[??] A Question About Monks

[Chained Birds]

So I was wondering (Having only played 3.5, PF, and a tiny bit of 4e), has the Monk class ever been good? I hear Fighters can even be awesome in 4e and were pretty nice in the earlier additions, but I hardly ever hear about monks in a positive way.

So, has a straight Monk ever been viable? Was Monk even around back in the earlier additions?

[Daftendirekt]

4e monks are actually pretty awesome. Where most of the strikers are about focusing on taking down one guy at a time, monks hit a bunch of people at once and are easily one of the most mobile classes in 4e.

In 3.5.... they suck. The best monk isn't a Monk, as they say.

In Pathfinder, monks still usually suck, unless you take one of a handful of good archetypes; particularly the Zen Archer, which is surprisingly SAD (Wisdom) and gets loads of bonus feats.

[tyckspoon]

The first rendition of the Monk (somewhere in the 1e/OD&D soup of assorted books and sub-editions, IIRC) was pretty cool. 2nd Edition/AD&D did not have a Monk class, to the best of my recollection, but there were probably a few monk-like kits for Fighters and/or Rangers around. And if you applied a more sensible way to treat unarmed attacks as weapons, you could do an alright 'Monk' by playing a Fighter, specializing heavily in your fists, and using Bracers of Armor/a high Dex for your AC. The 3rd Edition Monk is really just a sort of perfect storm of new ideas that don't work like the designers thought and old ideas that no longer worked the way the designers were used to from AD&D; the suck level of it is really a historical oddity in the larger scale of D&D.

(Although 3/.5 has a large enough presence and mindshare now that a lot of people think of it as 'normal D&D', so there's that.)

[Averis Vol]

yea, sadly monks are bad (its sadly since they're one of my favorite classes) so what that resorts to is having to optimize like hell to make a character that works.

[Need_A_Life]

Monks are horribly MAD (Multiple Ability Dependency) in 3.5 (and Pathfinder), so you have to work against that.

The Sensei archetype in Pathfinder helps, by letting you dump strength for a non-maneuver based monk, but it's only a band-aid.

In 3.5, go Unarmed Swordsage, if you want the 'cool kung-fu guy' imagery with actual skill to back it up.
Alternatively, Monk 2/Psychic Warrior with the Tashlatora feat gets all the worthwhile things from Monk (unarmed strike damage, speed, evasion), while getting some serious benefits from psychic warrior (insane bonuses to grapple, trip and disarm, self-healing, bonus feats, pounce etc.).

In Pathfinder, I'm partial to dipping monk, adding a hint of Fighter and then going into a PrC of choice.
If your GM allows the 3rd party combat maneuver 'Sever Limb,' then going Maneuver Master monk is possibly the most powerful choice for a class, ever.

[Callyn]

The Monk is pretty good in 4e. It's not the machine gun of killing that the Ranger is, but it's still a good striker.

[marcielle]

A more detailed explanation on the Zen archer: It gets you half the archery feat tree as the FoB replacement and the other half as Bonus feats letting you have most of the tree without dropping many level up feats into it freeing a lot of feats for other things. It also changes your archery stat to Wis, eliminating much need for Dex and Str, meaning the only stats you really need are Wis and Con, though some Str is still nice, bringing your attribute dependancy to a level second only to casters.
Oh, and you have full BAB whenever you make a full attack (when it matters the most).
All that coupled with the general betterness of archery in PF would move the monk to high Tier 4, even without considering what feats you take. While not ideal for new players, it can actually do archery well while still having some room to do other things. They have a small problem with DR but special material arrows are easier than full weapons since you'll still have all the enchantments of your bow.

[Rickshaw]

also zen archers get to use thier unarmed damage in place of arrows by spending a single ki point, meaning that even if you only go up to 5th level your arrows can do (assuming medium size) 2d6 damage (with a monk's robe/belt and superior unarmed strike.) add any one of the many enhancements to bows that are available, and you can take down most enemies in a couple rounds.

[Rift_Wolf]

Also at high levels Zen Archer threatens squares. Coupled with combat patrol, this makes Zen Archer very cheesy very quickly.

I kinda like PF monks, not so much for their damage output, but their insane grappling ability. Throw a 100 monsters at a sorcerer and he'll laugh in your face. Throw a monk with the WTH dimensional headlock ability, and watch him whine about cheating and OP monsters.

[Amphetryon]

1e Monks were cool, if squishy at low levels.

2e Monks weren't a thing, but you could import a 1e Monk with very little trouble, or play a particular Cleric "kit" to emulate the Monk.

3e Monks were an Akhbar-sized TRAP, because they looked shiny (had something offered at every level) but had abilities that were both MAD and at odds with each other (I move very fast, and have to stand still to use my most 'iconic' ability, which itself doesn't work well). Some dipping functionality, to be fair.

3.5 Monks were spelled S-W-O-R-D-S-A-G-E. :smallwink:

I'm not familiar enough with Pathfinder or 4e to offer educated opinions.

[marcielle]

If it can't summon a horde of angels, man, it ain't cheesy:smallbiggrin:

[Urpriest]

To echo others, 4e Monk is a solid enough striker with good mobility. It doesn't scale all that well at higher levels due to not being a weapon user, but at low levels it's actually pretty competitive.

