D&D 3E/3.5 Monk 3.5

[Ridley's Cohort]

Defence just isn't as fun as offence -- you end up feeling as if you are contributing nothing to the over-all combat. In fact, a defensive PC often makes the party's defence weaker over-all.

This second sentence is a very important point worth emphasizing.

Unless you are very creative and savvy, a high defense & low offense PC tends to draw attacks towards the other PCs.

Why? Because your friends are gaining attention by doing lots of damage and you are not. "Attention" in combat translates into retaliation in the form of attacks.

The two most basic battlefield tactics are (1) focus your attacks to take an opponent down quickly, and (2) encourage the enemy to spread their attacks around in a manner that keeps every PC healthy.

It so happens that the defensive Monks tends to suck at both of these things. 2 strikes.

Now, as I have said before, good teamwork and creativity can mitigate these issues. But I do not recommend it unless you are a highly skilled tactician.

 

[The Grackle]

Most importantly, go Barbarian at 9th.

If you're a half orc, you could go w/half-orc paragon from UA. THen you could stay lawful and still get rage. I don't know if those levels would stop you from ever advancing as a monk again or not...

 

[The Grackle]

Hi chaps ..

Hey, man.

I don't intend to do a lot of damage, just be a halfli... pain in the ass !

Small monks are not really the best. They're slower, they have a grappling penalty, they do less damage (size), and they have lower strength. Check out he ascetic feats if you have access to them. They let you multiclass w/other classes and stack levels for certain things. If you really want a halfling, you could go rogue and get some sneak attack dice for extra damage.

 

[Michaluk]

Tripping is Str based!

For those who keep talking about tripping with a Dexy Monk, you may only add your Dex to avoid trip attacks, not to make them. A Dexy Monk would not be nearly as effective as a high Str Monk at tripping, so we reach the same conclusion as before: high Str is really, really important to a Monk.

 

[Feldspar]

Dwarf would be good too, FWIW.

It's too bad Monk's don't have Search as a class skill; if they did, Dwarven Monks would make awesome scouts.

 

[Pagan priest]

The single biggest "mistake" I see beginning players make when making a monk is not putting their two highest stats in Strength and Con. No matter how you slice it, a monk is a melee combatant and there is simply no substitution for doing more damage to something in a single hit, especially at higher levels when things routinely have DR.

There are plenty of ways to avoid getting hit (Blur/Displacement, Improved Invisibility, standing next to a wizard friend etc.) but damage is hard to come by

Ah, no. The real mistake is to try an force the monk into the roll of main front line fighter. That roll is best filled by a paladin, ranger, barbarian or (strangely enough) a fighter. On of the best and most amusing descriptions of a monk that I have seen is as a helicopter gunship. Move in, do some damage, and get out before you get hit.

Monks are proficient with crossbow, dagger, javelin, sai, shuriken, and sling. All can be used in ranged attacks. Monks can also get class skill ranks in hide and move silently. Sniper is a good possible roll for a monk, although the lack of sneak attack damage does hurt a little.

And remember... shuriken are enhanced as ammo!

 

[Technik4]

Why? Because your friends are gaining attention by doing lots of damage and you are not. "Attention" in combat translates into retaliation in the form of attacks.

Because an opponent is going to notice an attack that does 1d8+4 vs 1d8... Right. I mean its all relative but especially at lower levels monks (even defensive ones) are decent harriers. Unless the dm gives the NPCs your dossier, all they know is you, as a monk, have a potential for high damage, weird effects, and the movement to get in and out.

I mean, what if you roll a d8 and get an 8, does that then qualify you as a threat for an opponent? Would you really be that much more threatening if it was an 8+4=12? The whole reason I hate these comparisons is they don't take into account party buffs. After the cleric blesses the party, the druid casts magic fang on you, the wizard gives you mage armor, and the bard starts singing the slight edge a strength-based monk has seems trivialized (to me). Especially since it is at the cost of Intelligence and therefore skill points. In essence - why take a class and strip it down to its essentials and try and act like a fighter (purposely lower your decent skill point acquisition, focus on combat stats) when you don't have to.

The real mistake is to try an force the monk into the roll of main front line fighter.

QFT.

And at 20th level, when the strength monk is rolling d20 + 8 damage vs the dex monk rolling d20 + 2, are you really missing out?

 

[Particle_Man]

In the main campaign I am in, the monsters simply attack whoever is within range that did the most damage to them last round. on average, harrier monks would not be attacked most of the time, if there is a big, burly barbarian or wicked, woolly Wild Mage to hit instead.

 

[phindar]

Hurmmm... What about a Monk/Barbarian/Bear Warrior? A kung-fu fighting, raging grizzly bear. Now that's a killing machine.

 

[Victim]

Because an opponent is going to notice an attack that does 1d8+4 vs 1d8... Right. I mean its all relative but especially at lower levels monks (even defensive ones) are decent harriers. Unless the dm gives the NPCs your dossier, all they know is you, as a monk, have a potential for high damage, weird effects, and the movement to get in and out.

d8 + 4 vs d8 is roughly twice as much damage. Plenty noticeable. Even at max power, it's still a difference of 50% - like watching a car drive past at 60 mph vs 40.

Moreover, STR will often be noticeable as part of the character's physique. Higher level characters will probably also develop a repuation.

I mean, what if you roll a d8 and get an 8, does that then qualify you as a threat for an opponent? Would you really be that much more threatening if it was an 8+4=12? The whole reason I hate these comparisons is they don't take into account party buffs. After the cleric blesses the party, the druid casts magic fang on you, the wizard gives you mage armor, and the bard starts singing the slight edge a strength-based monk has seems trivialized (to me). Especially since it is at the cost of Intelligence and therefore skill points. In essence - why take a class and strip it down to its essentials and try and act like a fighter (purposely lower your decent skill point acquisition, focus on combat stats) when you don't have to.

When you have all manner of magic buffs, you can just as easily say that that advantage of any other stat is minimal. Might as well go with strength in that case.

And at 20th level, when the strength monk is rolling d20 + 8 damage vs the dex monk rolling d20 + 2, are you really missing out?

Monks go 2d10 at level 20, not d20. Across the 5 attacks a level 20 monk can make (without assistance), that 6 point difference in damage could add up to quite a bit. Of course, the monk had better be doing more damage than that at level 20 people are supposed to realize he's actually participating in the fight.