How is a Monk viable?

[Ridley's Cohort]

I basically agree with Thanee. Monks do very little well except survive. Unless you have superb team play, it is likely that your comrades are pulling extra weight so that you can have your fun (such as it is).

In 3.0, point buy Monks at lowish levels were virtually unplayable, so bad that the rest of the party would be better served by a Warrior. Yes, I mean that NPC class from the DMG. 3.5 Monks have powered up slightly, but not by a whole lot.

They are viable characters once they hit ~7th level. At that point they do have remarkable mobility and they can burn through stun attempts looking for a lucky success.

The ability to open up flanks and get a lucky stun gives them enormous potential synergy with Rogues.

At high levels, the amount of magical doom flying around makes the Monk's thick magical defenses a very reasonable tradeoff for a offensive punch.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

The monk I played in our last Epic game was a blast. He had two schticks: Breaching DR, and doing a Dire Charge-Flying Kick (ratcheted up to x4 with feats and items)-Flurry combo. He co-tanked with a high-DR fighter, and it was quite fun. One time, the DM stated to another player "...should I tell him it's dead already?" as I kept laying into a souped-up marilith. Kicking the head off of one Winterwight and driving the other into the ice with my character's tail was, let's just say, enjoyable.

Were I to attempt to play him again, I'd probably dive into Panther Shen and Henshin Mystic to jack up his DR penetration...taking 10 levels of Monk, Henshin Mystic, and several of Panther Shen gets you Ki Strike (Magic, Lawful, Holy, Adamantine, Silver, Cold Iron), and a feat gets you Ki Strike (Epic).

Brad

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Spring Attack is flashy for the Monk but it has two drawbacks:

(1) It has reverse synergy with Tumbling. You were never planning on taking AoOs from moving anyway.

(2) You are encouraging the bad guys to hammer on your friends. What a bud.

There are a lot of other fun feats for the Monk. Why throw three feats into one trick?

 

[Unseelie]

Ymmv

Well, I'll start with the three big caveats...

1) The game I play my Monk in started with 32 points for point buy. That made the point buy monk issue less of an issue.

2) I entered the game in progress. Came in at 10th with the wealth appropriate for a 10th level character. I was able to make some focused choices.

3) I'm a memer of the Monastery of the Yellow Rose. I am an 8/4 Monk/Ranger. This was done primarily because a) I wanted to play a monk, and b) the party REALLY needed someone with Wilderness skills.


In retrospect I would have done a few things differently but I don't feel that the Monk is underpowered or broken. Really it all comes down to player and GM style. I've been thinking about this some over the last week or two based on the last couple of encounters, so excuse the stream of consciouness(sp) babble.

1) If that if you play a Monk as a line fighter, there's a good chance that you'll get your ass handed to you. It might take awhile before it happens, but it will happen. They just don't have enough hit points to take the hits.

2) Be careful of what look to be optimal specialized builds. Trip Monks can be quite impressive, especially at lower levels. However, if your GM throws lots of large or bigger critters at you, the trip route is suddenly not all that useful. This is currently the case in the game I'm in.

3) Stunning Fist is very much underrated. Especially so if you have a Rogue in the party.

4) For the same reasons as (3), don't forgo Tumble. A monk can move across the battlefield faster than just about anyone.

5) Monks can easily be mage bane. Want to be even more annoying? Get a party member to cast silence on you before you attempt to trip, grapple or stun the Mage. Mages tend to have low touch AC, low STR and poor FORT saves. Exploit that.

6) There will be times when you just can't add much damage to a fight, but that doesn't mean you can't help. You can always flank and aid other. We just fought a Vampiric Green Dragon (at least Adult). I didn't have a chance in hell of hitting it. I did however, have a current AC of 33. I tumbled behind the dragon, went total defense and provided flank for the fully buffed battle cleric. The damage the cleric did and a well placed Greater Dispell convinced it to leave rather than take a chance with us (we were not in its lair).

