Worst 5th party member

[Leopold]

i voted barbarian. Reallly it's a fighter with more hp's and a lower AC. Monk is quite useful in all situations if you play him right.

 

[Synicism]

The main complaint I see about Barbarians is really a complaint about playstyle. Charging recklessly with no regard for personal safety will get any character killed. Barbarians who do not play this way are some of the best characters to have in a party.

I've rarely ever had a Barbarian survive long because they are *so* optimized for melee combat that they never survive to get there. Combine a crappy AC with a scary amount of offensive firepower and you wind up with a half-orc pincushion because the bad guys fill him full of arrows so fast he drops.

If the barbarian charges, he gets filled with holes and drops.

If he stands in the line with the fighters, paladins, and clerics, he has the highest damage output and worst AC, so he gets filled with holes and he drops.

Since he isn't stealthy like the ranger, monk, or rogue, he can't keep up with them as skirmishers, so he gets filled with holes and he drops.

Sense a trend here?

Granted, the games I've been in involve lots of skirmishing, which a barbarian, paladin, or fighter ain't so hot at, and our most effective combatants turn out to be rangers, monks, and the occasional (very scary) rogue/barbarian.

 

[Al]

Getting involved in mage/monk battles is not the issue, irrespective of buffs- though I would probably have to concede that before around 15th level the monk would win in a straight-up battle.

The problem is thus- the mage simply ignores the monk altogether and targets the rest of the party. Now, the monk may very well save with his Will +23 or Fort +30 or whatever (though do remember that a decent paladin build has the best saves in the game, not a monk). The point is that the rest of the party doesn't, and the mage can dust off much of the party whilst the monk flails at him. In terms of offensive capabilities, the monk is probably the weakest class in the game- probably even weaker than the 3.5e bard. Only rogues against undead/constructs fare worse, a specific scenario loaded against that particular class. Make a good dual-wielder build and a good monk build. Compare and contrast.

High defense + Low offense makes a good solo character, when the survival of the protagonist is paramount. However, in a party game, the success of the party is paramount. It is no good that monk beating a few HPs off the mage every round if the mage wastes the rest of the party then teleports off. The much vaunted Stunning Fist can be circumvented by a simple 4th level spell. Even in the 'ideal' scenario- against a lone arcane caster, the monk is contributing less to the party than, say, a divine class.

Against non-ideal scenarios, the monk is in real trouble. Unlike the primary casters, he cannot damage multiple opponents, so opponents with lots of opponents causes him trouble. Against tanks, he will get squashed- no questions asked. Against a decent combat rogue build, it's actually a close call as to who wins in a straight-up fight, and with multiple rogues it's no contest.

Ironically, the best monk path is a twinky Mnk1/XXX, which prevents further advancement in the class. Sure, monk gets a slew of superficially nifty abilities, but in a party-based campaign, the party is better off getting someone else.

 

[Storminator]

Even a +100 save doesn't help, if you don't get one!

Yeah, looked that up last night. Sort of felt stupid.

That's a lot (is that including defensive fighting and expertise?)... but nothing a quickened True Strike can't handle!

That's just walking around. Wait til I Haste, Dodge and fight defensively. My monk isn't smart enough for Expertise. But you still need to roll well, even with a True Strike.

Now that's something I seriously doubt (except for the hp probably)!

Damage I've certainly got you (2d10 + 2d6 +9 per attack, 6 attacks per round), Attack we're probably close, with my four +27 attacks, but my AC is the mid 40s, and close to 200 hp (after Endurance)

What's wrong with Stoneskin? It's a good spell unless you enter really high level play, where even monks have +5 weapons!

I play 3.5, baby! Monks bypass Stoneskin for free.

You can't dimension door, grapple. After changing locations your action ends. And even if you would grapple the mage, he will simply use dimension door to free himself.

I Dimdoor, and if you want to do more than withdraw, you draw the AoO, and I grapple. Then I pin you and prevent you from speaking. That's a nifty 3.5 trick.

Must be it!

Bye
Thanee

PS

 

[Thanee]

Damage I've certainly got you (2d10 + 2d6 +9 per attack, 6 attacks per round), Attack we're probably close, with my four +27 attacks, but my AC is the mid 40s, and close to 200 hp (after Endurance)

*lol*

I really don't want to think about how a wizard would look like at that power level!

