How is a Monk viable?

[Evilhalfling]

The Monk in my game is just reached 9th and is finally hit her stride in combat - with a few buffs her AC reaches 31, and with improved evasion and a simple reist fire she runs though crowds and will yell "fire in the hole"
wherin the mage drops a fireball on her. It burned her once, but it was the only damage she took in the fight.
with improved flurry she is at 3 attacks, 1d10+3 which is respectable, esp agaist low AC critters-
In a recent fight with 3, 12th+ mages, she emerged virtully unscathed, but had to flee as the rest of the party fell around her. The 3 good saves and evasion were key. The mages watched her vanish at 240' mv and lobbed one last useless fireball at her as she left.

 

[Klaus]

With Weapon Finesse and the rather large damage die for his unarmed attacks, a monk has little reason to have Strength above 13 (and even then, only to qualify for Power Attack), since you'll be using the same stat for attack and defense.

 

[Thanee]

The Monk in my game is just reached 9th and is finally hit her stride in combat - with a few buffs her AC reaches 31, and with improved evasion and a simple reist fire she runs though crowds and will yell "fire in the hole" wherin the mage drops a fireball on her.

That seems to become a common tactic, judging from this thread.

with improved flurry she is at 3 attacks, 1d10+3 which is respectable, esp agaist low AC critters-

Yep, not too bad. Of course, if I compare it with a real fighter, i.e. our barbarian, also 9th level, who does more like 1d10+20~30 (depending on Power Attack) 3x/rnd ... but then again his AC is only 20 or so (with over 100 hp, however). And his Will save is surely a lot weaker.

The mages watched her vanish at 240' mv and lobbed one last useless fireball at her as she left.

Heh. Stupid mages do not deserve any better.
A decent mage wouldn't have let the monk get away like that.

But anways, that's exactly the "problem" with the monk as a party member. If the opponents are "dumb" enough to busy themselves with the monk, who isn't "doing much" to them, while being subject of a barrage of nasty attacks from the rest of the party, instead of going right for the ones who hurt them, then it works fine, but in fact the monk has no means to make them attack him or her.

Nice in theory, but not feasible in practice IMHO.

In our games, opponents often target the characters, that deal the most damage to them (or are otherwise the most dangerous). A monk would mostly be ignored and surely not be attacked by multiple opponents, until after the real threats are taken care of. Of course, this won't always work, just in general.

Better to have some combat tricks like grapple or trip then, because those can be really annoying and thus produce the desired result.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

In my experience, it is much more adviseable to go for high Str rather than the often mentioned high Dex / Weapon Finesse, if the monk is going to go into combat, that is.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Plane Sailing]

With Weapon Finesse and the rather large damage die for his unarmed attacks, a monk has little reason to have Strength above 13 (and even then, only to qualify for Power Attack), since you'll be using the same stat for attack and defense.

On the contrary, Weapon Finesse means using a feat that you could be using for something else, and one of the benefits of high Str is that with FoB you get full strength on all of your flurry attacks.

A nice build might be a monk quarterstaff user with high Str, power attack (possibly cleave). When he only gets a single attack (AoO, spring attack etc) he can wield it 2H, getting more damage out of his high Str and power attacks, or when he gets full attacks he can choose to use it 2H *or* flurry to get more hits out (and potentially get more benefit from their Str bonus).

An interesting prestige build might be a monk/assassin, focussed on Dex and quick-drawing shuriken to deliver his death blows, while supported by the interesting range of assassin spells.

 

[spectre72]

I think that the success of a monk in any campaign also has alot to do with the magic\power level of the campaign.

I have been playing a gnomish monk\psion in our campaign and have played from 1st level monk to 8th level monk\2nd level psion.

Many times I have had to stand toe with the creatures we were fighting to protect everyone else. And with a good dex\wis and inertial armor I had the highest AC of the group.

Now in a campaign where magic is everywhere this would not have been the case, but in a world where +1 armor is rare natural abilities are a huge bonus.

My character also had the best saves of the group and many times had to help others back to consciousness after a fireball or such blasted the party.

So I have personally played a monk for quite some time and have done well with it.

And to answer someone elses statement...

A monk is all about staying alive, because when the monk is alive the rest of the party still has someone to fight, heal, and save the day

Scott

 

[Henry]

But anways, that's exactly the "problem" with the monk as a party member. If the opponents are "dumb" enough to busy themselves with the monk, who isn't "doing much" to them, while being subject of a barrage of nasty attacks from the rest of the party, instead of going right for the ones who hurt them, then it works fine, but in fact the monk has no means to make them attack him or her.

Nice in theory, but not feasible in practice IMHO.

In our games, opponents often target the characters, that deal the most damage to them (or are otherwise the most dangerous). A monk would mostly be ignored and surely not be attacked by multiple opponents, until after the real threats are taken care of. Of course, this won't always work, just in general.

A metagame note to add here: You are correct in that experienced intelligent opponents would realize the bluff that a monk represents in that instance, but not all opponents faced at intelligent or experienced. If every opponent or even most opponents faced are played as tacticians who ignore obvious minor threats for subtle major ones, then the IMO the DM is doing his players a disservice.

Anyone remember the move the Seven Samurai? Or even Hitler and Stalingrad, for that matter? The ones who tick you off and rub it in your face are (quite irrationally) more likely to receive your attentions than the more subtle but deadlier threats. That's a real-life common behavior, especially of someone not well-versed in combat.

 

[Storminator]

I'm running Hall of the Fire Giant King, and the monk & fighter put together an interesting combo I hadn't thought about. Characters are 14th level.

Monk, with super high AC, stands and fights the giants. Giants are very hard pressed to hit him. So he trades blows, fighting a giant about even. (the Hall is very restrictive to the large giants, and the monk can usually hold a corridor by himself). The fighter, with much better attack and damage but AC that means he lasts 2 rounds vs giants, Spring Attacks in and mauls the giant. Also, once the fighter springs back, the sorcerer can AoE spell into the hallway, because the monk won't take damage from it.

It's been rather effective.

PS

 

[S'mon]

Anyone remember the move the Seven Samurai? Or even Hitler and Stalingrad, for that matter? The ones who tick you off and rub it in your face are (quite irrationally) more likely to receive your attentions than the more subtle but deadlier threats. That's a real-life common behavior, especially of someone not well-versed in combat.

Yup - certainly in my games if a Fighter PAs for 100dmg and the Monk hit for 10 dmg the monster if still alive will certainly stop attacking the Monk and go for the Fighter - but by then it's usually too late. Only incredibly smart or incredibly-metagamed opponents will always go for the big threat over the obvious threat prior to having actually received any damage. What monks do is buy the party time - time to kill. So I disagree with Thanee's analysis here.

 

[Thanee]

A metagame note to add here: You are correct in that experienced intelligent opponents would realize the bluff that a monk represents in that instance, but not all opponents faced at intelligent or experienced. If every opponent or even most opponents faced are played as tacticians who ignore obvious minor threats for subtle major ones, then the IMO the DM is doing his players a disservice.

Subtle, yes, but that's not what I was speaking of.

I meant mostly obvious (to the opponent) threats.

I.e. someone who is hitting with a bow for lots of damage, while the monk is dancing around, even a dumb creature would go for the archer there.

If the archer were a spellcaster who tried to charm the creature (or something like that), the creature would still attack the monk, not knowing what that other one is doing at all.

But I think it's more often the case than not, altho there are situations, where it is not, that's why I put the "often" in there, instead of an "always".

Bye
Thanee