7) I'm no longer convinced that high DEX and Weapon Finesse is the way to go. You're better off taking those extra points from DEX and raising your STR and perhaps your WIS instead. DEX gives you AC and hit bonuses, but WIS can make up for the AC loss (and raise your Stun DC, etc.). STR on the other hand gives you BAB and damage. Monks are not high damage output characters, so every bonus to damage helps. Carry a magic quarterstaff, choke up two handed when you need to.

8) Power Attack seems sub-optimal at first. I don't think that holds true at higher levels. You can't power attack with any of your monk weapons except for quarterstaff. You can, however, power attack unarmed and ultimately you're going to abandon those monk weapons because your hands do better.

9) If your GM allows stuff from Complete Warrior, consider some of the monk feats within. Specifically, look at Fists of Iron. If you're fighting things with high fort saves, you're likely not going to use your stunning fist attacks. Might as well burn them for extra damage.

10) Carry potions of Enlarge. Trust me on this. Stat buff magic and magic items are obvious as well.

 

[Unseelie]

Hit submit too soon... what I would have done differently.

I would have taken one less level of Ranger and one more level of Monk first off. I also would have likely put two less points in dex and two more in STR. Those are the biggies.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

8) Power Attack seems sub-optimal at first. I don't think that holds true at higher levels. You can't power attack with any of your monk weapons except for quarterstaff. You can, however, power attack unarmed and ultimately you're going to abandon those monk weapons because your hands do better.

...but the quarterstaff will be abandoned last, if at all. Slap Ki Focus on it, and all your Ki stuff works through it, so you breach as much DR as normal, and then Power Attack to your heart's content.

Brad

 

[D+1]

A monk is viable by not assuming that the only fun way to play the game is by relentless pursuit of maximum lethality index.

One of my favorite characters of all time was a monk back in 1E/2E days. He sucked in combat. He never hit diddley squat, had a pathetic AC, no access to skookum weapons, all in comparison to the party dwarf fighters and paladins armed with +5 full plate/shield, rings & cloaks of protection, girdle and gauntlet combinations, dwarven throwers and Holy Avengers. But he was great fun to play in other ways. I just never expected him to become a combat death machine (at least not until he got Quivering Palm, which he never did manage to do).

On the other hand, I had another PC in the same campaign. Elven fighter with 18/00 strength. Only PC I've ever seen anywhere to have achieved that at roll-up. He also sucked in combat compared to other fighters. He didn't have the levels that other PC's had, I hated the idea of completely overlooking his 18/00 strength by using girdles of giant strength, and did not have the options of either Dwarven Throwers or Holy Avengers. More importantly though I WANTED him to be better than everyone else and it DROVE ME NUTS for years. He was still a good character but I found that playing him was far less satisfying until after I got over the notion that he ought to be equal to, if not better than every other fighter type at the table.

 

[two]

A monk is viable by not assuming that the only fun way to play the game is by relentless pursuit of maximum lethality index.

One of my favorite characters of all time was a monk back in 1E/2E days. He sucked in combat. He never hit diddley squat, had a pathetic AC, no access to skookum weapons, all in comparison to the party dwarf fighters and paladins armed with +5 full plate/shield, rings & cloaks of protection, girdle and gauntlet combinations, dwarven throwers and Holy Avengers. But he was great fun to play in other ways. I just never expected him to become a combat death machine (at least not until he got Quivering Palm, which he never did manage to do).

{deleted irrelevant stuff}

Listen, if the only thing people cared about was the "relentless pursuit of maximum lethality," nobody would ever play a monk ever, period. Monks are not, can't be, won't ever possibly match the maximized damage output of any other class, bards included.

That's not really what we are talking about.

Of course, the other obvious comment is that when you play D&D you get 75% or more of your experience points from, well, killing stuff. If you design a PC that can't kill stuff, at some level, you should be playing another system that will be more rewarding for your type of play. Pretty clear.

The problem is, I think, the archetypical monk is something given to us from movies, tv. etc. in which an unarmored guy dances around, uses powerful quasi-mystical inner powers, and lays down some good smackage. You know, he/she punches, and people fly back. I think we can all agree on that. There in fact exists no martial arts movie where the martial arts hero dances around, sets up his pals for flanking, uses his inner mystical powers to help his rogue friend sneak attack, and chases down some fleeing nearly-dead mook.

