The monk is bad and unfortunately beamdog took the meme literally
lollers
Member Posts: 190
Pretty sure nobody meant it unironically when they called monk a late game powerhouse, except maybe in the eary years of baldurs gate. They nerfed the shit out of the class simply on the basis of memes and a long list of minor advantages, and a much shorter list of horrible disadvantages like the inability to use most of the items in the game, the inability to take a beating, the inability to do more than 4 attacks per round. The beastmaster is a crappy archer that manages to be better than the monk in the original BG2, and then beamdog nerfed it more in the EE.
0
Comments
The last time I brought a monk along for BG2 was my no-spellcasting run. And in the final stats, Rasaad came in first in total kill XP. Ahead of the multiclass fighter/thief protagonist. Ahead of Korgan. Nearly as much as Keldorn and Mazzy combined. And Haer'Dalis (who mostly just sang) isn't even in the conversation.
High-level monks get 4 APR effortlessly, and can increase that to 5 with an off-hand weapon - at the cost of some THAC0, but when you have base THAC0 zero you can afford to give some away. Their "weapon" deals more damage than all but a few of the end-game options. They get massive magic resistance, enough that 100% is easily within reach. They get saves on par with a paladin, and no reason not to wear a protection item to boost them further. They get enough AC to match a warrior in full plate and a shield, eventually. They get permanent normal weapon immunity, which can nullify even some very scary enemies like vampiric wraiths. And when you need some extra burst damage or toughness, there are warrior HLAs like Greater Whirlwind and Hardiness.
And that's not even going into the most important advantages - stealth and movement speed. Monks make fantastic skirmishers, sneaking in to hit a vulnerable enemy hard and then retreating before a counterattack can land. With that playstyle, a monk can hold their own even in BG1 when their level-based abilities have yet to grow to full strength.
Sorry. That isn't to say it has nothing to contribute though, like the ability to spam stuns and maybe get a quick quivering palm kill. I have wondered what it might be like though if it transformed into the slayer form. I don't know what parts of the base character that the slayer will keep after changing, but I do know that AC is one of them. I think if I can find a way to keep using the slayer which I think is deep into the -20s which is respectable even for the final battle.
Rules for shapeshifts: you get the new form's base AC, strength, dexterity, base attacks per round, and resistances. Most shapeshift weapons are one-handed melee weapons that can be used with a shield or with single-weapon style, but cannot be dual-wielded with anything. An off-hand weapon won't even contribute passive bonuses.
Equipment such as armor or bracers that sets base AC will be used if it's better than the form's base AC. Equipment that modifies AC such as a ring of protection or a shield will still work, applied to the new baseline. Equipment that modifies resistances will work, but may need to be re-equipped. And in the case of a shield, you can't equip a new one while the form is active.
So, the slayer form. Base AC -4, same as a level 30-34 monk. 4 APR. 25 strength, 25 dexterity. 40% magic resistance. Weapon deals 1d8 base physical and 2 cold damage.
A level 40 monk with 19 strength, 18 dexterity, and the gauntlets of crushing ... you go from 4 APR at THAC0 -11 and 25.5 average damage to 5 APR at THAC0 -7 and 20.5 average damage (level 13+ warrior bonus applies, monk unarmed bonus doesn't). You hit harder without the change. AC-wise, you go from -6 base and -4 from Dex to -4 base, -6 from Dex, and -1 from SWS; a 1-point improvement. The magic resistance stacks, at least; you're over 100% before any other modifiers in Slayer form. Not that it's hard to reach 100% without the help.
Also, your maximum hit points become 100. Probably a downgrade.
No, Slayer form isn't worth it as a monk. You're better off in human form, with the flexibility to use actual weapons when you want a ranged attack, a non-magical attack, or an ability of some sort.
Not sure why you conclude that. The wiki says: "They are very weak at low levels, but can become very powerful at the higher levels."
It's true that, compared to fighter classes, the monk has low HPs. However, that's largely mitigated at high levels by good AC and their high MR (that stops dead most of the magical damage a fighter would worry about). For those occasions where they do need a top up monks can also use warrior potions (like the many potions of heroism scattered through the game).
