D&D monks and their lameness :)

[Dandu]

1, 2, 4, and 6 aren't really bad.

 

[Stoat]

Did the Monk/Druid ever try to wildshape and literally go apesh*t on his enemeies?

It was his whole schtick. He was a Monk 1/Druid X. Monk gave him his wisdom to AC and improved trip. His plan was to wildshape and FoB, with his first attack a trip attempt.

Against medium-sized bipeds, it was a pretty good plan. He could usually land the touch attack needed to start the trip, and he had pretty good record winning the opposed check to pull his enemies down. But when he wasn't making touch attacks, he missed a lot. Hell, he missed a lot of attacks against prone opponents.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

[MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION]: I'm curious what level you played your longspear monk to and what splats you used.

I've used the polearm build on my last 2 monks.

The one at the Gameday was a human Ftr/Monk/Kensai. The first 2 levels were Ftr, the rest being Monk & Kensai (don't remember the exact ratio) and as I recall, it was a lvl 9 PC. Books were PHB, CompWar, and one feat from either PHB2 or DCv1 (substantially the same feat exists in each sourcebook, under similar names). That's the one that fought dragons.

The other was lower level in a more exotic campaign: a githzerai PsyWar/Monk in a 3rd or 4th level game, who would eventually have been a PsyWar/Monk/Lucid Cenobite (Hyperconscious) had the campaign not been killed by RW circumstances. Instead of a greatspear, this one had a bisento from a Rokugan arms book (1d12 x2 S, reach martial weapon without being throwable). That's the one that supported a Barbarian.

Both essentially did (or would have done) the same thing- stock up on items/ & beg for the same spells buffing Str other meleers in the party got; use a big polearm w/FoBs; use the Combat Reflexes feat tree; control space by racking up hits from the numerous AoOs that a Dex/Wis/Con build monk with reach can get. The hidden cherry was that each had a way to get bigger: the human used potions of Enlarge Person; the githzerai used Expansion. This equate to more provoked AoOs due to more threatened squares, higher Str, and a higher base damage on their weapons.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I find it vaguely telling that all your monk builds don't really use the monk.

I mean, 9th level character, you went into Kensai, 2 levels fighter...that's what, 4 levels of monk? Maybe five?

 

[MerricB]

I'm playing in a 4E Dark Sun campaign at the moment where there are two monks, one of them being a Thri Kreen monk.

They do a lot of damage, and get incredibly easily in turn... without that many hit points, either. My wizard has more hit points than the thri-kreen, although that won't last. It's a very strange game. Fun, though.

Cheers!

 

[Hussar]

I'll point out in addition that, unless the DM is asleep at the wheel, the wizard becomes even more screwed than anyone else once his spells are gone. A wizard who has lost his spellbook for whatever reason- and yes, I've seen it happen more than once, from both sides of the screen- is the party's #2 skill guy...and he doesn't have the skills the party wants most often.

DannyA, correct me if I'm wrong, and sorry for dragging previous conversations into this one, but, IIRC, you don't see craft wand in your games. Or at least, very rarely did the wizards craft wands.

That will make a HUGE difference as to whether or not the wizard losing his spellbook makes a big difference or not. And, really, how often did the wizard lose his spellbook? It's a fairly rare thing.

Then again, strip off the fighter's weapons and armor or the cleric's holy symbol and see how well their fare either. You are picking pretty rare corner cases to make your point.

I would also point out that you're making points about the monk when the monk is low to early middle level. From what you said, I don't think you have much experience with higher level monks.

 

[Sorrowdusk]

I dont really understand. If you are 'Pure Lawful' under this variant, you're Lawful...but NOT good or evil...OR neutral? How is that possible?

Once again, depends on your DM's take. I only bring this up because I have played with a DM that had it so that there were actually pure Lawfuls, Pure Goods, etc. It was a handover from the older system...but he also had the pure Neutral status as well.

One DM...but it did affect classes...so I bring it up. Overall, this is with the original 3e in which I think they didn't see some of the munchkin moves some of us would do...hence some things weren't originally intended to be played as they occurred. 3.5 and on, well, they nerfed enough things in some ways to counterbalance some of that (Buffs for one).

PS: I should add that the rulebook only mentions the 9 alignments, his argument was that it doesn't say the older model from the rest of D&D's past didn't exist...hence his idea for pure Goods, Pure Evils, Pure Lawfuls, Pure Chaotics...in relation to the pure neutral existing as well. The thought was that the Lawful Neutral, Neutral Good, Neutral Evil and Chaotic Neutral were not as committed or as slewed to the alignment as on who was pure...

Don't know how many of those are out there, but this guy still does somewhere (though been a long time since I've seen him).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

DannyA, correct me if I'm wrong, and sorry for dragging previous conversations into this one, but, IIRC, you don't see craft wand in your games. Or at least, very rarely did the wizards craft wands.

