while keeping the high ground through jumping (Acrobatics). Slow fall allows the monk to get into melee if they choose to. With high jump, they can also basically ignore terrain. Here is an example skeleton build: human monk with a Dex and Wis of 14. Skill focus in acrobatics, owns a ring of jumping and has the fleet feat. We're looking at a base speed of 60 which is double of what people normally have. As for other feats, deflect arrows, improved disarm and something else. In effect, you get +28 on acrobatics checks for jumping which allows you to ignore a lot of tough terrain. Even if you choose to climb up a wall, you can move 15 feet per round. If you can reliably beat a DC of 25 (not too hard for a monk), you even get a climbing speed of 30 feet. Basically, you get in and out fast, disarm foe, stun them with your stunning fist - and make the lifes of your companions much easier since enemies aren't at their full strength. And most importantly: enemy spell casters have to deal with casting in melee most of the time. Carry a longspear (you can still make unarmed strikes with kicks) to gain some reach and prevent enemies from just getting away with a five foot step and you're good. I have always seen monks as a counter to mages and rogues rather than frontline fighters and they are reliably good at that. The problem comes when the party hardly fights humanoid enemies.
Can confirm. With so many mobility bonuses, the monk works well as an opportunist/troubleshooter, essentially a "melee sniper" who delivers the bullet that is himself wherever it is needed. Soft targets and rear-echelon folks just cry out for that rock-hard fist to come find them. Also leads to fun roleplay moments where the party is arguing about how to cross that chasm, then they look over and see you already did it, or when some guy tries to run away and you're so fast you simply appear in front of them like friggin' Batman.
A Buddhist monk walks up to a hot dog vendor and says “Make me one with everything”.
The hot dog vendor hands over the sausage and bun with all the trimmings, and the Buddhist hands over a twenty. The vendor pockets it.
The Buddhist asks “Where’s my change?” and the vendor replies “change must come from within”.
A gun then extends from the Buddhist’s chest and he asks again.
The vendor says “Whoa, man, where did that come from?”
The Buddhist replies “This is my inner piece”.
I ascended to Nirvana thanks to this joke. And my CD player.
Not bad, like a solid 7/10 joke
A better varient
a solid 5/7!
This feels like an old spice commercial… Is this an old spice commercial?
Not gonna lie, “bad ass Franciscan friar” is the character theme that made me consider trying out a monk.
There was a terrible German TV show that was based on that theme.
@@KingHeadbang
Lasko - Die Faust Gottes (God's Fist)
@@AGS363 That one. I remembered him having a Serbokroatian name
@Nospam Spamisham not me. I don't like the Chinese
@Nospam Spamisham never played with a Friar Tuck?
"I'll be back in *exactly* seven days and you'll be sorry!"
i read this 7 days after you posted it and now i'm scared
@@SamA-cw3be Same, writing this while holding a shotgun aimed at my door, good luck holding out.
@@alibouk227 howed it turn out?
@@madscientistshusta Well, I had to learn about how to melt a body with acid and dump it, but all in all it went pretty well.
This conversation has been a funny read, considering OP has not posted again.
"Worse dnd class ever?"
*Flashbacks of putting one of my dms bosses in an infinite stun*
LiveAndLetDie423 give him some slack he’s probably never heard of Ranger or is one of the 3 people who think it’s viable
@@Crystal_Dylan but rangers do an absurd amount of damage
@@DominicanMetal We found the second person boi's
@@Crystal_Dylan rangers can be good if played properly
@@stormbound Same can be said about any other class. If you're good you can probably play whatever the hell you want.
When I saw that title, I immediately thought "Sounds like someone needs a trip to the Realm of Infinite Fists and Punching"
Same friend. Before playing a monk I wasn't very convinced of them. Then I started playing that. If it weren't for our Barbarian's totally overpowered legendary weapon, He would be the most mobile, most attacking and dangerous member of our party.
Just remember, "Restomp the groin"
Somehow I know want to build a western style monk: High Wisdom, Decent Intelligence, Bald, Overweight and with the Special Skills "Gardening" and "Brewing Beer and Wine"... I'm sure it will be usefull...
Actually the cleric class is based to a great extent on the western style monk if you limit their armour.
@@nctpti2073 The D&D clerics are a lot closer to the Knightly orders (Templars/Hospitaliters/Knights of St John/Teutonic Knights (actual Western Style Warrior Monks) so armour does not need to be limited. People think that these are represented by D&D "Paladins", but D&D Clerics are much closer to the Military Orders than D&D Paladins. D&D Paladins have less to do with any real world counterpart than D&D Monks.
@@glenbe4026 While I agree with you with respect to history, I would argue that the Paladin is designed primarily on fictional depictions of such orders, Sir Lancelot, for example.
@@nctpti2073 aah, Arthurian Legend. I do not really disagree that the D&D Paladins draw a lot from Arthurian myth, but for me, I do not think any of the Arthurian Knights except Galahad really fit the concept of D&D Paladins. It sort of feels like maybe the founders of D&D drew influence from the popular culture version of Arthurian Myth rather than actual Arthurian myth. Sort of the same thing they did with D&D Monks.
Off topic a bit, but Lancelot is one of my least favourite of the Knights. Gawain, Kai, Percival are all much more interesting imo. Though I guess that makes sense since all three are older parts of the myth, so have a lot more depth, whilst Lancelot is a later addition. I am always disappointed that popular culture focuses so much on Lancelot and gives short shrift to the other Knights.
@@glenbe4026 I'm not familiar with Kai. Would you mind enlightening me?
4:00 Lee died in 73, Kung Fu TV show aired in 72, a year after Lee pitched it in 71.
Warner Bro/s Stole the idea, cast Carradine because they didn't think viewers in early 70s U.S. were ready for am Asian lead actor, and ran with it.
The change was due to racism, not because of Lee's death
Yeah, hollywood is, and has always been, the largest hive of racist shitheads.
@Before After hollywood has always been about propaganda, not cash. That was an aside.
I thought LAPD were more racist.
@don't matter Lee died July 20, 1973
Kung Fu aired October 14, 1972
Lee was alive when they started the series, so no, the not only would not, they DID not
Yeah I was surprised to see the evident complete lack of fact finding before putting that incorrect info in this video. Not a bad documentary otherwise.
I remember playing a monk at a good friend's house. His dad was the DM, and a really good one. He actually made his own advanced rules before the official ones came out. Our team had gone into a dungeon to the 3rd lvl. and gotten in trouble, almost all were down to 1/4th hpts or more, and i didnt have MPs to give out for healings. I had to be in front of them as we attempted to leave the dungeon and attempt to 'turn' everything that got in our way. The DM was snickering, as I needed to role 18-20 on a 20 sided dice to turn these things. It took 12 rolls to leave and I turned them every time and we left the dungeon. Everyone including me were dumbfounded, Damn fine monk, lol.
I actually really enjoy how thematically relevant the transitions are.
So this is what you are doing after Retiring? I would too
._. Just came back from the 'scpedo' video and then went to watch DnD lore and found this comment. Escape is never.
In 5e, I believe that title goes to the Ranger.
P0IS0N At least there’s a redux of it available. Optional, yes, but still much better than before.
Monk manages to still be worse than Ranger, in all honesty.
Monk is incredibly MAD. To be optimal you MUST have 16 dex and 16 wis at level 1 and you must pump those ability scores with ASIs to keep your damage, AC, and stun saves competitive. Without Variant Human, monks are massively gimped in terms of both flavour and mechanics since the only time they can realistically spend an ASI on a feat is level 19.
(You might argue that Ranger is also MAD, since it uses Wisdom, but that's actually not the case. It's very easy to play a 10 WIS Ranger since so few of the Ranger spells that are actually worth a damn require a saving throw or spell attack roll.)
Add to this the fact that your typical Monk doesn't use weapons, it means he misses out standard damage optimisation feats like Sharpshooter or Great Weapon Master. At best, a Kensei monk can remain on par with a Ranger by using Sharpshooter. But he lacks spellcasting, which means he ultimately loses out in damage, and still loses out in damage to a Fighter, Barbarian, or Paladin.
As far as defense goes, unarmoured defense just requires way too much investment to get working.
In my opinion, the best thing Monks have going for them is Stunning Strike. CON saves are usually pretty weak, since almost every monster in the game has a positive CON, but being able to force 4 saves in a row is a good way to shut down important enemies or burn legendary resistances.
That aside, I think Monk is decent in tier 1, but still typically outclassed by other martials with bonus action attacks (TWF, PAM, etc)
@Svellsongur your mom gay
@@everice3310 Having played a dwarf monk (way of the open hand), I disagree. I don't feel that the class requires many feats to be efficient. I only got Mobile and went for ASI otherwise. Tier 1 is actually where it lags, due to lack of stunning strike. But as soon as you get that, it starts to shine. Flavor wise, I played my character as a dwarf boxer and it still feels like the best RP experience I had to date.
Depending on what subclass you choose, it can be MAD, but it doesn't have to be. Honestly, with Way of the Open Hand, you only need to focus on Dex. That's your only investment and that will get unarmored defense to work easily. And instead of magical weapons and armor, you might get bracers of defense, ring of defense, etc. BTW, your fists end up being considered magical, and sometimes, you might be the only one in the party that can do melee damage.
Damage scales in a strange way, but you end up hitting a lot of times per action.
Still, that's not the purpose of the monk. It's not a fighter or barbarian. It's more based on mobility and avoidance. You can stun a group of enemies in one go, and that's basically two turns for everyone in the party. Not to mention the boss fights, in which, without minions, you can stun the BBEG all the way to his demise. And yes, to the frustration of the DM, this did happen.
Climbing on walls, running on water, jumping off buildings, catching arrows and sending them back, those are part of the fun stuff you can do. Later on, it gets even better, to the point of that insta-death punch, which remains one of the craziest abilities in the game. And the best part is, you kick ass with no armor, no weapons, no spells, just your fists. That's what makes the monk badass.
@@-POISON- If you ignore Wisdom, then your stunning strike save is poor. Not to mention your Quivering Palm save (which is an overrated ability, since anything worth instakilling has legendary resistances anyway).
Like I said, stunning strike is the best thing monks have going, but they're not hard for enemies to shut down with spells or mobility, and stunning strike is an incredibly boring, linear (and arguably weak) trick compared to the tools available to spellcaster PCs.
I feel this video is failing to take into consideration one of the Monk's greatest advantage; the situational advantage of having a unlimited-use weapon which cannot be disarmed or confiscated (such as in moments when the character has been captured or imprisoned). And before anyone argues that someone could always cut off their hands, I'd point out that such a punishment would also hinder a fighter or wizard (perhaps moreso, as monk attacks do not have to be made with their fists).
