Monks, Groovy or not so groovy?

[Gizzard]

I played a PHB Monk from 1st-6th under 3.0E and was very very disappointed. It's one of the great eternal debates on this board whether "Monks suck", and I've already partaken of that, so I wont rant here. (Except for this; I can't help myself: One thing when looking at whether the "Monk sucks" is to decide whether you are talking about PHB Monks or Monks+Add-Ons. Various splatbooks and 3rd party books make Monks not suck for instance.)

Anyway: something new:

Right now I am DMing a 3.5E game where a 12th level Monk and a 12th level Fighter hold the front line. The 12 Monk in a dungeon crawl has some good points which make him fun, but he can't hold a candle to the 12 Fighter in terms of damage output. As always, DR is the Monk's great nemesis. Still, the fact that he can run around all over the place is great tactically, and the fact that we are dungeon crawling means that ground mobility matters as opposed to arial mobility. The good saves are a distinct advantage at level 12 and the useful Skill set (Tumble!) can pay off.

Ultimately though, if the party had to choose either the Monk or the Fighter to champion them for the rest of the adventure, they'd chose the Fighter. (That's better than from levels 1-6 where the party would choose the Bard over the Monk... ;-) Calling them a "novelty class" is fair IMHO.

 

[shock the monkey]

Monks don't kick ass when a blow to the head would end the fight more quickly.

Never touched me.

 

[Li Shenron]

I've seen a couple of Monks so far and both seemed to be quite effective in melee combat, at least when focusing on special attacks such as stunning and tripping. In a party without rogues, the monk took the scouting role very well. They still however give me the feel of being much better at defense than anything else.

Although there is no problem with them gamewise, I agree with the ones who find monks pretty misplaced in a D&D standard setting. If I want eastern flavor, I'd rather play in oriental settings, which I think can be really nice. At least the monks players had the decency of playing the archetype of "human monk coming from distant land" - which however doesn't satisfy me completely since it forces the DM to have a distant "oriental" land in the world - instead of the nowadays ubiquitous demihuman monk, which completely turns me off flavor-wise.

 

[The_Universe]

Monks are very groovy. Their flavor is not overwhelmingly oriental, and they provide a good way to introduce some variety into combat. In my experience, monks are a lot more likely to use some of the more interesting combat options like trip and disarm, thus making combat something more than than "swing, hit, swing miss."

Also, the Half-Orc monk is a min/maxers best friend. We have one wh's dumb as a post, but wise as hell! He's a great character, as you can see if you check out the SH link in my sig.

 

[two]

trip monks

All this talk of making trip-happy monks in order to make monks effective (i.e. reach weapon + enlarge) or worse yet spike chain + enlarge is absurd. The "trip monkey" depends upon the very powerful 3.5 tripping capabilities, and the AOO present in 3.5 for standing up from prone, to be nasty.

And, needless to say, a fighter or barbarian does this better than a monk.

A fighter9 specialized in tripping owns a monk specialized in tripping. In fact, a fighter9 is a better potential grappler than a monk9 if you want to go the "armor spikes" route to hurt the enemy during grapples. (the fighter' BAB advantage is significant, more so at Fighter11 vs. Monk11 of course). The fighter has all the feat slots available to do this and more...

My take on it: if you want to make an obscene tripper, go Sorcerer1/FighterX for "enlarge", use of "enlarge wands", and a will save boost.

If you want to make an ur-grappler, go half-orc fighter/barbarian, rage and grapple, and get like, well, shocking sonic holy spikes on your armor or something.

If you want to survive nearly all battles, play a monk in the 2nd line of defense. Yeah team.

 

[vulcan_idic]

As a chronic player of monks (I've tried other classes, but none are as enjoyable as a Monk for me), I would say they're definitely goovy... I played a 3.0 Monk right through to 20th level and had a blast. I don't remember our group completely off the top of my head... I know we had a rogue, and I think we had a druid, and I think the other was a magic user of some stripe... so I was pretty much the martial character... which isn't to say I was a "tank"... I got the target's attention and tried to hold it while the others took it out from a distance for the most part... the rogue and I were an awesome team by 20th level - I'd zip around and give the rogue a flanked target and she'd sneak attack them away. I didn't hit all that often... but when I did they generally felt it. And outside of combat was a blast too... the character was extremely self confident and was a very rational person. They became, I think, an unofficial party "leader" simply by being the one who was never at a loss... whenever something happened they kept it together and helped the party deal with it...

 

[Felonious Ntent]

oops double post

 

[Felonious Ntent]

I agree completely. The monk class is the archetypal "5th wheel". And a "good monk build" often equates to "cheesy monk build" - the trip monkey with the reach weapon or the use of feats from non-core power-creep books like Complete Warrior. And the monk-as-arcane-spellcaster-mauler is a myth, IME. The monk can do good stuff, but he's a solo actor. And I can't recall a solo adventure ever being groovy.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

Funny I created a monk and maxed tumble along with other skills. With my high manuverablility I was very usefull in combat. I did decent damage could survive but I was every one's best friend in combat. Thief stcuk going toe to toe. I make my way in using tumble and bam thief now getting aditional sneak attack damage. Someone need something instead of withdrawing I would get it for them. Spell caster in back? Easy manouver way to him and now spell caster is trouble. etc.

Monk is a great suport character. You just have to drop the ego and realise you are there more to help out and make use of your manouverability.

EDIT
Not saying any person in particular has an ego just players of monks in general must realise the will not be da man.

 

[Henry]

The player of the Monk in our 3.5 Eberron game has definitely been enjoyable to watch. He's not the type to go out on field and do powerful things; however, he's the FIRST into a hazardous situation, and typically gets the killing blow on things that others have softened up. If you need a character to give chase and not let the enemy get away, send in the monk. Even barbarians don't have his range of movement. If you need a character to defuse traps for the party to enter, and the rogue is not handy, the monk takes the field. If you need a front-line fighter who can hold back the enemy, without getting hit, while the wizard dumps fireballs on said front lines, the monk is the choice.

Two sessions ago, our monk jumped into the front lines of a battle, and told the Artificer to dump fireballs on him. It didn't matter to him, because he wasn't about to take damage from the magic thanks to spectacular reflex saves, evasion, and hero points, and the enemy couldn't charge past the monk to get at the artificer.

 

[jazzer]

Well after a little soul searching and listening to comments i have decided to gone with a monk. I have gone for the non trip route, more for the disarm monk as most enemys dont fight well once you take there weapons away from them, our dm is more of a roleplay type(actually hes one of the best gm's i have seen in over 20 years of rp the amout of effort he takes in his games are amazing). Our sessions are quite rp heavy and i find monks to be a interesting character class . Anyway thanks for the points both good and bad. It was good to read both sides of the coin.