That will make a HUGE difference as to whether or not the wizard losing his spellbook makes a big difference or not. And, really, how often did the wizard lose his spellbook? It's a fairly rare thing.

Then again, strip off the fighter's weapons and armor or the cleric's holy symbol and see how well their fare either. You are picking pretty rare corner cases to make your point.

I would also point out that you're making points about the monk when the monk is low to early middle level. From what you said, I don't think you have much experience with higher level monks.

1. You're right- we rarely had crafter casters- but our casters often did have wands & staves.
2. How often a Mage loses access to his spellbook depends on DM & campaign. I've seen campaigns where, just like warriors had to give up their weapons behind castle walls, so to did casters have to give up things like wands, staves, and yes, spellbooks...(which in ONE campaign, were copied by the royal librarians)
3. While those 2 were my most recent monks, they were not my only ones, nor was I the only person playing monks- some did get into the teens.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Actually, I'd say the wizard loses the least. He still has most of his offence.



That's because they are a society of assassins. Rogues would do the job every bit as well, only need a dagger, and are generally cheaper to train and a better ROI.



And that's why surprise attacks can be really nasty. But anyone attacking under those circumstances would be scary. Unless this was a situation where wearing armour was actively banned for the other side, there was no real extra advantage from being monks. Barbarians with two handed swords or rogues with daggers would have done just as well.



So he's a flavour of rogue. Like the bard.



I believe you're thinking of wizards Monks need a hell of a lot of magic to keep up in practice in both 1e and 3e. It is much easier to enchant a fighter's weapon than a monk's fists. Or to get a decent AC with real armour than robes.

Even in 3rd, to get to a decent AC, monks need two sets of stat boosters - dex and wis - whereas a fighter's dex bonus is capped if he's wearing plate, and you need a wis of 16 and +2 robes (level 5-9) to even match a mithral twilight chain shirt + mithral buckler or small shield so you can keep up with the wizard's AC when he's not self-buffing. And as level increases, the wizard enchants his buckler as well as his armour - you just have robes to enchant. And as has been discussed you either need a physical weapon or your fists are very expensive to enchant (and you glow like a christmas tree to Detect Magic).

Now a setting where you explicitely have no equipment, mundane or magical and the monk rocks. Limited magical equipment and (in 3e) the monk actually lags further than before.



Half-useless? You've stripped away all physical armour. We're way into edge case here.

First off a mage may still possess a lot of offense but without proper magical gear he is a massive glass cannon who has to hope no one pays attention to him while he does nothing but cast protective spells on himself the first few rounds. That is assuming he has defensive spells memorized. If he doesnt he can still dish huge damage but he will get crushed as soon as anyone targets him.

There are no rules on character costs. A level of monk versus a level of rogue costs the same amount. So I see no reason why a rogue is a better return on investment. A rogue that goes toe to toe with an equal level monk is going to be very dead very fast.

Create a 10th level character with no access to anything beyond mundane gear for every class. The spellcasters will be overpowered based on spell buffing and druids will rock with wild shape, but those all have limits. The powerhouse of the party 24/7 will be the monk. The fighter is likely to do less damage and without magical boosts to his armor class its doubtful that the monk will be the flurry of misses master. This becomes even more so in something like Pathfinder. The problem with the monk is there are just so many more ways to stack magically build your AC than there is to build your attack roll, which means the better progression of the monk is a huge advantage.

Urban settings benefit monks even more. In very large "safe" cities, armor heavier than light armor is treated like bullet proof vests are considered today (in my campaigns). They are considered very dangerous because they make it that much harder for law enforcement to do their job. Then there is also the fact that armor is not comfortable. Anyone who says their fighter lives 24/7 in their armor minus the time they pee, bathe, or get laid, are just metagaming.

As I said before the biggest benefits for a Monk are ones that do not function well in a full party. But in certain situations and settings they can be quite valuable. Work just needs to be done to improve their standard benefits.

 

[Dausuul]

First off a mage may still possess a lot of offense but without proper magical gear he is a massive glass cannon who has to hope no one pays attention to him while he does nothing but cast protective spells on himself the first few rounds. That is assuming he has defensive spells memorized. If he doesnt he can still dish huge damage but he will get crushed as soon as anyone targets him.

Damage? What kind of 3E mage is dealing damage? Damage is for those who have not understood the true power of battlefield control. Lock up your enemies inside a wall of force, distract them with an illusion, or just dimension door the heck out of there. Then cast whatever buffs you need to cast and come back ready to rock. For that matter, a simple invisibility spell will usually buy you plenty of buffing time.

That's assuming you didn't essentially end the fight with a single spell.