You betcha. Once I ended up being the only chance my team had against a bunch of homebrewed monsters in a loot-scarce, magic item-lacking campaign. The homebrewed monsters melted any manufactured weapon that came into contact with them (believe it or not, he simply added an acid aura to kobolds). My character? A Dwarf Monk. He simply blitzed his way through the homebrew critters like they were so much wet cardboard - his fists were immune to the weapon-dissolving aura, and he needed neither loot nor magic items, just a healing spell or two. The DM HATED him. Oh, he later tried to play on the monk's "weak spot", his Lawful Good alignment - he had a pseudodragon (who, for some reason, could grant wishes) give the team the equivalent of the Toughness feat: 3 whole HP. Whoop de doo. Then the little lizard told my character "I paid you, now you do what I say". I could have simply said "I signed nothing, I agreed to nothing" - but I wanted to make my point. My monk had the fighter slice off both of his pinky fingers, and handed them to the dragon: "Here, a full refund.". Then I lowered my character's HP by 3. The DM liked this even less, and called for a full stop of the campaign.
even if they do take a monk's hands, which would cripple almost every class, it actually doesn't cripple a monk. Monks have unarmed strike and martial arts, that doesn't just mean punching it's kicking, elbows, martial arts isn't just punching after all
@@Bloodyshadow1 I see you didn't read the whole comment. ;)
@@RediculouslyUnder oh I saw that now I was reading on mobile and didnt see that sorry
Monk's can attack with any part of their body, headbutt`, knees, erection and all do a d20 at a high levels.
Wu Shu is an umbrella term for Chinese Martial arts. Wu = Martial, Shu = Style/art. Kung Fu itself means skill. While often used in reference to martial arts, generally means skill. So in essence, "Your skills in the kitchen are great." You can say. "Your kung fu in the kitchen is great." In mandarin of course. "Shaolin Kung fu" Would be saying akin to. "Shaolin's Martial Skills" More as a labeling of specific styles of created / originated from Shaolin.
I praise your comment fu
[Citation Needed]...
(I am not saying that you are wrong, I would just like to know the sources of your statements)
@@danilonascimento9866 The source? Do you mean like a dictionary?
Wu means military shu means art, the combination is synonymous with all martial arts. kung/gong means merit Fu means master. The combination is synonymous with honing skills to a great degree. This is also well known in Chinese martial arts circles in the north America.
Instead of asking for a source of a word. You can just translate these words yourself with Google translate if you are skeptical. Kept in mind, this isn't peer review research it's a language. I suppose you can go into the etymology but this does seems like a really strange request.
@@danilonascimento9866 He is pretty much right. Its maybe a bit overly literal but yeah WuShu is general term and not specific to Shaolin. I wouldnt trust google translate or separate the component characters of words too much because Chinese doesnt exactly work like that. Sure you can break down a word like WuShu to mean MilitaryForm but you could also break down MaTong (toilet) to mean HorseBucket.
Fun fact, maybe you already know, Kung Fu (or in Pinyin "Gong Fu") also means "time"/"effort" or "availability" - "It took me a lot of Kung Fu to accomplish" "I don't have the Kung Fu to talk you you".
"Modern era"->17 years ago.
I feel old, too.
We live in the post-modern era and it sucks.
Great production value, very nice timeline presentation, good detail of edition differences. Halfway through, I thought "Wait! You skipped an entire edition that had the Mystic!" but then you went back briefly to cover that, so that's cool. My wife plays a monk in the 5e game I'm running and she loves it. I've subscribed due to this video.
Someone's never put stunning strike on four attacks in the same round
i did, but honestly if the first or second hit, you dont need the others. stuns do not stacks. and as was mentionned... stunning strike works only on creatures without any real constitutions. something most creatures have plenty of because thats literally the only way to make them tougher.
@@dndbasement2370 that's why you put multiple on the same one. It's easy to save against one attack but 4 or 5 is not gonna happen the majority of the time.
big bosses only have so many legendary resistances. the most I've seen is 5 sooo. Main action flurry of blows+stunning strike on both, extra attack rinse and repeat, and since you can bonus action attack you bonus action flurry of blows and stunning strike. if my math is right that is 6 STUNNING STRIKES with the entire action taking 9 KI points which will use up *most of your KI* until really high level.
@@giraffedragon6110 but just to get that 1 stun effect, you just ripped out like 5 ki points. to me thats literally just useless from you to do. even more considering they can roll the die see if they fail or not and then just decide to use it. which means he might still have legendary resistances after all 4 strikes. yet you still lost 5 ki points and have a maximum of 15 left if you are level 20. sorry but 5 ki points is not something you should spend just to try and stun a boss. but thats just me though... i've seen enough monks thinking i got ki points for days, but after 2 rounds they are all out of them and have done next to nothing in the end. boss fights shouldn't be lasting only 3 rounds, they should last at least 5 to 7. and i will say... when spells are involved, your monks not gonna have much to do once the boss just banish him off. overall, in 5e magic users are much more powerfull then your monk. and again... your monk isn't capable of doing 100+ damage in one round, which both the rogue and paladin can do while being as low as level 9.
but your call, if you like monk enough to think they are overpowered then be my guess... but to me, reguardless of how much i love kung fu masters and their ways... monks aren't all that great in 5th edition.
DnD Basement the point I’m trying to make is that you can utilize the stunning strike to make the boss eat through their legendary resistances. Monks are natural dodge tanks, at high enough levels they gain proficiencies in EVERY saving throw, their fist attacks use dex which is also your dodge stat, wisdom is often used for save or suck spells that either trick you with illusions or turn you on somebody else, they gain pretty good movement so they can rescue party members or run from danger, and majority of the subclasses do really neat or cool stuff. I don’t think they’re “overpowered” but I do believe that they have MANY good options.
It should be noted that many things in D&D and otherwise we take for granted nowadays were actually weird and new when they were introduced in D&D. The Cleric being a heavily armed undead hunter is completely standard nowadays, but it's not something a person back then would have grokked. In fact, it's ostensibly a character concept originally influenced by the Hammer Horror films, what with all the Dracula hunting such.
Classes like the Ranger and Paladin are very D&D as well, to say nothing of the game's vision of bards, druids etc. The monk isn't weird so much because it's such a homebrew concept (as many of them were), but because they never actually managed to pin it down well and always struggled with it and its countless weird abilities. Many of the other classes manage to tie it all into a much neater, easier-to-conceptualize package, whereas the monk has always been just "Mystic Kinda-Eastern Stuff."
Right on! In many cases these evolutions were weird and had a life of their own. The early cleric was supposed to be something like a Knight Templar with a strong military bent, and the actual Priests from the Complete Priest's Handbook were generally a lot softer in combat. The basic edition Cleric didn't get spells at 1st level and the 2nd Edition Priests capped out at spell level 7. Third Edition gave them the best of all possible worlds at all times, giving them better combat ability and magic-user equivalent spellcasting while also treating them as priests of a specific mythoi...which left conceptual room that the Paladin was drawn into. Paladins in many people's minds became the Templars that Clerics were always meant to be, and you can't even play a "real" Paladin (the virtuous knight) anymore without most people expecting you to play him as though he were a 2nd Edition Cleric. The traditional Priest concept is even harder to realise, because you just get all the cleric stuff handed to you and have no mechanical excuse not to use it; If you're hoping to play a robed priest then you generally have to look for a multi-class with mage, hope it doesn't suck in the Edition that you're playing, and that the armour proficiency doesn't carry over, as it does in 5th Edition and even one of the 2nd Edition computer games!
I disagree with the statement about clerics, rangers and paladins being D&D originals. Arguably the most famous fantasy warrior of all time is Aragorn, and he fits many of the classic ranger ideas and abilities much closer than he does a fighter.
Furthermore on Clerics, many of the saints such as Saint Andrew, Saint George, Saint Martha and of course Jeanne D'Arc are famous for the likely exaggerated warrior and battlefield accomplishments. If they don't fit the idea of a warrior priest I don't know what does.
On Paladins, what else would you call the twelve paladins of Charlemagne other than mighty warriors who's faith and loyalty gave them supernatural abilities. How else would you define Arthur Pendragon other than a paladin? In fact much of what paladins can do was biased off of the powers that either Arthur possessed or that Clarent or Excalibur were said to possess.
@@TheLordofMetroids I'm not saying there's no precedent for them in fiction or history. I'm saying D&D codified them and made them the fantasy staples they are nowadays, instead of just an intresting idea from history. I'm saying that if you took a person from before D&D had gained a major foothold in public consciousness and pop culture, and told them to tell you about a paladin, they'd probably cite that same exact bit of historical lore, not the clearly defined toolset of supernatural abilities and capabilities they're expected to have in a game or a story nowadays.
If you asked people what a group of heroes in a fantasy setting would look like in general, their answers would have been VERY varied, since fantasy wasn't as codified in general. That's the point I was trying to make: D&D codified all these things, so the monk wasn't an outlier because it didn't fit the code (the code hadn't been written yet), but rather because they've always struggled to codify it into a package that worked well and neatly.
Naturally, these classes were inspired by history and mythology when coming up with the abilities of these classes, but you could have just as well come up with an entirely different set of abilities, equally inspired by different bits of history, or codified differently into the game, and they would be just as iconic now. You could even have come up with a completely different set of classes that would now be taken for granted as *the* fantasy archetypes. It's all obvious in hindsight, where they come from and what they do, but back then, looking forward, you had this whole open field of possibilities.
Mainly, I was commenting on the premise of the video that the concept of the monk was supposedly weirder in comparison to the others, as if they didn't come to be with the exact same type of process. Namely, someone during the early days wanted to try out a character concept inspired by some fictional, mythological and/or historical idea and people liked it well enough that it stuck. There wasn't a preconception about what was "standard", is the point. When they were coming up with these classes, no one had a clearly defined idea that there just *had* to be a cleric or a paladin class or anything else.
@@TheLordofMetroids Though I agree about rangers to an extent, D&D Paladins ARE pretty much D&D originals. Despite what people think, D&D Clerics are very closer to the historical military orders (Hospitaliters/Templars/Teutonics/OoSJ/etc) than D&D Paladins are. And certainly neither Arthur or any of the Arthurian knights (Except for Galahad) fit the concept of D&D Paladins. And neither do Charlemagne's Paladins (other than being the source of the name). And even the word "Paladin" comes from Palatin, which means "of the Palace", nothing to do with divine purpose).