What character level is that monk of yours?

I play 3.5, baby! Monks bypass Stoneskin for free.

Ah, ok. Didn't know about that! I've yet to find out many of the more subtle changes in 3.5, but Stoneskin isn't really important, it's just a nice additional protection.

I Dimdoor, and if you want to do more than withdraw, you draw the AoO, and I grapple. Then I pin you and prevent you from speaking. That's a nifty 3.5 trick.

Defensive Casting was a nifty 3.0 "trick" and I'm sure it still is in 3.5!

And you can use that spell once per day only. So after you used up yours and the mage used up his (metamagically silenced, of course - just in case), there's nothing left for your monk to do against the beforementioned Phantom Steed, right?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Rashak Mani]

Well in the defense of the monk I must say they are great for disarming traps... the dangerous way. Monks have absurd reflex saves and so they make neat rogue substitutes by running ahead and setting off most traps. That is how we are overcoming our lack of rogues in the group

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

G
High defense + Low offense makes a good solo character, when the survival of the protagonist is paramount. However, in a party game, the success of the party is paramount. It is no good that monk beating a few HPs off the mage every round if the mage wastes the rest of the party then teleports off. The much vaunted Stunning Fist can be circumvented by a simple 4th level spell. Even in the 'ideal' scenario- against a lone arcane caster, the monk is contributing less to the party than, say, a divine class.

Against non-ideal scenarios, the monk is in real trouble. Unlike the primary casters, he cannot damage multiple opponents, so opponents with lots of opponents causes him trouble. Against tanks, he will get squashed- no questions asked. Against a decent combat rogue build, it's actually a close call as to who wins in a straight-up fight, and with multiple rogues it's no contest.

Well put.

My personal opinion is that for a low level game, I would choose a Warrior classed character as the 5th party member over a Monk.

As a practical matter, a character whose primary contribution is melee needs to be able to stand his ground to buy his friends time in a tight combat. The Monk fails at this role in two respects. (1) The Monk's offense is sufficiently weak at all levels that savvy grunt opponents can realistically bypass the Monk for bigger game. (2) When it comes to good old fashion rumbles the Monk's defense is too way too soft to stay put.

As a player, you may or may not enjoy playing a monk. But you should recognize that you may well be reducing the enjoyment of the other players if your character turns out to be dead weight.

(I am really confining to typical play levels: 1-15 in my book. A monk is an excellent character at very high level play because there is so much nasty, nasty magic being thrown about that layered defenses become very attractive.)

 

[Storminator]

*lol*

I really don't want to think about how a wizard would look like at that power level!

What character level is that monk of yours?

<SNIP>

Bye
Thanee

He just hit 17th level, but I've got a template for a +2 ECL. So we're bordering on epic. I'm a bit behind the others in the group because I spent some XP on Wishes (our DM lets us spend the XP costs for other's spells/item creation if we do it during down time) to bump his DEX, and I started the campaign a bit later than the rest.

One thing about high level combats tho, is that most of the action is over in a couple rounds. If an enemy wizard (that's throwing out 7th and 8th level spells) spends a round to get ready for me, a round to attack me, and a round to get away from me, I've done my job. By the end of those three rounds, my pals have won the other half of the fight, and they can start to gang up on the wizard.

I tried this tack once on a high level cleric, tho, and let say it did NOT work. Got my tail kicked, and hard. I'd much rather fight a wizard.

PS

 

[Psiblade]

From our 3.5 campaigns, I think the monk adds the least to the party. Still better than 3.0, I hope the character will improve with levels.


-Psiblade

 

[Thanee]

He just hit 17th level, but I've got a template for a +2 ECL. So we're bordering on epic.

Ok, 19th level is surely a lot!

One thing about high level combats tho, is that most of the action is over in a couple rounds.

In my experience, high level combat is mostly determined by the initiative roll and spellcasters. Especially with stuff like Time Stop around.

I tried this tack once on a high level cleric, tho, and let say it did NOT work. Got my tail kicked, and hard. I'd much rather fight a wizard.

Hehe. Yes, clerics are absolutely nasty in high levels, too!

Bye
Thanee