D&D 3E/3.5 Monk 3.5

[RedFox]

Why don't they just take a 5' step, too? It's still a legal action for them.

Not if they've already moved. And I don't think you can take a 5' step undeclared in reaction to a held action. Whiff!

 

[Satori]

One Monk variant attribute I'm fond of is the "Necrotic Grasp" variant in Complete Mage.

Basically, your stunning fist goes from "Fort Save or Stun" to "Fort Save or Nauseated/Sicked on successful Save".

Sure, Nauseated isn't as fun as Stun (Nauseated:Experiencing stomach distress. Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn), but the ability to reliably inflict a -2 debuff to an opponent on a successful save can't be stressed enough.

Also, I've had some fun with a Monk 3/Fighter 2/Drunken Master 10/Reaping Mauler 5. You can grapple, charge, and hit people with chairs...all while drunk! At level 10, you get a potential +20 to Strength or Con...with the requisite -20 to Int and Wisdom. Honestly, though...who cares!? You're a drunk fighting machine!

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

Not if they've already moved. And I don't think you can take a 5' step undeclared in reaction to a held action. Whiff!

If they had spring attack they could continue to move up to the monk and at least end their turn threatening him/her.

 

[Amitiel]

I built a dex monk once in a 'what you roll is what you get' game. He's actually been quite successful despite having a 11 str. His high dex(16) and wis(20 18 at start), along with magic items the other players had gotten better versions of, had him at the highest AC of the party for most of the game. Despite the 'flurry of misses' comments I had no such problems, I hit more often with flurry than without (weapon finesse) and even when I got a str boost (belt of giant str+4) I kept with the finesse. Though I will say if your going for a dex monk Improved critical is a must, and stay away from constructs. DR 10/adamantium is the most annoying thing to fight with a monk.

 

[pawsplay]

Not if they've already moved. And I don't think you can take a 5' step undeclared in reaction to a held action. Whiff!

Why not? It is, after all, their turn. It is not a reaction.. it's a decision, in your turn, to take an action that is allowed for you before making your attack. We already know you can attack, then either execute the remainder of a full attack or move. A 5' step is considered "not an action" and takes no time.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I agree with you in principal - if taking Stunning Fist at all, then take it as the bonus feat.

However, based on my experiences with monks, the chances of Stunning Fist actually working are slim, so sacrificing the feat would not be the end of the world. That is, unless you intend to use the ability to power other abilities - my favourite being Weakening Touch (no save) from Complete Warrior.

The attraction of Stunning Fist in my estimation is that it synergizes with other PCs. It is a tactic best view as a team effect.

Even the big muscleheads you are likely to go toe-to-toe against are going to fail that save 20-30% of the time. Just keep at it and you will get lucky sometimes. When you get lucky, that poor sod will evaporate.

Grappling is very nice if you fight a lot of humanoids, though.

I think the most common error in building a Monk is to go high Dex. You want a good Wis obviously, but Str is approximately as important.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

You can ready an attack action to attack an enemy "when they start to attack me." You can include a 5' step as part of a readied action if you have not moved. So, enemy closes, you get an AOO from reach as they come in; the enemy is 5' and starts to attack, triggering your readied action. You do a 5' step back and attack. The enemy now resolves his attack, which is a miss (you are 10' away). Next turn you can either ready the same action, or just hit him at 10' range and then do a 5' back (putting you 15' away).

You are implicitly assuming that there is a moment in time when the attack has begun and is irrevocably commited to but before it resolves. The RAW is silent on that issue.

While you can play that way, it can make combat and Ready Actions devolve into a mindnumbing game of manipulating rules abstractions. Coming from me, that should give you pause. I could enjoy such a game with a little practice, but the majority of my friends would find it torture.

I prefer to use the mechanics as a means to resolve a narrative description. The MtG phase/sub-phase/LIFO/FIFO style resolution systems appear to contradict the narrative in ways most players find uncomfortable.

Player: "I run up and attack!"
DM: "Oh. You mean you do a Move + Stop Move + Start Attack + Resolve Attack?"
Player: "Uh. I guess."
DM: "The guard invokes his Readied action right after your Start Attack sub-phase. <Rolls dice> He hits you. Then steps 5' back."
Player: "He hits me? Okay. I continue moving up and attack him. I have a good 10 feet of movement available."
DM: "No, no, no. You already did your Stop Move sub-phase. And started you Attack phase with the Start Attack sub-phase."
Player: "Huh? I said I move up and attack."
DM: "That's not how this game works. I have this handy folder of flowcharts that explain. Look at diagram 3b."
Player: "The rules say I can run up and hit someone. None of those so-called phases in your flowchart exist in the rules as written."
DM: "It is what the rules really mean."
Player: "The rules say I can run up 20 feet, or 25 feet if necessary, and hit that guard. But you are saying the rules say that but do not mean that."
DM: "Yes."
Player: "This game sucks. I want to play D&D."

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I'm with pawsplay on this one: Stunning Fist is a decent ability....so long as it's used realisticly. Play a Mnk with high Str and decent Wis. Leave Dex for the Rog to play with.

I agree with you on this one. Stuns may be lucky events, but they will happen with regularity, even if not with predictability.

I do not know about this "the battle is over in 2 rounds" argument. If true, that says that every lucky 1st round Stun is almost as good as an instant kill as you removed an opponent for the majority of the combat.

 

[RedFox]

Why not? It is, after all, their turn. It is not a reaction.. it's a decision, in your turn, to take an action that is allowed for you before making your attack. We already know you can attack, then either execute the remainder of a full attack or move. A 5' step is considered "not an action" and takes no time.

Because you cannot take a 5' step in any round where you've taken any kind of movement already.

Now if they've just attacked without moving, maybe.

 

[Plane Sailing]

You are implicitly assuming that there is a moment in time when the attack has begun and is irrevocably commited to but before it resolves. The RAW is silent on that issue.

I agree.

I wouldn't consider two's suggestion to be a usable 'ready action' technique, and I'm pretty sure that none of the other DMs in our group would either!