But Rangers were introduced as literally the "Aragorn Class" because someone wanted to play Aragorn. Clerics came about because, yes, the Van Helsing thing, but also because one of the players at Gygax's home game was playing a Vampire and was total bullshit so Cleric was made to counter that. It's all pretty wild.
I liked the history lesson, but I gotta disagree when it comes to 3rd ed and pathfinder. Monk is the only class I've gotten banned from playing in multiple gaming groups due to them being overpowered. Lol my favorite moment was a dm asking me, "What Mortal Kombat character are you going use to ruin my day this time?". It was Sub-Zero btw and I single handedly beat a kraken to death.
Pathfinder's "Style" feats make monks fantastic fun. And with some combos with "Master of Many Styles", you could be monstrous, with big bonuses to damage on charge, free attacks on those you charge past, AND a full attack on the target, or nigh inescapable, heavily damaging per round grapples that don't even penalise the Monk for being in a grab, as 2 I've seen.
3d Monks were broken depending on the campaign and the DM, i had a monk with the grappling abilities in a campaign where most of the enemies were humans or humanoids... and i kinda feel bad for the DM, because he would introduce this big villain guys and they all would be dispatched with "i run to him and grapple"
@canadiananim8r 3rd edition monks are kinda garbage tough, it was mostly because most people were not aware how grapple worked
Paladin also banned by DM's ....accused of " breaking" the game.
Assassins are usually also banned by DM's who refuse to have evil campaigners
Oh pathfinder monks are absolute units, on the kingmaker game they gave them full BAB and that alone did wonders for them.
I'm a dedicated monk, it's a great class and it's in an amazing place now. Pathfinder monks are broken as anything.
Zen Archer, nuff said.
My favourite "broken class" was a Rogue/Wizard/Arcane Trickster Grey Elf wererat with 19 starting intelligence. The hardest class I ever played was a paladin/fist. LG was hard for me becuase I love my personal alignment of NE. I also gave him an intelligence of 8 for most of the campaign, one of the mages was evil so i needed to be dumb enough to never catch him being evil. Dumb was hard to play I could not come up with any of the plans but had to some how stumble into helping the other characters develop one. GM had a field day watching me NOT come up with the plan. the only plan he let me have was
Detect Evil
is it evil?
yes.
Hit it until it stops being evil.
Pathfinder monks are still considered bottom tier, unfortunately. Unchained monk is 1 tier above because they can use weapons more effectively. I love monks, but they're not good in most games... By the way, in 3.5, monks technically didn't have proficiency with unarmed attacks.
@@NecromancyForKids that is false, the monk did have proficiency with unarmed attacks from lvl 1. The monk is the jack of all trades, the answer to all situations, and can land blows with the best of them. You don't need to wield weapons, and they can be completely broken with ki
I really didn't think Id be watching a 40 min video on monks in D&D today when I woke up - but here I am. Really funny clips.
I loved my 3rd ed monk, it totally kicked ass (especially at lvl 10+) by the time i was at 19/20th Lvl over half the encounters were over before the rest of the party were fully engaged. it is my best character in over 30 years of playing
One of the reasons I don't like going back to 3rd Edition myself is highlighted in that comment. If you weren't a spellcaster. "Wait until I'm level 10, THEN I get good". It kind of broke with what the swing balance was in earlier editions, and in a bad way.
When you have a situation where, at level 1 the Fighter is stupidly good at his job and basically carries the party, while the cleric and magic user are of limited (but not inconsequential) use? It creates a dynamic where people look to the Fighter as "This is how shit gets done". When things go bad, when plans are ruined, they expect the Fighter to step up and fix the situation for them. The Cleric and Magic User are situational support and tactical weapons, not the everyday reliance.
Now around level 5 this starts to, realistically, change. Clerics and Magic Users don't NEED the fighter so much. But because the growth from 1 to 5 is a lot longer than it was in 3rd Edition or later... you're talking about a lot of conditioning of the team and training to view the Fighter as "this is how things get done". So they remain relevant to the group because so many encounters have been built around the idea of the Fighter. Even as the spellcasters gain more and more power. It's an interesting dynamic to see these like level 13 characters who are convinced "The fighter is the key to our success" even though you know it's factually not true and the Cleric could have just called in some celestial creature to do the job as good, maybe even better. Your players just won't realize it after years of counting on the Fighter.
Now in 3rd Edition? The dynamic was screwed with. Fighters, Monks, Rangers, etc. Usually needed to achieve level 8 or 10 to be "Competent" at their jobs due to the Feat System and how a lot of them were just meant to negate intrinsic penalties (like the Ranger's two-weapon chain all being about reducing penalties to fighting with two weapons until you're baseline average on rolls about level 8 with them, and level 12 to "I'm actually good with them").
So you had characters that weren't going to grow that much in those "Mundane" classes who were the chumps of the party to start out, were never relied on as "Our last best hope" because even first level casters had some 5-8 spells per day, more than enough to handle usually the 2 encounters of low level adventuring days. And they were just going to fall further, and further, and further behind. By the time they become "Competent"... everyone else in the party has achieved that in the get go.
Which is probably why so many third edition games wanted to start at "At least level 10" that I saw across so many spaces. Because it's where the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, Monk, etc, etc, etc, finally got a chance to do the thing their levels and class had been building up to.
@@hitomisalazar4073 ok i see where you're coming from. BUT, your argument seems misleading after you realize the original commenter said "specially"
You seem to have red "after" Like, just because there is a highest point, doesn't mean the other points are ass. The original commenter certainly doesn't seem to think that atleast. He seems to have had fun the whole journey
Someone, sometime ago. "I know what would be awesome ! An unarmed, unarmored dude hitting full plated gothic knights, bare handed"
"Dave Arneson created the monk - Blackmoore play tests, between 1970 and 1975" ... So, when Bruce Lee films were a giant thing. Huh! Guess I figured out where the MONK class originated.
How did I do that? I'M OLD!
... children.
the guy in the video mentions Bruce Lee too
Let the boomer have his sense of superiority, it's all he's got now while he waits for the grave.
@@RaithSienar Yer so kind.
Actually, the Kungfu TV show was created by Bruce Lee & made with David Carradine while Bruce Lee was still alive. This was explained by the producers as being because they believed it would be more popular with a white actor instead of 3/4 Asian Bruce Lee. This racism is why Bruce moved to Hong Kong to make films.
The video game clips in this video are just great- Xenogears, Legend of Legaia, classic FF, among so many others; great taste!
Monks are awesome if you play them right for one: Your hands our weapons. Perfect for if your dm has a fetish for capturing you and making you into a slave. Npcs will generally not have their guard up around you if you don't have any weapons, so it can be fantastic to get a drop on opponents. The class is all about making yourself into a finely tuned weapon like a psionic fighter (ignore psychic warrior).
Problem with "your hand as your weapons is perfect if your DM has a fetish for capturing you" is like saying "playing someone in a wheelchair is perfect if your DM has a fetish for running special olympics". Might be true, but it's a handicap in every other situation.
For most of the editions, fighting with your bare hands just means you are worse than the fighter using a magical sword in about 99.99% of the time.
I usually find it just interesting how far something has to reach to try to deny that it's a bad idea however. I mean no complaint about your comment, just the monk in general. If you're talking about a point where you need basically the worst case scenario of "You are all stripped naked and now serve as galley rowing slaves on a Barbary Coast ship" or something... that does more to say how terrible the class is than any other. Nevermind that the monk, even in that situation, is far from the best character. For example the Fighter (Or Barbarian even) likely has a much higher strength and could say, break chains and kick open doors (literally were rules for that in old editions after all), and use their chains as an improvised flail to cave in people's skulls. Or the Sorcerer just gets their spells back the next day and uses their spells that don't require material components (there's a lot that fall under that, including highly powerful spells for getting out of a situation like that, such as Charm Person). Or a thief using Improvised tools to pick locks or sleight of hand a key off a guard or something.
Well that and in the "You're all a slave" or something it's almost always done in service of the plot and to avoid a fail state/TPK so you kind of know you're getting out of it regardless one way or another. It's a situation where any token excuse for how you might get out of it is going to work.
I think the biggest problem though is something that The Ranger shares with The Monk. It's just a list of features that are "Traditional" really. Like no one really sat back and said: "... what is this class actually supposed to be?" Instead it's just "That character who has Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain and Tracking and Animal Companions and some minor spells and dual wielding and archery and stealth skills". Similarly outside of like... 4th Edition design, the Monk was always more a laundry list of features that were "Traditional" than any sort of coherent design. 5th Edition is better than 3rd's, to be sure. But that's not really saying much either.
My first edition of D&D was 5e and I legit fell in love with the Monk. Mostly because I didn't have to worry so much on equipment. I misunderstood the class at one point and thought I couldn't use weapons so in one fight I threw the sword given to me aside and ran up and beat the guy to death. It was a gladiator arena that the whole party was captured and forced to fight in. The fight was a three on three and we had an npc on our side. The npc and my fight I think were the most intense. The npc almost died. The guy I fought refused to give up so I had to kill him.
Recently started playing a monk in 5e. Really enjoying it so far. Feels like a pretty big departure from the other classes I've played, but really enjoying it so far. Lots of fun roleplaying to be had and some of the combinations of skills feels almost like playing with MTG mechanics.
I believe David Carradine's character was actually half Chinese in the series, making him an outcast to both cultures. His name is pronounced Cara-deen.
My favorite Monk was a Chinese 1/2 elf named Ringo!
Given how thorough you were in all other aspects of this video, I'm honestly surprised how much you didn't acknowledge with PF monks. The vanilla monk was okay at best, but the numerous additional archetypes, ki powers, and most of all, the Style feats, really made the Monk not just a strong class, but a versatile one as well.
Regardless, loved this history lesson, thumbs up! :)
Monks haven't always been bad. In the old school Advanced D&D Oriental Adventures, which had an amazing martial arts system, the monk was actually quite powerful thanks mostly due to that system. Still, if you wanted to go with a pure martial arts build it was probably better to be a Kensai focused on an a martial art instead of a weapon. This was primarily due to the fact that the biggest weakness of hand to hand combat was it's lack of efficacy vs enemies with very low AC or ones that required magical weapons to hit. The Kensai got a + bonus on their attacks based upon level which was always applied to the weapon or technique they specialized in. This made them godly at hitting things with amazing defense and it even acted like having a magic weapon for the purposes of hitting incorporeal enemies etc.
Still, in that setting a mid to high level monk was a formidable character that would generally seriously outperform a generic fighter of the same level. It's a shame they immediately turned around and removed the martial arts system and turned the Monk back into a turd with the very next release.