Yet, that's what the D&D monk excells at. Well, plus being the last guy standing after a magical artillery barrage.

So, if you get your kicks from doing stuff completely at odds with the "martial artist" concept kicking around our culture (however silly and unrealistic it is), play a D&D monk. Be aware, however, in a game where killing stuff is a premium, an inability to kill stuff is bad for the party, plus many people find it boring after a while (my monk flanks again, setting up the rogue...tell me when my next turn is, thanks, I'll be reading).

 

[tauton_ikhnos]

First of all, the Monk in question has 8 hit points. If the enemy fighter hits him, he could be down immediately. Furthermore, I don't see why the enemy mage has an AC of 11 at most. Any mage within combat range usually has shield and/or mage armor up, making the monk miss far more than he hits.

1st level wizard. 28 point buy. If he has both of those up, he's not a threat, because he's only got one spell left. If he doesn't have those up, he's got an AC of 11 at most. QED.

And the Fighter in question has 11-12 hit points. If the enemy fighter hits him, he could be down immediately. That's what first level IS. And the monk has a better chance of running past the enemy fighter and getting to the mage, who, if he's smart, has 2-3 sleep spells prepped instead of a low-probability solution like shield/mage armor.

And 1d6+1 damage, even assuming the monk hits, has only 50% chance of downing a first level wizard with a con=12.

Fortunately, the monk can move & strike, and then strike & move. That's better than a 50% chance by a fair margin. But considering that the 1d10+4 fighter only has a 60% chance of downing the monk, I guess that's about fair, isn't it? Especially since the mage, in addition to having a 50% chance of being downed, only has a 50% chance of not being stunned as well.

Due to the monk's low strength, and burning up feats on stuff that's marginally useful (mobility is replaced by tumble by level 3 or so, spring attack allows the monk to do little damage safely), this monk (with your build) has a good chance of hitting 10th level and dishing out, maybe 1d10+3 damage. With not very good chances to hit, given flurry penalties.

At 10th level, the smart monk has a monk's belt, STR gloves, and a bit o' the magic fist going on, for 2d6+5 at a minimum. And the last 10th level monk I saw was doing 3d6+6, which was pretty comparable to the fighter.

And mobility is a prereq to spring attack, which is going to be taken, coincidentally, at the same time that tumble becomes useful. Nice how that works out, isn't it?

Vs. a typical and more common scenarios of barbarian orcs, or a few melee monsters, the monk is stuck trading full attacks (and getting destroyed) or spring attacking (in your build) and not being effective at all.

IME, if the party is high enough level to face barbarian orcs, the monk is dishing out 3d6+6 or more per strike, tripping like a fiend, and stunning the worst offenders among the foes.

28 points buy:
Human Barbarian1
Ch: 8
Wis: 10
Int: 8
St: 16
Con: 16
Dex: 14

AC = Breastplate + dex + large shield = 19, or 23 with mobility. One feat to spare. Dodge? Overkill.

Give him a masterwork weapon, and he's +5 to hit, for 1d8 + 3 damage.
Hit points = 15.

So, the Barbarian has more hit points, a better AC (and an AC that's easier to increase via magic armor/shield), is FASTER than the monk, and hits much more often and harder. Plus can rage once in position for owie.

Okay, I see the problem, now.

1. Barbarian can't afford the equipment you gave him.
2. That isn't 28 point buy.

Since you're building your characters on far more generous terms than the monk (more ability score points, better starting equipment, etc.), then yeah, my monk doesn't measure up.

 

[Thanee]

Why isn't that PB 28?

But you are right on the equipment, the Breastplate is more likely a Scalemail or maybe a Chainshirt (because of the movement issues), I suppose.

And mobility is a prereq to spring attack, which is going to be taken, coincidentally, at the same time that tumble becomes useful. Nice how that works out, isn't it?

What do you mean by that?

Tumble basically does the same as Spring Attack (granted, not as good), but what's the big synergy between the two? That you tumble past some and then Spring Attack one?

Bye
Thanee