Worst 5th party member

[Mort]

I’ll have to agree with the majority here. The monk’s player is consistently frustrated with his character to the point where I’m considering letting him switch (of course that’s because he wanted to build a combat machine and monks, as he quickly found out, are anything but ).

 

[KnowTheToe]

Monk. The monk is also the worst 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th PC

Exactly.

 

[Al]

Monk.

The problem with the monk is that he isn't really a party-building character. The monk's strongest suit is mage-killing, but when you examine *why* he is good at mage-killing, his use to the party becomes minimal. The reason that the monk is good at mage-killing is because of his DEFENSIVE capabilities, not his offensive ones. Indeed, in terms of offense capabilities, the monk has perhaps the weakest in the game- primary fighting classes (barb, ftr, pal, rgr) can simply dish out more damage, rogues can trump if they can sneak attack and all of the primary spellcasters can easily dish out more damage.

Their defensive capabilities make them great for one-on-one mage-killing, but really suck at multiple enemy battles. The mage simply ignores the monk and blasts the rest of the party, soaking up the damage that the monk can hit him with. Even Stunning Fist, the monk's only real effective attack against a mage, is superseded by even low-level spells.

Solo, monk is a nice class. In terms of party games, it's all but pointless.

 

[Numion]

By the time we finished at 18th level, it got even worse. By this time, the paladin was now also a Dwarven Defender and a Templar and the cleric was also a Runecaster, and we had replaced the wizard with a Psychic Warrior.

Even with the additional focus on melee combat, the Dwarven Defender was still so slow he never made it into most melee combat because the monk and the psychic warrior would immediately jump the enemy and anything that tried to get past would get gunned down. The only time the dwarves ever got to bash on anything was when they finally got helms of teleportation.

Around level 12 everyone that wants them can buy Boots of Flying. Tends to even things out. I'd say that the Paladins ineffectines in your group made the Monk look better than normal.

In our games the monk proved incredibly hard to kill, but also got nothing done. Flurry of Blows quickly became Flurry of Misses.

 

[takyris]

I voted barbarian, not because barbarians are in any way bad, but because I see them as somewhat limited in application. As a 5th character, I'd be looking for someone who can meet multiple needs. A druid can be a good backup healer and a good backup damage-disher. A monk can do some damage and sneak fairly well. A bard is an ideal jack of all trades. But a barbarian, from what I've seen, is always just another damage disher. In a combat-heavy campaign, it'd probably be fine, and it might even be vital to have two tanks -- but in a more flexible campaign, I think you'd be better served by having someone who could handle melee decently and ALSO do something else -- like a ranger(sneaking), a paladin (healing/undead work), or a monk (sneaking).

Creative players will, of course, find a way around this.

 

[Thanee]

I really wonder how a monk would be suitable as a mage-killer.

Ok, the monk is a survivalist, but what does it help?

With minimal offense there is no threat and even the highest defense can be overcome with spells (and quite easily, actually - mid-level: Enervation, high-level: Otto's Irresistible Dance or Power Words).

Bye
Thanee

 

[wiseacre71]

Jeez, who called "dogpile" on the monk?

I've played one for the past two years, and he's saved the party's behind many times. Granted, my exuberant play sometimes meant that the party had to save his rear at times, but that's my fault, not the class itself.

What it all comes down to, though, is HOW you play a monk. Play one without imagination and panache, and sure, he's gonna suck. Any character will. But if you play it right, he (or she) can move through combat like a slippery bit of whupass. Stunning blows, improved trip, the ability to run down fleeing enemies, plus all of those great saves. I can't count how many times my monk was the only one who made his Will save--or his Reflex save--thus putting him in the position to save his helpless comrades. And what if your party has been disarmed? The monk is ALWAYS armed. It seems to me that 3.5 has made the monk even more viable as a 5th (hell, a 1st) party member.

Whew. As if I don't rant enough at work.

 

[Storminator]

I really wonder how a monk would be suitable as a mage-killer.

Ok, the monk is a survivalist, but what does it help?

With minimal offense there is no threat and even the highest defense can be overcome with spells (and quite easily, actually - mid-level: Enervation, high-level: Otto's Irresistible Dance or Power Words).

Bye
Thanee

Not true here. Enervation requires a touch attack, and mid level monk will have the best touch AC in the game, and those high level spells are shrugged off. Monks save like nobodies business. Area effect spells don't work either, since the monk has evasion and probably the best Ref save. So that leaves bashing, and the mage just can't do that, so nothing stops the monk from kicking him in the head.

And wizards don't have hp like fighters, so in a couple rounds, the wizard is out. The 3.5 Flurry of Blows really helps tho, with the reduced penalty. My 2nd and 3rd attacks are better than the fighters 2nd and 3rd attacks, even tho his 1st attack is better than mine.

PS

 

[Synicism]

Around level 12 everyone that wants them can buy Boots of Flying. Tends to even things out. I'd say that the Paladins ineffectines in your group made the Monk look better than normal. In our games the monk proved incredibly hard to kill, but also got nothing done. Flurry of Blows quickly became Flurry of Misses.

Actually, in our games, the fact that everyone could get items that allow use-activated flight proved fairly well irrelevant, even with Haste. Then again, most of our engagements started at very long ranges because the monk and the ranger/rogue had a tendency to scout and skirmish. A move of 90 isn't that impressive when battles tend to start with long-ranged skirmishing. The casters were OK because of their long-range spells and teleportation ability.

In our case, it was situational. Mobility, speed, and most importantly, stealth were key because we used them to start engagements at long ranges. I think we fought three stand-up brawls in the two years that the campaign lasted. The rest were ambushes and skirmishes where the key to our successes were stealth and artillery.

Not much room for a tank in that kind of battle plan.

In the few sessions where we actually ventured into a dungeon, the Defender became much more effective because he could plant in a passageway while the ranged fighters dished out the damage and mobile guys trying to get past the dwarf got caught by the Monk and the Psywar.

 

[Synicism]

comrades. And what if your party has been disarmed? The monk is ALWAYS armed. It seems to me that 3.5 has made the monk even more viable as a 5th (hell, a 1st) party member. Whew. As if I don't rant enough at work.

There is that. Hmmm... maybe I'll throw a spiked chain-wielding, Combat Reflexes-powered Sunder-monkey with a silversheened, adamantine, enchanted spiked chain. Weapons? What are those?