I think the reason I never thought of the monk as a weak class because we tended to play role-play heavy, combat light sessions a lot where being a member of a monastic order as opposed to being a simple fighter gave the character a lot of advantages.
The fighter killed the orc, the monk convinved the lord of the land to compensate the sacred deed. And such.
It definitely depends on game style what is powerful and what is not.
That said, the time the monk tried to punch the Tarasque... yeah, didn’t go well.
I started with 2e and had a player who really, REALLY wanted to play a monk. Monks weren't core and we didn't have all those fancy books, so we made a monk class. I present the guts of that class below. We had a lot of fun with it. Also, props to the creator of the vid for including screens of Nightmare on Elm St. for NES. Aces.
Monk Class
Hit Die: d8
Armor: None, but -1 AC bonus (remember AC goes down) each level to a maximum of AC 0 at 10th level (can be further modified by items)
Thaco Progression: As cleric/priest
Weapons: Unarmed strikes
Damage: 1d4 (1st-3rd) 1d6 (4th-5th) 1d8 (6th-7th) 1d10 (10th+)
Weapon Speed: 3
Attacks per Round: 2
Saves: As priest
Hide in Shadows/Move Silently: As ranger, fixed progression
Special Features: Fade (7th), Dodge (5th)
Dodge
Once per round, you can ignore one attack that hits you and it deals no damage.
Fade
Make an attack at -4 penalty. If you hit, the target must make a Save vs. Death or lose 25% of their maximum hit points. A creature can be affected only once by this feature.
That's a solid implementation, good job!
Simplified , but decent , just needs to gain extra attack at 4,7 and 11.
"Lore wise it's the most obvious exception to D&D's European Setting"
We *are* talking about a setting that has included essentially-pirates, essentially-ninjas, assassins, katanas, and shuriken, right?
@@DabroodThompson they're not medieval
@@KaiTenSatsuma Caribbean swashbucklers aren't, but European and Mediterranean shores had piracy just like every other stretch of water in history.
@@KaiTenSatsuma What are vikings then? I will let you think long and hard about this...
Oh and FYI Caesar was held hostage by Sicilian pirates...
@@Fankas2000 Funny thing is that it's those sorts of exceptions that help prove my point
D&D is an amalgamation of shit that you don't generally consider to be Medieval European which most people attribute to it but would have existed at the time: it having Ninjas, Monks and Katanas isn't weird, it's entirely in line with what would exist at the time.
Oh, and Vikings were largely raiders and the traders, less pirates, more shock troops. While I wouldn't be surprised if there were some examples, viking ships weren't known for or designed for cannon battles or boarding as far as I know
@@Fankas2000 The point of my comment isn't "Yeah, there shouldn't be Pirates or Assassins in D&D either"
It's "Let me point out some other egregious things that aren't medieval western-European but are in D&D and we can have a laugh at how silly that part of the video is"
(And also that monks are bad ass and fun to play if done right)
My first DnD character was a Monk. I thought it was awesome. Until I started getting 1-shotted everytime we had an encounter. Sadly, he survived until level 4.
Edit: I'm talking about 5e
I'm curious how it went? What style did you take for monk and how did you play? Just liking to hear stories and I'm at some point gonna do Shadow Monk Wood Elf, so would like to know if you have some stories what to do and what not to do ^_^
Yeah, Monk is still kind of a glass cannon - they can deal *tons* of damage, but can't use armor, lack the hit points for being a front-line fighter, and aren't quite as mobile as Rogues.
“Aren’t quite as mobile as rogues.” I would disagree greatly. I would even argue that with the Unarmored Movement and the bonus action Ki abilities, the monk is way more mobile.
glass cannon till they reach lvl 5. then the monsters wont be able to break the glass
personal experience btw
depends on how you play, how you pick stats and so on and on... so far in my campaigns monks are the tankiest... because I do not throw armors +3 at everyone from the start... I'm trying to make my players feel that if they get the magical item it will feel magical, not just another +1 or +2 item for the party that they can sell.
In 5e the new "monks" are the Ranger and Warlock. Ranger should have been a Fighter subclass. Warlock should have been a Sorcerer subclass.
i somewhat agree. Currently playing a gloomstalker Ranger and it's really fun. But I'm going to Multiclass into Fighter or Cleric i think.
Yea, I'm teaching someone how to play as a monk. First thing they said was "You can hit how many times?!" Yea Monk is awesome.
But doing so drains your resource that 90% of your abilities rely on. Rangers are better the monks
Yeahhhhh I'm glad they finally fixed the monk class. I personally have a monk who has, while only having a +1 modifier to Constitution, has survived for a year to the present day at level 15 thanks to his insane maneuverability and AC. I love this roleplay character to death, he's grown and changed from his experiences, and he serves to defend his friends and pack the punch for our campaign. The others love his aid in any quest, and he's BFFs with the Cleric and boyfriend to the Rogue while possessing a (presently Young) Bronze Dragon companion named Vex. He's among my favorite characters in D&D, and I'm surprised by the troubling history behind this class that I've fallen in love with. At least they've finally gotten it right.
Dude monks have shit ac compared to all the other martials, 16 ac at level 1 is bad and your the only class who has to take ability score improvements over feats not to mention your useless against high level enemies due to them having over +10 to hit.
A 5th level 5E monk can just drive-by up to 4 enemies with extra attack and flurry of blows and use their stunning strike ability to incapacitate them - OR force 4 CON saves if its all of its attacks connect on a single creature. Imagine it at higher levels: DC 19 CON save (Wisdom +5 and proficiency +6) four times over (If all attacks hit). The stunning strike ends at the end of the monk's next turn - if you are lucky, then you could hold their actions throughout the entire battle!
Edit: Typo
Rules "Whenever you hit a creature with one of the attacks granted by your Flurry of Blows" Am I understanding this wrong? -> Does not count for normal attacks? I mean you have to connect a hit to use 1ki to do Flurry of Blows and way of the open hand says that text, I would say you can stun only 2 different opponents?
I have Dyslexia, I first for 1 month was assured to my self when I was studying monk that you could hit 7 times, untill I realised Flurry of Blows uses your bonus action :D
@@xezzee The special effects that can be applied to enemies via Flurry of Blows (being shoved 15ft, knocked prone, and negated reactions) do specifically only proc on Flurry of Blows strikes, but the Stunning Strike says "When you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack, you can spend 1 ki point to attempt a stunning strike." So, yes, a Monk could theoretically "Drive-by" and attempt to stun 4 enemies.
But then you have no ki left for the rest of the fight, meanwhile the ranger is dealing 2d10 damage with their longbow which can be boosted with hunters mark/favored foe, sharpshooter and most of their sub classes get some sort of extra damage on each turn not too mention their sub class abilities that do not drain a core resource that powers every other ability the class has and also they get expertise at level 1
Its pretty impressive until you realize that a wizard can do all of that, and more for the cost of a single spell slot
I liked this overview of a class I've never thought to give a go before, although the title did make me think you'd do some sort of comparison between the monk and the more popular classes. either way, this was a well throughout discussion of the monks development and I would enjoy seeing you do some more of these overviews regarding some of the other odd classes and sub-classes such as the evil variants to the paladin like the oath-breaker and anti-paladin.
Love the 5th Edition Monk. The one in my campaign is a damage dealing beast.
This is my monk in our current campaign. I'm essentially an armor-less tank. Very few enemies can hit me, and I can do a really ridiculous amount of damage and get all those bonus attacks. I take less damage than our actual tanks, and I deal more damage than our wizard. Monk is honestly kinda OP.
@@jopabr24 true they can also climb walls and take almost no fall damage
In 3ed the monk was also great warrior.
I kinda messed mine up a little bit, but added Barbarian to help compensate damage (str based-build, but it worked).
Think Open Hand monk is pretty popular for the added Flurry of Blows utility. However, if you really want to double down on tankiness... Long Death seems amazing with the ability to just say, “Nope, I live.” Add flying somehow and you have an excellent on demand fear bomb.
At level 16 my monk with only spending one ki point deals on a hit a minimum 38 damage(if i rolled all ones), an average of 55 damage, and a maximum of 79 in a single turn, with the addition of a few more ki points and half of those hits have a chance to stun. Combined with the lucky and mage slayer feats, as well as shadow monk teleportation (which doesn't cost any ki points and allows you to literally just teleport forever as long as the room hasn't been magically tempered with to get rid of all shadows) and i have an amazing utility rouge substitute with unmatched mobility and a hell of a lot of damage per round.
Quivering Palm. That's all I care about.
Omae wa..... mou shindeiru
@@prixiusnecrolance8531 NANI!?
Five fingers of death
I think what many people fail to realise about the core strength of Monks throughout all editions is their self reliance. They do not need weapons or armor, they rarely need to be saved from a situation, they have skills or abilities that allow them take care of themselves.
Fighters typically need pocket healers, healers need someone to help with skills, wizards require meat walls. Monks don't really care about any of that. Played intelligently they are usually in and out situations quickly. If they overstep and end up in trouble they have movement to get them out. They have the ability to deflect missiles as they flee, they have good saves to shake off effects. They are nearly never the party member asking for anything. This allows the party to distribute wealth, armaments, and treasure more effectively. I have only ever played 1 monk but I have been a forever dm for decades and have hosted for numerous Monks and this has always been my impression. They rarely ever take over a game by sheer brute forcing the way wizards or Chad fighters do, but they are nearly never in trouble.
I often see them as a real measuring stick of the group. When the monk is in serious trouble usually the whole party is feeling that pressure. When the monk is breezing even when things are dire; the party feel hopeful.
Best classe : the one you enjoy playing and roleplaying
Worst classe : the one you dont like playing
i like playing monks and rangers.. but in their recent incarnation they are far from great at what they do. so no, its not just a question of likings... i really which the monk had more features worth picking levels for.
Except DND is a team game, if your character is weak, and can’t help the team, u ruin THEIR FUNas well. So no. Best class isn’t “ the one you enjoy playing “
@@rjboxxer1502 but regardless the moni can help in a certain way with perception and other ability checks or in other ways. Not everything is combat focused at all tho.
Besides, a good roleplay can make a memorable event.
"Imagine if Jedi was a core class in DnD" You misspelled 'Paladin'
Monk have always been a class you either loved or hated.
Both as player and DM.
Tweaking to let them actually work (in earlier editions) meant they can overpower the game at high level (as they can in 5e) while they are difficult to have survive at low level without the whole party defending them or the DM giving them plot armor.
F Huber , in 1st edition, we tweaked the monk to hit on the cleric table and gave the monk thief hit dice. This gave the monk the chance to live past the first few levels.