At high levels they also move extremely quickly and can hide reliably - and can thus pick off most groups of enemies without danger to themselves. It's less a case of a level 40 monk requiring baby-sitting by other members of a party than of being handicapped by them ...
Where did Beamdog did any change to the original BG2 to make Monks worse? If anything, the items in Rasaad's quest (which are Beamdog's additions) help tremendously because now they can spam Mirror Image even being a Sun Soul or plain Monk (ring of duplication).
What you don't understand is that not everyone plays the game learning to min max from experienced players. Some people experience the game saying "my Monk is better than anyone, because they can get 4 APR, while Minsc/Keldorn/Mr ToB are limited to 2.5/3 (add 0.5 if using the gauntlets), and their weapon deals less damage".
Sure, maybe you and I know about dual wielding Belm and about Improved Haste. But guess what? People who are perfectly happy with the game don't, and they beat it easily with a Monk protagonist blasting all the enemies.
This is not to say that the class is perfect. None are. But the expectations and needs of every person are different. I myself would like all the classes to be balanced, and have a power curve that is as close to a steady slope as possible (and I want of all the classes). Maybe if I had that I would find it boring and I would prefer some bumps, I don't know. But certainly not all people want that.
Personally, I'm learning as much as I can from the engine, and I'm testing a few ideas to make the class a very good melee character that is still different from the others (more vulnerable). I don't like the BG1 experience, specially on the lower levels, and I'm not thrilled that it becomes so good in SoA to then have issues again on ToB. But that's on MY play style, which is with SCS on Insane and Item Randomizer, but without double damage. I'm not so pedantic to conclude that my redesign is needed or desired for anyone else.
Thing is, it suffers from the same problem that I feel Swashbuckler has, and that it wants to be in melee for maximum damage output with very little ability to take the damage you need as a frontline. A d8 hitdie and only +2 instead of +4/+5 from the CON modifier leaves you ~30 HP down from one of the other Warriors by level 9. That and no Critical Hit Immunity (probably the nerf that was talked about) means that hits that might be spongable with a Fighter are significantly less safe for a Monk, and Critical Backstabs are death sentences with no easy way to negate them with either high HP pools or Stone/Iron Skins. Gotta hope the rest of your party has True Seeing...
Now, Monks still do really well vs Spellcasters, even without prepping too much for them: 78% MR by lategame means you can just ignored 3/4 of their spells without any further investment. With proper investment, it's a legitimate strategy to stand in front of a mage and get them to waste spells on you while either running around waiting for certain weapon immunity spells to wear off, or punching them in their faces until they die. Unfortunately, they do horrifically in melee with other fights like the Fire Giant Temple in the lategame, Trolls and Golems in the midgame, and Iron Throne Bandits and Doppelgangers in the early game.
To me, Monks work best as a 6th member of the party, separate from the warriors and sometimes clerics that make up the front line. They take quite a bit of micromanagement to play successfully, moreso than almost any other class than possibly Swashbuckler, because you absolutely don't want to take hits in melee. But they can work, just with very little tolerance for error.
That is, there are two significantly different combat roles that a melee attacker can fit into in these games.
First, there are tanks. Tanks get up there and take the heat. They deal solid damage, and they have ways of mitigating incoming damage when they're inevitably targeted by your enemies. Pretty much any party wants at least one or two of these, because you need to keep enemies off of your squishy archers and mages. The archetypal tank is a melee fighter or paladin with heavy armor and a shield for exceptional AC.
Second, there are skirmishers. Skirmishers move around to find vulnerable targets and hit them hard. Then, when enemies turn their attention to a skirmisher, they retreat to avoid the attacks entirely. An archetypal skirmisher is a backstabbing thief. Get in there invisibly, stab an enemy for massive damage, then get out so you can hide again.
What does a skirmisher need to play effectively?
First, a lot of attention. Repeatedly striking and retreating is a lot of extra actions, when a tank can just go on autopilot and pick targets with the in-game AI.
