D&D 3.x Monk 3.5

[Nail]

Of course!

 

[hong]

For example: How often do your PCs use the Balance, Climb, or Jump skill?

If you're playing a Mike Mearls adventure, too many times.

I keed, I keed! As I've said before, I love Mearls with all of my body, including my pee-pee. But he does have a thing for varied terrain.

 

[werk]

If you're playing a Mike Mearls adventure, too many times.

I keed, I keed! As I've said before, I love Mearls with all of my body, including my pee-pee. But he does have a thing for varied terrain.

My freshly made monk was mocked by DM and players alike for ranking up climb and jump, but when I had to get out of that frozen water well while grappling an ice mephit a couple of hours later...they still mocked me, but that's not the point!

 

[The Grackle]

Awhile ago we had an game where every single party member fell into the same 10" pit. No one could make the jump or climb out. In the end we had to fly and summon monsters to haul us out.
Decent ranks in climb/jump are always good.

 

[the Lorax]

Your build runs up against two contentious issues (which have probably already been mentioned in this thread but could stand restating):

1. You advocate Improved Natural Attack. There is disagreement as to whether (human) monks can qualify for it.

2. You advocate using two weapons (spear and unarmed strike), but I do not see any TWF feats on your list. Opionion is divided on whether you need to take TWF penalties just to threaten with two areas, or too attack.

Both these things have been dabted to death without much in the way of agreement several times over, but suffice it to say that the build wouldn't fly at my table*, or that of several others on these board.

The SRD is VERY clear on this, the Relevant text from the Monk Class (some areas italicized for emphasis) :

Unarmed Strike
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes.

Usually a monk’s unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but she can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on her attack roll. She has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons. ​

I really cant see any other interpretation of the text, but that is indeed an argument for a different thread, and an argument for the OP and OP's DM. Anyway, for OP if there is such a discussion between you and your DM, there is the info.

Again, the Long Spear is for AoO during the opponents turn and potential DR penetration (assuming a silver/cold iron/holy ect spear), the unarmed attacks are used during the monk's turn, no TWF strictly needed, but fine, if you are going to require the monk to take it at your table that is entirely your call.

Keep in mind there's a "disconnect" here in your position:

• Mnk's are good at mobility. They approach enemies from unexpected directions.
• Reach weapons are good for when the enemies approach the Mnk.

See it?
Right.

Actually those arn't contradictory. A Monk excels at killing softer targets (lots of low BAB attacks) and running down fleeing targets. If the Monk tumbles and jumps past the Mooks to get to BBEG sorcerer, you better believe that Mooks are going to come back to try to get the monk off of the BBEG sorcerer.

It's one of those "YMMV" issues. I like skills too...but I'll tell you, a Mnk can do fine without lots of them. Be honest with yourself about how often certain skill checks come up.

For example: How often do your PCs use the Balance, Climb, or Jump skill? How many times per meeting, on average? How does that change with PC level? Etc.

Absolutely true. If your DM never calls for skill checks beyond the occasional Spot/Listen/Search check, then skill points are not very useful. Me, I like providing varied terrain and situations that make haveing skill points useful. When I'm the DM, skills like Knowledge-Religion (for example) are useful beyond the +2 synergy they give out for having 5 ranks.

If you dont care for Rogue and sneak attack, Ranger is a VERY strong contender.

+1/3 BAB
-1/2 Will save
+8 Skill points
Favored Enemy
Track
Wild Empathy (this becomes a bit more useful at 18th when this character would get Tounge of Sun and Moon)
one level slower to get monk stuff
large additional weapon selection

*****

All of that being said, I had no intention of getting into a message board argument, I am interested in what the OP decided to do.

 

[Nail]

All of that being said, I had no intention of getting into a message board argument, I am interested in what the OP decided to do.

If so, you'd pro'ly better retract your "Mnks can clearly take INA" argument.

'Cause it ain't so clear.

...so please: Could everyone avoid arguing about Mnks and INA on this thread? Please, please with sugar on top? Just admit it's not clear either way, and move on. (If you are curious about how it is/isn't clear, I'd be happy to provide you with links to the longest threads on this topic.)

Please.

 

[Nail]

If your DM never calls for skill checks beyond the occasional Spot/Listen/Search check, then skill points are not very useful. Me, I like providing varied terrain and situations that make haveing skill points useful.

Sure.

So, last session, how many PCs used their Jump check?

 

[the Lorax]

If so, you'd pro'ly better retract your "Mnks can clearly take INA" argument.

'Cause it ain't so clear.

While I can't do that, I have no intention of such an argument. In the end, wheather you can or can't use INA is a discussion between the DM and the Player that the DM must decide what is OK at his table. Rule 0, rules!

Sure.

So, last session, how many PCs used their Jump check?

Last session? No Jump Checks. Two Balance Checks each (4 players). Several Climb checks. A couple of Swim Checks. Several Knowledge Checks (assorted). Several Search checks. A couple of spot/listen checks. At least 2 Escape Artist Checks. (I'm sure I'm forgetting some - last weekend was a no game weekend)

 

[Dr. Prunesquallor]

A recent "Rules of the Game" called "Unarmed Attacks (Part Two)" on 4/3/07 on the WOTC site by Skip Williams allows monks to take INA. FWIW. I seem to recall that some of his interpretations have been contested on these boards. (Long time lurker.)

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

Unless your have excellent teamwork, those kind of games get your friends killed.

IME, the majority of the time a PC is killed the real reason is because the team gets distracted (or dispersed by some magic, obstacle, etc.) and allows the bad guys to concentrate their attacks on a single PC for a couple rounds.

A Monk who is really really skilled at avoiding attacks completely is the very last person I want on my party because that is someone who likes blows to fall on his friends as a matter of habit. I want a teammate who shows good judgement on when to stand their ground and bleed -- that includes the Wizards!