I always thought one of the biggest flaws of the early monk was it was pretty boring. I mean you couldn't wear any armor or use weapons. So no magical items to upgrade your character or customize your style of play. You really didn't have any spells to skills to really spend any thing on. You just got stronger as you leveled up and were exactly like every other monk your level besides how high your stats were.
the monk is a great class. by the time i got to level 11, the DM was getting really frustrated cause he just couldnt hit me most of the time. he got me with an arrow finally, but, i used my reaction to deflect missiles and threw the arrow back. he just looked at me with a blank face when i said, nah im gonna throw it back at you and youll take 4 piercing damage. monks are fun
If he can’t hit an 11th level Monk, he isn’t trying hard enough.
Sounds like you have a bad DM. DM's job isn't to try and kill the PC's, they simply are narrating lore and they let the characters and dice shape the story. The DM should always remain objective, even when a tough challenge they set is overcome by the players rather easily. It should just go into his notes, and move on. We have a Homebrew Monastic Tradition that actually thrives when the monk receives dmg from a target, so not being able to hit the monk would be absolutely devastating on the players end.
I call bs
I think your mistaking the DM wanting to make you feel cool for him/her wanting to hit you . If a DM decides your going to get hit guess what happens you get hit , they control the whole world and can throw it all at you to destroy you ( be a dick move and not fun for anyone well maybe the DM)
@@judeloire1522 he had a good DM. He made a player feel powerful enough that a class that has a video calling them bad is one they love
The AD&D monk could not pick pockets and it started with 2d4 hit points, unlike the magic user. The monk didn't have to start defeating other monks, in combat, to solidify it's level up, until 7th or 8th level. Also, Dimension Walk DOES NOT have anything to do with traveling to another plane of EXISTENCE, it has to do with traveling greater distances, within the plane, the monk already resides in. I started playing, in 1980. Thank you for the video.
Also, It fought on the clerics table once the Dungeon Master Guide came out. I also started in 1980, played for about 10 years. Good times. Excellent video too!
@@valdezz789 They say it's the worst class ever and it's hard to argue against that claim, but I enjoyed playing the Monk. It was a challenge but they had some unique abilities, that could be very effective, especially at higher level. I mean, being able to dodge arrows and even fireballs and being immune to slow spells and poison and disease, comes in handy. One of the more effective aspects, of the class, was that they had multiple chances to stun their target, with an open hand attack, every round. I think the Monk dodge and that stun ability saved my ass, more than anything else. Definitely some good times :)
peace
Yep, the Monk was the D&D ninja. Somebody was gonna wanna play a ninja.
Am I the only one that Looks at the 3/3.5/Pathfinder Monk and all he sees is a Mage Killing Machine? Like Mages Crush Fighters By Simply Being out of reach and having things the Fighter's armor Can't Help him with, Ranged touch attacks and AoEs that Force Reflex Saves, which fighters have LOW, and that even if you Succeed you still take a ton of Damage... But the Monk Just Laughed at all those notions...
1.Their Class Given AC was all Dodging, so Touch attacks were NOT more likely to Hit them than a Sword, and the fact that they had Two ability Scores to draw AC from, that means it could get pretty High, Maybe not as High as a Full plated Fighter with a Giant Shield (Both with Maxed out Enchantment bonuses), but Still Pretty Damn High Passively, and Mages have Low Attack bonuses, so their odds of Hitting the monk with their Ranged Touch attacks was Laughable....
2. All their Saves are High, and they even get Special Bonuses against the particularly Nasty Magics, like Enchantment (Which was Next To impossible to Enchant a Monk what with Wis Being their ONE Core Ability and their High Will save and Extra Bonuses Against Enchantment effects from still Mind... Playing an Elf Monk Makes this even More Impossible). On top of that they get Improved Evasion to Either Ignore the "Will always have SOME Effect" AoE spells, or Take Severely Reduced damage even if they somehow fail the Ref Save (Which again, High Ref Save Because you're Encouraged to Have High Dex Due to not being able to wear Armor). Fort is Also a High Save and they're Straight up Immune to poison Effects, so really the only kind of Fort Effect you can really do to them are Direct Enfeeblement (IF they Hit, cause Ray of enfeeblement is Ranged Touch attack, Refer to Point 1. to see why that's a bad Idea), and Transmutations... Which Hilariously Enough, Even if you turn the Kung-Fu Master into a Toad, he's STILL a Kung-Fu Master who Will Dodge you even MORE now as he Proceeds to Whoop you with a Death of a Thousand Licks....
3. Monk is Literally the ONLY Class to have Built in Spell Resistance... So Even IF all the Previously Mentioned Features don't Save you from the Big Mean Wizard, there's a Less than 0% Chance that this SR will!
4. Remember that Bonus Speed That the Vid says is an almost useless Trait because you can't Full Attack After moving? Well the thing is, you don't NEED to do a full attack to use that Efficiently, you Just Need to Sprint at the Enemy Mage who was Hiding as far away as he could from your Party, Then Remind Him WHY he wanted to stay in the Back line to begin with by Pummeling that poor Mage into submission With your Fists, Stuffing Fist in Particular is Useful here because you can Stun Lock a Mage with it, They have Low AC Before they can Set up several Defensive Spells (Which they're not getting to Cast at ALL since the Monk with his High Dex Probably goes first and WILL be adjacent to him to prevent Casting within one round), Damn Near All Spellcasters have Low Fort Too, so that Stun IS Happening, wither the Mage Likes it or not... If Stunning's not your thing, at High Level you get Quivering Palm, an InstaKill Move, which is a Fort Save... Now what were Wizards Notoriously Bad at Resisting again?...
While every other Physical type Character is going "Damn Mages are Just Too damn OP!" the Monk Just Goes:
Monk: Omae wa mou shindeiru....
Wizard: NANIIII?!?! *Head Explodes while still at 100% Hp*
At this point the Mage player is probably the one Whining that his Character Class is Useless in combat.... But I'm not Even Done yet...
5. Mages Like to Cast Spells that will Let Them Stay out of Harms way, Like Fly, or Illusions or Creating Walls or Obstacles to Stand on... The Problem here for the Mage is, the Monk can Still get to em because of his VASTLY enhanced Jumping and Parkour Skills... Not only does the Monk Get a Rather Substantial Bonus to Jump/Acrobatics Checks Just Flat out, but their Enhanced Move Speed ALSO Boosts their Jumping Distance/Height Passively... so when that Wizard Flies 40 Feet Straight up, thinking he's Safe from arrows Behind his Wall of wind, he Literally Gets pounced on by a Crazy Almost Naked Dude who Seems to think he's Tigger from Whinnie the Poh... Oh and One Guess as to what Happens to a Stunned Mage at 40 Feet in the Air.... Oh and if that's not enough, at Higher Levels the Monk Can skip the Middle Man of "Defying Gravity" and Just Teleport up there To do his thing...
6. Remember that Seemingly only thematic thing of the Flurry of Blows? Well turns out that shit can Straight up Deny a Mage from Casting if you use it as readied action when the Mage Starts Casting, Cause Low Mage AC + Way too Many Hits = Way Too Many Concentration Checks if not Casting Defensively, which itself can cause said mage to Loose his spells before they're even attempted...
Special Pathfinder Specific Add-ons:
P1. In Pathfinder Stunning Fist Got an Upgrade, and Specifically Monks that use it can Replace the Stun Effect with other status effects, Such as Fatigue, Sicken, Stagger, BLIND, Deaf (20% Spell failure on Verbal component spells), Paralize 1d6+1 Rounds (at this point Might as Well Just admit the Mage is a dead man walking)
P2. the Step up Feat Tree Might as way be Called the "Screw you Mage" Tree, as it allows the Character to Follow someone using a 5 Foot step to get away From being Adjacent from an enemy to prevent yourself from getting Hit by an Attack of Opportunity for Casting... which is of course enhanced when used by someone with High Movement Speed and MANY Attacks (Since the Follow ups Step does NOT Count as your Round's Movement)
P3. in Pathfinder, Monks "Jump Good", Check out Samurai Jack to see just what that means.... with a Bonus to Acrobatics Equal to their Level, an Extra +4 for every 10 Foot Speed Increase (Leaving them at +24 at Lv 20), and the Ability to Burn Ki to Both Increase their Jump Roll by +20 Flat, AND add an Extra +8 by adding an other +20 Speed... they can EASILY wind up with more than 90 as a modifier to their Jump Checks,and Since they always count as having a Running start, that means that they Jump INSANELY High... Flight will Help Save that poor sad Squishy Wizard even less now... Is a +90 Bonus on a Single Skill Overkill? Yes, Yes it is, but I don't Care because it lets me Leap over Castle Fortifications like they were a Fence for Sheep... Also Catch and eat the random flying Wizard...
P4. Dimension Door is Now Fueled by Ki rather than being on a Once per Day Basis. Even Better, the monk Uses Dimension Door as a MOVE Action where the Mage uses it as a Standard, so he Just used his Turn to try and teleport away from his Inevitable Doom only to get Teleport Kicked in the face! Meaning that You Might as Well Call yourself "Nightcralwer" cause there's nowhere a Wizard can hide...
P5. Style Feats... these are a New type of Feat Meant EXPLICITLY for Monks (though technically Any class can take them, Monks Come with all the basic Prerequisites to get them WAY faster than any other Class), Now these things are Varied and Some Are Weird, all are Useful in some way to Monks... The ones that you get from the player handbook are Pretty Much a Stun-Lock effect that Gives you even MORE Free Attacks, as a Side effect it Prevents the target from doing 5 Foot steps, so Concentration rolls become Obligatory for casting....
I'm Pretty Sure I've Said enough Already... but Next time someone Tries to Convince you that "Monks Suck" remember, they're the guys that can Curbstomp the Classes that are Considered "Way Too Overpowered".... DMs who are sick of their party Wizard Steamrolling everything, Take notes!
Just admit it, Monk is sh*t.
@KG Motte , love your essay
I also notice that when AD&D2e went over to 3.0e
They did away with the Boxing/ Wrestling Chart with the Knock Out %
If a Monk: cleric/ fighter did a punch/ kick for 6dmg, there was a 70% of K.O.
They foe that got hit had to make a Con roll to stay upright.
My group was like, forget swords, just club a guy on the head and roll for K.O.
DM: call shots to the head is a --8 to hit.
Meh. You need dex, str, wis, con to make a monk. A caster needs one good stat, and maybe one or two okay stats. Your monk will always be playing catch up on those numbers. Casters are able to focus on their one stat and will get past a monks defences. Even in the beginning, mage armor, or expeditious retreat, and magic missile will put a caster in a safe range to put down a monk. Heck, casters who focus on dex as a secondary stat will out initiative a monk more often than not, and that will doom a monk. Check out the gitp forms for more in depth discussions.