Second, a way to hit hard enough to be worthwhile, especially in a single hit. A monk's high-level fists or stunning blows, a kensai or swashbuckler's damage bonus, a thief's backstab, a melee hit on an enemy archer. If you're just delivering something comparable to a normal weapon attack, you'd be better off with a conventional tank.
Third, a way to surprise the enemy. The ability to hide is the gold standard here, though you can sometimes use terrain like corners in a dungeon to your advantage or simply move fast enough.
Fourth, fast enough movement to escape when the enemies inevitably chase you. It's often possible to get away even if you aren't faster than them, but it's a lot more effective if you are. If you have a skirmisher in the party, they're the first one to get boots of speed.
Fifth, quick attacks. If it takes so long to wind up that the enemy reacts before you're done swinging, you're not in a good position. This is what those often-ignored weapon speed numbers are about.
Monks are built to be skirmishers. You get stealth and an innate movement speed bonus starting from level 1. Your fists have base speed zero and long reach. You even get speed bonuses with any other weapon you use. And while it takes a good number of levels to get there, your fists eventually hit very hard.
Against this, drawbacks like being unable to block critical hits don't seem like such a problem any more. What does that matter when you're not staying in one place long enough for the enemy to even get an attack roll in?
You mentioned swashbucklers? Swashbucklers are natural skirmishers as well, much like other thieves. The easiest mistake to make in building/playing one is to ignore stealth just because you can't backstab. You can still sneak up on enemies, and that deflects a lot of hostile attention that would otherwise be trouble for you.
These roles aren't set in stone, of course. You can take hybrid approaches or switch between them on the fly. A fighter/thief that backstabs and then stays in melee is just fine, for example. A high-level monk can play tank against some threats with their resistances and immunities.
On the flip side, if you lean on that stealth and movement speed, a BG1 monk can reliably punch out doom guards and battle horrors without taking damage. Hide, get in there for a hit, fall back and hide again. Your fists are quicker than their flame blades, you have longer reach, and it takes a moment after you become visible for the enemy to act.
Of course, this is a slow process. It's well-suited to solo play, but in a party it leaves everyone else idle.
Staff of the Magi often gets discussed for high level X/Thieves as a way to get around the corner to backstab again, but it's probably worth remembering for X/Thieves in parties as a way to add/drop aggression from enemies after an initial backstab.
hence the reason why i believe BD had to add some monk kits for bg1 because for inexperienced players, they were going to have a rough time with a monk especially if their physical ability scores were mediocre ( kind of like rasaad )
in bg1, rasaad can be a bit difficult to use in bg1 with inexperienced players, ( those lower stats really hurt him in bg1 - look at valygar for example, a human with 18 DEX, and i believe the reason why that is the scenario is because he can't wear heavy armor, if he had DEX around 15 or 16, i bet most players back in the day wouldn't have given him the light of day, because he would really struggle to get good AC in melee, and plus there is only 1 pair of gauntlets of DEX, so you can't have everyone on the front line with garbage DEX- ) while in bg2 you start a bit higher level so his monk abilities start off a bit better
for bg1 having 18 STR, 18 DEX, and perhaps even 18 CON ( for the claw of kazgaroth ) is almost mandatory if you want to use a monk in melee
but for bg2, not as much since you start off at such higher levels
It was in a BGT game, so it had the ease of the BG1 tomes and some experience boost from some mods. I played with the level cap off, so it helped a bit.
I actually didn’t think I would win the game. But somehow I had enough potions and GWW to get Mel in the back. I was absolutely stunned to see charname win, since my prior runs with “great” characters had failed. The monk is tougher than it might seem at first hand.
The main difference between then and now, would in my opinion be that the ioun stones no longer protects against critical hits. It was a huge help back then.
That being said, I have to completely disagree with your analysis on BG2. Even at the start of BG2, I feel like you have enough stealth points to consistently drop into the shadows, transforming the movement speed from a hassle to an enormous advantage. Couple that with all the monk's special abilities, and it's not even close. One of the best warrior classes you can choose for SoA and ToB.
I do find the monk kind of dull in a playthrough as you're not improving them as consistently as any other party member, due to the limited item selection.