@@MrKezzerdrix You don't Need Str, You can EASILY replace that with one Feat, a Feat that pretty Much all Rogues Get (Weapon Finesse, Or did you think that your Bare hands were not light enough to qualify for that feat?), and with the "Agile" weapon trait Slapped on an amulet of Mighty Fists you have literally no reason to have ANY Str at all, you don't Need to carry ANY Gear, and both your Offense and Defense Come from Dex. As for Con, you only Need that exactly as Much as Literally Every other class, so it's not really a Flaw that You need that... Actually you Need it less than most Classes, Since your AC will Likely be Higher than Most (It takes a +5 Full Plate AND a +5 Heavy Shield to Get Higher AC than a Well built Monk who exploits his Wis to AC bonus with all the same Gear), and you Have Evasion and all High saves, so you'll be Taking Less Damage overall, don't Need more Meat if they can't even touch what you have!.... Plus Unlike a a Fighter, a Monk can Self Heal without Magic Items or External Input, Which Means the only Class that can actually outlcass the Monk defensively is the Paladin, THE Tank of tanks, but who's Offense is low Except for Against Very Specific Enemies....
I don't know if you read the comments at all but I just want to say that you're my favorite D&D guy on youtube. Your editing is great, the clips you choose as visual "fillar" are spot on, and you don't talk like your tongue is aggressively fighting your attempts to form normal words, like so many other random channels I come across.
I'm thinking most people just don't know how to play them well. Monks are usually my best characters
someone understands
(in pre 4th edition and Pathfinder) they require 4 stats to actually function. If not rolling great ( or having a high point buy pool) they will be alot weaker than other classes. They can be really good if built properly but still get outshined by a mage in 3e-ish editions and fighter in adnd2
not really ones your level 16 and higher you basically dont take full damage for anything even on crits you immune to 90% of magic and all poisons and disease a monk if done right are mage bane because they really cant hurt you i have build monks that have bet level 20 paladins and all manner of casters as a level 17 monk
@@duburakiba especially with certain martial arts feats that in the end will have your weapons be damage of a higher level monk than you are of a larger size category with fists treated at magical, all the flurry attacks and with certain vows from complete divine you're basically untouchable
yeap
I played monk a lot, don't care how bad it was or is
If you have fun, that is what matters.
How is your comment eleven months back when everyone else's is 4 months?
Didn't you get the memo?!
so have I. I didn't know it was considered bad.
It is not. The video is BS
It's not bad, and, even if it technically were, it doesn't really matter.
I've found modern monks from 3.0 on to be rather powerful. I've played them in every edition from there on up, and in most battle situations, they're quite good, especially in 5th edition. By 5th level, expending 3 to 4 ki is a devastating attack sequence once per short rest in almost every archetype. I've always liked them as a disciple of a rare ascetic art, or as a stranger from a strange land. They're fun!
The key problem with the monk class has always been the specialized monk items. Most modules must plan for the presense or absense of a monk, meaning there are always either too many or too few monk items.
Any experienced DM will be writing their own material, or at least modifying store bought modules to fit their campaign. Now if your argument is the specialized items is a problem for anyone trying to write modules for sale, then I agree with you. This might also be a significant part of why Gygax objected to monks in the 'regular' (i.e. not specifically oriental) D&D settings.
@@nctpti2073 But how hard would it be while making a module to put a list of objects and let the DM decide based on if they will be useful to the party?
@@Jake007123 It is extra work that would cut into profits, all because some players think that everything their characters find should be useful to their characters, completely oblivious to the fact that neither reality nor most better D&D campaigns do not actually operate that way.
At the end of the day, the easier solution of accepting that there is no practical perfect solution rules. Some problems have no easy solutions.
@@nctpti2073 I see. I'm not a big fan of modules, I always use my own campaigns, but I can see there's a limit to which items you can put on a module destined to be used by everyone. I would say if I made a module, I would always put items that don't need classes, like amulets, circlets, rings, and so on, and the weapons and armor I would leave them nebulous as to wichi kind of them were (X of Slaying-The-Evil-Dragon, change X with an appropriate weapon for the party).
@@Jake007123 As a DM, you can add or subtract anything you want from any given module. There are no 'module police' that would show up at your door to chastise you, and if a player complains about you having changed something, the question arises why they have been reading the module and why they would be expecting no changes.
i play monk in 3.5 and im the most kickass in the party.
Yeah, this guy usually skips from 3e to 4 without even mentioning 3.5, where every class except fighter has it's own awesome sauce applied. I took out a red dragon single handed with a high-mid( lvl 16-17) level monk once in NWN2, which uses 3.5 rules.
I'm a 2nd Ed dinosaur. I home-brew recreated the Monk class and I was a fan of D&D's Mystic as a player class. I made its core naked and weaponless combat abilities the same as a fighter with maximum strength mastering dual weapons getting full attacks (pretty much double) with +5 weapons while wearing +5 full plate mail armor. By level 5, my players using a Monk of MangDuFai (a specialty Priest) shunned using found weapons and armor even though they were allowed to use them. The armor interfered with their martial-arts abilities in a more severe way than armor inhibits thief abilities and their martial arts tended to be better than any weapon they picked up. Also, they progress in their abilities "to hit table" the same as a priest. They get bonuses when unarmed and unarmored to-hit that made them equal to a fighter using a steadily improving weapon that he devotes himself to. On top of that, the other abilities were gravy. Oh, and the Monk could be any alignment. The ethos (and some abilities) to be followed was the only difference with each alignment. The ethos is more Taoism-like so the best ones were True Neutral, akin to a Druid that is not obsessed with nature.
So yeah, you got to home-brew a Monk for it to not suck.
This is a high quality channel with good videos that comprehensively studies and discusses their topic. Why does it only have 125 subscribers?
Bob Bluered Because it doesn’t have enough videos.
I mean, the idea of fighting gearless and not getting pasted immediately is what drew me to the class originally.
FYI, Bruce Lee tried out for the lead role in Kung Fu in around 1971-1972 before he died, and the producers went with David Carradine because Lee had a fairly thick accent and he was not a good actor. Lee's family side of the story is he created a show concept called The Warrior and the concept was stolen to create Kung Fu. For more about this, see Part 2 of David Carradine's interview on UA-cam from 1989, starting at 3:20 ua-cam.com/video/V6_IbptG54k/v-deo.html.
cdfreester The Warrior is a show now, quite a fun one too with 2 seasons to binge now :)
For 1e DnD Monks I recomend ....
first of all note that contrary to 7:00 the DM's Guide explains Monks use the Attack Table (To Hit matrix) of Clerics, not Thieves ...
#1 Allow STR and DEX bonuses like every other class, and the superior CON bonuses of Fighters
#2 start a Monk with AC 8, and any DEX bonus
#3A use the somewhat obscure Parry rule (Players Manual pg. 104) - allow a Monk one Parry even while attacking, with or without weapons
#3B adopt the "Tumbling" defense of the Thief- Acrobat in the original Unearthed Arcana
#4 give Monks a "leaping Attack" (Flying Kick) comparable to a long polearm that adjusts their place in the Initiative sequence
#5 I give 3rd Level Monks an equivalent of Spook as an option, the classic demo of their prowess may frighten off would-be foes
The other thing that the 4e version of monk had going for it was that it had a very specific intended playstyle on the board. In addition to its high mobility, it was a damage dealer geared around melee AOEs with some control effects. Most of the other strikers, like rogues or rangers, were more into single-target damage.
The Monk works with adventures that play to their strengths: lots of saves, lots of physical checks, combat against foes without too high ac or hp. If movement is important, say with pursuits or chases, monks shine. In intrigue heavy games, where you may be disarmed, the monk can save the party. Good in urban areas, good when he can move around, but not the best in very challenging dungeons of constant difficult fighting. Good at killing wizards also, and sometimes rogues or low fort and easily overwhelmed characters. Catching arrows is hilarious, and can shut down low level archers and draw fire.
this is a cool idea, its like fsg channel.
"how good were Monks ACTUALLY?"
Amount of comments without watching the video first is stunning!
(Pun intended)
No, that title belongs to the ranger unless you’re running the horizon walker or swarm subclasses
Don't sleep on gloomstalker
@Daniel Tanner oh its very good and has alot of utility that would pull out of situations you wouldn't believe. But i normally run this or monster slayer
@@timercolen1586 you mean the one trick pony? because it sounded like you said one trick pony.
I've been saying a long time, I love rangers so please just do away with them entirely rather than keep mangling them worse and worse with each new edition.
@@ricardocastillo5485 Rangers haven't always been bad, they were really insanely good in 4th Edition.
Really like the video and agree with almost every point made. However 3E didn't come out in 2003. 2003 is when 3.5 came out, which had some changes to the Monk class as well.
Oops, good catch.
@@DMItAll 3.5 Edition monk was actually kind of over power. It regained the scaling damage and scaling Armor class. It also gained an increasingly magic Fest that skilled effectively the same rate as the party would be finding magic weapons on the same level if your DM was not just giving away magic weapons like they where candy. The first two or three levels of Monk were pretty hard play you were pretty bad, but I believe it was by level fifth level they started out class in the fighter and number of attacks a well-made monkhood hit more do more damage and was effectively untouchable. By Tenth level a monk was ridiculous and we won't even get it started talking about 20 Level Plus. The biggest thing with Monk was you had to be patient and yet to be careful in the early levels but once you got to even a couple levels into the game you were very quickly overpowering every other melee class. It was a lot of her class where you had to know how to play the game
5e Elemental monk is for Last Airbender fans in my opinion.
Diablo III monk is absolutely badass AF!
I played a monk level 1-20 in my first campaign (5e). Although I didn’t know any better, I still had the time of my life and am still playing to this day. I look back on my time as a monk with fondness and miss being able to punch bad guys multiple times in one round. I had an amazing DM who gave me some very “monk” specific home brewed items that made the game even more fun. Play what you love! If that’s a monk, enjoy punching the dragon several times. The best thing you can do is embrace the game that you and your friends create together.
Monk's depending on which edition of the rules you're talking about makes a HUGE differences. 3rd and 3.5 Edition monks are easily some of the most broken classes in the game for combat. Capable of dishing out so much damage it's quite easy for a Monk at 15th level with some magical gear or the right feats to solo a Balor(CR 20) and take it down in a turn or two AND completely avoid all damage from it's explosive death.
So which Edition we're talking about matters quite a bit.
All hail the might 3.5 Edition, hallowed be its rules!
@@shaesullivan Honestly I don't know why Wizard's didn't just keep tightening those rules, without completely destroying the ability to customize a character. Paizo was smart to do so.
@@danschaeffer2488 Honestly as much as I enjoy Pathfinder at times it literally ended up doing what it said it wouldnt do from the start. Make tons and tons of supplement manuals and now working on Pathfinder 2.0. Pathfinder plays more like an MMORPG where it's all about being a Min-Max character. In fact.. the game often encourages it.
That being said, 4th Edition D&D was a total wreck... it gave the DM more power, which is nice sometimes without having to make arbitrary rulings and etc. But your characters never really grew much in capability. 5th Edition seems to be alright but there's still a lot it needs to work on.
I namely like how Pathfinder tries to keep as many things as possible on an active player's turn. None of the opposing rolls nonsense, poison is actually useful, consolidating skills, and allowing for more class AND race variation.
I find it weird that in a world of magic and the supernatural, people find it "out of place" that a fighter could use mystical powers to augment their unarmed and physical feats.
Honestly, monks would work better as a fighter mixed with a mage or cleric, using magic or their god to augment themselves. They go unarmed cuz touch is a better way to channel their powers.
For example, using a Shocking Grasps-like power to make all their unarmed attacks deal extra electric damage. They can hit much faster than mages so they can get more mileage out of it.
In 3rd, once you throw in a couple supplements, the most powerful class ability is a feat, high level fights with some decent equipment and the right feats could out fight anyone. Also don't give the monk the Red Feats Book, not an official supplement but everyone seemed to use it, or it would become nearly unstoppable.
I don't think any Fighter had a chance versus a CoDzilla, your cleric just has too much all day metamagic for the fighter to ever come even close, plus the Cleric will still have spellcasting left over to shut down the fighters equipment. Sure you can be fine, but you can never be better than the optimized spellcasters, which in a game like D&D I find to be fine because as long as you're playing as a group and one of your players isn't a dick then nobody actually plays CoDzilla to the fullest and lets the fighter do their fighter thing. Plus the DM can nerf the crap out of CoDzilla mostly just be banning or never giving out nightsticks (or whatever they were called, its been a while).
I first encountered D&D in 79 and I must say no one ever pictured Friar Tuck. Ever.
Not that it wouldn’t have been great. Behold the true drunken master.
I did when I started playing in 1989, but my only exposure to monks at age 5 was the bald-spotted Franciscan monks I'd seen drawn in pictures at church. I had never seen martial arts films at that age.
@@DrPluton I strongly suspect that age 5 is uncommonly early to start playing. The box itself say 10 and up...
@@nctpti2073 I know, but I had fun. My longest-running character was a 2nd edition gnome illusionist/thief who liked using illusions to create openings for backstabs. I based his personality mostly on Bugs Bunny (if Bugs had an obsession with collecting gems).
@@DrPluton great combination :D
15:20 Dimension Walk did not allow the monk to travel to another plane of reality - instead, it was a form of warping fast travel, but only on the same plane of reality.
Fun Fact: Remo Williams the Movie starred Fred Ward as Remo Williams in the Film - who also played as Earl Bassett in Tremors 1 & 2.
What happened to the 2nd edition Ninja's handbook? It reintroduced a 2nd ed. Version of the Oriental adventures martial arts. Pretty well in fact. The monk class pretty much revolved around the idea of using unarmed martial arts, so ignoring just because of the word ninja on the cover is an injustice. With the shinobi kits it pretty much allowed any class to become a monk version of that class. You did mention the priest's handbook, so I know the "handbook" series was included in your research. Also the monk in there was actually a powerhouse at low-levels, able to get a +1\+1 to hit and damage every level till he ran out of weapon and non-weapon proficiency's, of which he got a couple extra just for this purpose. I think he also stated off with 2 attacks, on top of cleric spells!
Later this kit could instead use the extra proficiency's to use the Ninja handbook martial art rules to get more abilities.
There's so much stuff a monk can do. Stunning strike, free magical bludgeoning damage, all the movement speed in the world, immunity to disease and poison, bonus action dodge, proficiency in all saving throws (including death saves), non-concentration greater invisibility, and some of the highest tier 0 damage potential in the entire game. Seriously. Three attacks before level 5 is insanity.
And all of this is before any of their subclass abilities
2d4 damage is not great pre level 5 either especially when you have to get in melee and spend 1 ki point which you only have 4 not mention if you run into an enemy with resistance to bludgeoning damage pre level 6 or a ooze your fucked plus the fighter has cooler sub classes
Around level 11 is when they really start to shine. Getting them to level 11 alive can be a challenge as they are rather squishy. they become nearly impossible to hit and stunning fist is pretty much an instant death when a group member coup de gras them. I had a were rat monk named Splinter. 8) And i didnt take skill points to control the lycanthropy. made it nice and random. It had mad dex when were rat form.
Monk was never considered the "worst" class in DND until 3rd edition hit. They had the chance to instantly kill someone, instantly knock people out, and avoid fall damage. They were broken, but only slightly. You also seem to have left out the fact that the Monk in AD&D was capable of healing damage on themselves, and that their psionic abilities were based on Mind Flayer abilities, making them extremely useful, since they had telepathy, but also mental mind blast attacks, AND that in 3rd Edition, the Monk was able to take different paths with their bonus feat ability and also their ki strike ability at 4th level while at 16th level her strikes were considered *ADAMANTINE* meaning your fists were considered magical lawful adamantine weapons that could single-handedly destroy virtually all constructs in the game since you completely bypassed their damage reduction *naturally* - Don't even get me started on the fact that Monk's gained a natural spell resistance score that was equal to 10 + their current level.
You need to do your research better.
I never understood why people though 3e monk was bad. It seemed to me they were good, but I guess it's like every other martial class, they compared him to the fighter, and of course you are going to be inferior in a fight to the class whose name is "fighter". I never saw a 3e/Pathfinder monk having problems past the first or second level, but at those levels everyone if having dificulties.
mokn friggin owns. I'm doing triple the dmg of any other party member, I've only been hit twice in the game so far, and he's got the entertainment background, with lute, and profficieny in playing it, so I've cast him as a bard, but on paper he's a monk. I'm having as much fun with this level 2-3 character, as i did with my lvl 15-18 gestalt cleric /fighter.
@Tommaso Grillo Having not played 5e past 2nd level just yet, I have a hard time seeing this be the case. At 5th lvl, my Monk will be capable of doing 3 or 4 attacks, depending on whether or not I use a ki point. These attacks (assuming they all hit, of course), will be doing a whopping total of 2d8 (2 spear attacks)+2d6 (Flurry of Blows or 1d6 for straight Martial Arts) +16 (12 if MA), for a minimum of 20 damage (15 if I don't Flurry), and a maximum of 44 (34) and an average of 32 (24). That doesn't seem so weak to me. Meanwhile the fighter is doing 4d6+8 (assuming he hits with both), this averages out to 22, which is less than my Monk hitting with his 3 attacks he get every turn, not mentioning my 4th attack. Again not mentioning that I can stun enemies with these attacks, or send them flying 15ft away, or knocking them prone, or negating their ability to react. Please, if I am misreading something, explain what that is.
Honestly, people underestimated monks, even in earlier editions. Having multiple attacks per round is devastating early on, and even at higher levels the action economy & RNG favors those that can deal damage multiple times, rather than all at once. And especially in protracted fights or dungeons, a reliable source of multiattack is a godsend. While the wizard is still queueing up spells, a monk will already have pummelled their first enemy into submission, and be looking to the next nearest one.
Gad, I the number of DMs that had "No monks, no bards" rules outnumbered the ones that allowed such back in the day.
Wait why no bards?
Wow! Genuinely blown away by the quality and care of this video. Obviously well researched and formatted, I can't fathom how you don't have thousands of subs!
Omg, there was an old arcade D&D game and I was wondering why there were elf, dwarf and halfling classes. I can't believe it was actually a thing at some point xD
I believe in the first edition Dwarf was a class, weird.
It kinda makes sense if you think it as a "social class" instead of an adventuring class. Just barely, though.
As an owner of original Red Box, can confirm metahumans were indeed "all the same" back then. So much clunk and weirdness back then.
It makes more sense if you remember that the archetypes were much less flexible in the beginning. No dwarf wizards, halfling paladins and so on. In 1st edition AD&D, most race/class combinations either had low level caps or were prohibited outright. If you played a dwarf, your only options were fighter and thief and dwarf thieves were pretty terrible. As a halfling your only realistic option was thief. On the other hand, if you played an elf your options were a little broader but by far the best thing to be was a fighter/magic user combo.
...So... by having the races be classes you're making the game mechanics a lot simpler (which is good) without actually changing the play experience very much.
Personally I've always sort of hated the race mechanic in D&D. I kind of wish Gygax had just told the Tolkien crowd to get stuffed and concentrated on the Fritz Leiber/RE Howard elements that he clearly preferred.
Wait until you find out that they had lower level caps than humans.
One of the most in depth D&d analysis I've seem here on you tube. Subscribed!
This was a really good analysis, I’d love to see you go over the history of the bard. The bard was completely unrecognizable in older editions.
I've only played 5e and hear all the time that bards used to suck. It surprises me so much because they are excellent in 5e.
@@5-Volt I play 3.0/3.5 and bards can be scary insanely powerful. And extremely versatile.
lol 1e Bard was the god class that can do just about everything as good as the other classes. 1e Bard required higher strength stats than the fucking paladin.
@@5-Volt People who used to say that bards suck didn't know shit. Bards were and still are a wonderful class, for too many reasons, but one of the best for me is the roleplay.
Playing 1ed decades ago, I finally got lucky and rolled a character good enough to eventually become a bard.
Game fell apart before I hit 3rd level fighter.
I probably have that character sheet somewhere.
I really monks in general, and they even usually feel really well assimilated into D&D and RPGs in general. However, it always feel like they're centered around trying to catch up to the other classes. Every feature of the class usually seems to be focused on making up for it's own self imposed shortcomings.
I played mostly 3.5E and monks were devastating in their proper role. They are caster killers. Crazy movement, best saves in game, huge spell resistance, improved evasion, a teleport, and an ethereal state, immune to poisons and disease. oh, and they will hit like 7 times per round. Seriously, if players tried to use a monk in the fighters role, yeah bad things, but that isn't their role. They are seek and destroy type to take out enemy back line units, and they are damn good at it.
@Stirgid Lanathiel Meh, I don't really care much for "class fantasy," and even in 5e there is a lot of room for making your monk whatever you want it to be, in terms of character archetypes and tropes. If my current monk dies, I am 100% rolling a Kenku Shadow Monk dual-classed (possibly) into either Warlock or Rogue. Maybe both. I've seen some tri-class builds out there that look extremely viable.
Actually they are minion killers.
@@squattingheads - "Minions" in the sense of "I-only-have-1-HP baddies" weren't a thing back in 3.5. They would have been good at it, but a fighter with Great Cleave would have been even better.
@Stirgid Lanathiel
I agree the monk is a caster killer, but the problem with 3.5 is that casters were often too powerful to overcome even for a class dedicated to killing them. A smart DM controlling a decently leveled wizard, sorcerer, or druid was effectively untouchable. Between contingencies, self crafted magic items, the ability to warp reality at higher levels, being able to summon a multitude of helpers, and actually making use of utility spells in battle, high level casters are campaign bosses.
I mean, wizards are supposed to be some of the smartest people around. Why would they challenge the party on even ground? They'd be up on a balcony raining down fireballs, or flying around like Superman; and that's if you'd even get them in a fight. They could just as easily warp in a bunch of minions on top of your group while they sleep, or use various illusions to split and dispose of the party, or make use of one of the many persuasive type spells on the town constable to turn the party into wanted criminals.
There's a reason a "wizard's tower" is a stereotype: a high level magician will never fight fair. They'll make you go through minions, traps, and mazes before confronting you at the top... before teleporting away while triggering exploding glyphs to level the structure. If your DM is any good, you really should have to put in a lot of forethought to kill a high level mage.
To put the cherry on top, if anything a rogue could be seen as a comparative ( or even superior) caster killer. One good sneak attack to the eye socket from the shadows when the wizard thinks he's safe, and it's a one hit kill even quivering palm would be proud of. Hell, I witnessed a session where our rogue stalked a sorcerer for *two days* before ending her life when she took off all her magic items to have a bath, and even then it could only be done with an anti-magic zone from a magic item we bought for that explicit purpose.
@Stirgid Lanathiel I will agree that the 3.5 monk isn't nearly as terrible as the versions that came before. But that's not a high standard to beat either, so it's praise with a grain of salt.
Even though monks are supposed to be caster killers, in practice I find them to be better archer killers and minion mashers than mage murderers. If there's a group of lowly goblins around the boss, the monk can be the one to handle them while the rest of the party concentrates on the hobgoblin. Or if there's a guy with a crossbow that's being really effective, the monk can close the gap and start melee alarmingly well. It's hard to shoot someone with a ranged weapon when you're getting punched in the face, after all.
That being said, I still find the monk to be the weakest of the base classes by a large margin. It seems like anything they can do, another class can do better, outside a few niche cases. You could even make the argument that due to how BS the magic system is in 3.5, the best caster killing class is another (similarly leveled) caster; since things like counterspell and dispelling magic can really ruin a mage's day.
There's a reason a lot of DMs houserule monk buffs: people just find them lacking even when you're not powergaming min-maxers. Of course, if you know the campaign is going to be in a low magic setting (i.e. the legendary sword Excalibur is a +1 weapon), a monk with Vow of Poverty can and will become a god.
I haven't played 5th ed yet. But the Monk and Fighter in 3rd ed were awesome to take for a dip or multi-class. The monk dip could share out extra attacks and better use of Wis stat as an armor substitute; Making Dex fighters truly hard to hit without that annoying dex limit armor imposed. Even in 2nd ed the Monk was saved by the optional Parry rules, allowing him to deflect attacks rather than rely on armor. Some of my strongest characters have been monks... My kama wielding monk in Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2 could dice enemies up with ease a fighter couldn't match. And by end game had a much better AC.
Hard mode: Try making a grappling class in DnD.
There is a homebrew class called the puglist that actually has a subrace that can be almost fully grappling focused class.
@@DanateDMC That's about the only way a grappler can make it is if it's a home brew. I personally always thought a grappler could make it if they just it like the battle rager from the Drizzt books. Instead of making the grapple a opposed strength test (3.5) why not just make him a walking cheese grater? Imagine being a giant and a smaller race decked out in spiked armor latches onto your back and just slides or crawls up and down your exposed flesh.
@@Trollioli I think there is battlerager in 5e that is official, so I guess it's either it or Bejamin's Huffman puglist.
Does "hold person" counts as grappling? 😁
@@daviddamasceno6063 Bigby's Grasping Hand, a spell specifically for grappling.
Incorrect - The Kung Fu television series debuted in 1972 the year before Bruce Lee died in 1973. He was not planning to star in the series and was disappointed he was not granted the role
Played a 1st ed. Monk all the way to Grandmaster of Flowers, and the Oriental Adventures version. I understand it's not everyone's cup of tea, but if played within the parameters of its own style it excels in a utility position.
Funny thing since Monk’s in D&D are most influenced by Dragon Ball which puts Ki fighters in same position as essentially wizards if going by Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards. Monks could be improved if were given more physical output like DBZ Ki fighters to at least balance out their lack of versatility. In DBZ they were versatile and powerful but were limited to Ki output, they didn’t have fancy shapeshifting unless they were a different race.
However, when played in the right style of combat for the order and tradition, 5e monks are actually kinda monsters. They aren't broken so much because the different traditions have different intended play styles. Pretty good at everything, great at a few. I think there are 7 or 8 different kinds orders and traditions, the Way of the Four Elements being overly all the weakest one (their attempt at last air bender). My monk is a Way of the Long Death monk, and in his zone he's a monster, and out of place I can still keep him alive until assistance comes or very easily relocate. He's got a passive HP buff, a 30' radius fear CC ability that takes 1 attack action (by that point you have 2), and ability to spend a ki point to go to 1 HP instead of 0, and the touch of death , basically a neurotic quivering palm (less damage doe), but it says you just have to touch them, it actually doesn't say anything about it being an attack so much rather than just an action, the general consensus I find only says if you can reach it is an auto hit.
It seems that WLD monks are meant to be like front line defenders CCing everyone who can see the monk in that radius. So our DM and I talked it over and we think, though you don't have to because not every situation needs it, is to use one attack action to fear, the strike those that aren't running, and repeat, with each for you drop adding temp HPs. I use him to protect our healing focused bard and to assist other PCs or just CC the hell out of the mobs to keep them off us if we need time. He's our party's CC\striker\buffer.
Btw, Extra Attack doesn't give you 2 attack actions, it lets you attack twice in 1 action, so if you use the fear CC you can't attack that turn unless its with your bonus or reaction in some way
Thanks for the video and all the background info you presented, and for mentioning the monk in the Oriental Adventures book as it was my favorite book in all of D&D.
What you said about the TV show Kung Fu & Bruce Lee is such a horrible misrepresentation of the facts. Bruce Lee DID NOT die before filming Kung Fu, the studio SKIPPED right to Carradine BECAUSE he was a white man & they felt "Americans weren't ready for an asian lead". & then later, Bruce died. I apologize, I realize that isn't the point of this vid, BUT, he is a hero of mine & I cannot stand to see his life told wrongly.
You're right, we're sorry for not properly explaining the actual chain of events. Thank you for the correction.
Seeing reference to Father McGruder (Braindead/Dead Alive) warms my heart.
"I kick arse for the Lord!"
"Stay back, boy. This calls for divine intervention."
To me it's still Jackson's best film.
in 1e they used the cleric attack table, actually, but the PH had an error saying "thief".
In 1st edition, Monks started with an AC of 10, and were NEVER allowed an AC DEX bonus, as per the PHB. AND all monks could NEVER wear armor. So, despite having [2 d4] hit points a Monk is worse than a magic user. Except, a 1st level Magic-user CAN cast a shield spell. Monks can not. Again, 1st edition, people.
@@Cyberpuppy63 yes...I know it by heart. One minor exception: the , lets call them 1.5e, versions. OA , for example, has a base AC for martial arts form (ac 8, 7 or 6)
The monk always seems like a character from another RPG that was converted into D&D.
Speaking from my experiences with pathfinder, the most effective way to play a melee character is to get close to an enemy, preferably flanking position and do full attacks all the time - and when building the character, it is prioritizing everything that gives flat bonuses to AC, damage or attack bonus. Even though combat maneuvers were a neat option, being decent at them came with a high feat tax and still wasn't worth the opportunity cost in most cases. Maneuverability wasn't often important after melee started. Also, the tendency for monsters to be beefy melee fighters instead of ranged glass cannons played a big part there.
That said - I'd argue that this isn't necessarily the best way to play. The monk can easily sneak into position, start combat by stunning a spellcaster (stunning fist) and get out of melee once the enemy reacts to that disturbance. Basically, the monk can throw shuriken, run away from enemies that want to get into melee, deflect arrows against ranged attacks and make most saving throws due to being strong in every save. And if nobody deals with the monk problem, they can charge into melee against spellcasters to annoy them with attacks of opportunity.
Another aspect of the monk I enjoy is their number of skill points and their class skills. Basically, the monk could climb to a higher position (climb) and silently (Stealth) scout ahead (Perception) while keeping the high ground through jumping (Acrobatics). Slow fall allows the monk to get into melee if they choose to. With high jump, they can also basically ignore terrain. Here is an example skeleton build: human monk with a Dex and Wis of 14. Skill focus in acrobatics, owns a ring of jumping and has the fleet feat. We're looking at a base speed of 60 which is double of what people normally have. As for other feats, deflect arrows, improved disarm and something else. In effect, you get +28 on acrobatics checks for jumping which allows you to ignore a lot of tough terrain. Even if you choose to climb up a wall, you can move 15 feet per round. If you can reliably beat a DC of 25 (not too hard for a monk), you even get a climbing speed of 30 feet. Basically, you get in and out fast, disarm foe, stun them with your stunning fist - and make the lifes of your companions much easier since enemies aren't at their full strength. And most importantly: enemy spell casters have to deal with casting in melee most of the time. Carry a longspear (you can still make unarmed strikes with kicks) to gain some reach and prevent enemies from just getting away with a five foot step and you're good.
I have always seen monks as a counter to mages and rogues rather than frontline fighters and they are reliably good at that. The problem comes when the party hardly fights humanoid enemies.
Can confirm. With so many mobility bonuses, the monk works well as an opportunist/troubleshooter, essentially a "melee sniper" who delivers the bullet that is himself wherever it is needed. Soft targets and rear-echelon folks just cry out for that rock-hard fist to come find them.
Also leads to fun roleplay moments where the party is arguing about how to cross that chasm, then they look over and see you already did it, or when some guy tries to run away and you're so fast you simply appear in front of them like friggin' Batman.