[Answerer]

It's not an edition of D&D, but it is a d20 game based on the OGL, and has a Monk class: the Legend Monk was actually overpowered. Discipline of the Serpent was ridiculous. It has been (or shortly will be) nerfed, though.

[WinWin]

The first edition AD&D Monk looked fairly effective as a front line fighter at a higher level, due to damage and number of attacks. Actually playing one would require a ridiculous and improbable set of attribute rolls though, just to meet the basic attribute requirements. 15str, 15dex, 15 wis, 11 con.

Their damage started off as underwhelming (1d3+half level, base), but could become very serious (8d4+8 base) and they gained multiple attacks per round at a rate exceeding the warrior classes. Their best feature was the ability to Stun targets, when any attack roll exceeded AC by 5 or more, with a percentage change to outright kill opponents they Stunned.

Add to that a number of defensive abilities, and they certainly had a lot of potential to be highly effective combatants, especially against numbers of chaff or high AC opponents.

2e did not have a monk class until the release of Spells and Magic. It was a priest variant, with an incremental AC bonus, Unarmed Specialization and access to some funky priest spheres (Time, Guardian, Numbers and Thought), as well as access to 'universal' priest spells, plus the combat, healing and divination spheres. A fairly potent combination of information gathering and buff spells, with a few limited offensive spells in there as well (though they could cast Flame Strike).

There was also a Fighting Monk kit, which could technically be applied to any Priest class(Druid, Necromantic Priesthoods, Cleric, Shaman, Crusader...and Monk). It traded out some sphere access and the ability to wear armour, for unarmed specialization and some bonus proficiencies.

The 2e monks were fairly effective, self buffing combatants, regardless of whether you were using the class, kit or both.

[Baron Corm]

Monk was the best class in Neverwinter Nights if that counts as a version. AC was so high that having multiple attacks with Flurry of Blows was the best offense you could get, Perfect Self gave mind-affecting immunity which was nice, and if you went straight monk you had very good spell resistance, which mattered a lot due to no assay spell resistance, and almost no spells that didn't offer spell resistance.

Some of that may apply to 3.0, because it was mostly based off of 3.0, but I'm not sure. I didn't play PnP until 3.5.

In 3.5, if you focus on improving your unarmed strike damage, levels of monk can still be very worthwhile. Superior Unarmed Strike, Improved Natural Attack, Fist of the Forest, Initiate of the Draconic Mysteries, a monk's belt, and size increases will make you a very heavy hitter. Some of the most powerful of those effects are based off of a monk's unarmed strike specifically.

[Daftendirekt]

Monk was the best class in Neverwinter Nights if that counts as a version. AC was so high that having multiple attacks with Flurry of Blows was the best offense you could get, Perfect Self gave mind-affecting immunity which was nice, and if you went straight monk you had very good spell resistance, which mattered a lot due to no assay spell resistance, and almost no spells that didn't offer spell resistance.

Some of that may apply to 3.0, because it was mostly based off of 3.0, but I'm not sure. I didn't play PnP until 3.5.

In 3.5, if you focus on improving your unarmed strike damage, levels of monk can still be very worthwhile. Superior Unarmed Strike, Improved Natural Attack, Fist of the Forest, Initiate of the Draconic Mysteries, a monk's belt, and size increases will make you a very heavy hitter. Some of the most powerful of those effects are based off of a monk's unarmed strike specifically.

Yeah, that's a funny thing about D&D Online as well; Monks are actually really good if built correctly. The 'no moving and full attacking' thing is gone; replaced with Monks simply attacking much faster than anybody else. They're often #1 or 2 on the list of most kills.

[deuxhero]

A more detailed explanation on the Zen archer: It gets you half the archery feat tree as the FoB replacement and the other half as Bonus feats letting you have most of the tree without dropping many level up feats into it freeing a lot of feats for other things. It also changes your archery stat to Wis, eliminating much need for Dex and Str, meaning the only stats you really need are Wis and Con, though some Str is still nice, bringing your attribute dependancy to a level second only to casters.
Oh, and you have full BAB whenever you make a full attack (when it matters the most).
All that coupled with the general betterness of archery in PF would move the monk to high Tier 4, even without considering what feats you take. While not ideal for new players, it can actually do archery well while still having some room to do other things. They have a small problem with DR but special material arrows are easier than full weapons since you'll still have all the enchantments of your bow.

Huh? It gives most of the archery tree as monk bonus feats and Flurry of Blows replaces the Rapid Shot line in effects.

Of course, ZAM doesn't actually work due to the really stupid retcon on flurry rules.

Sohei is another archetype of interest for dippers. One level gets you ANY mounted combat feat as a bonus feat you don't need to qualify, and 2 gets a second (Mounted Skirmisher is quasi pounce and great). You'll need Horse Master or Boon Companion to not lose mount advancement though.

[Baron Corm]

I just want to note to that the unarmed swordsage blurb in ToB is meant to be taken as a suggestion, not as-is. It's in the same paragraph as an arcane spellcaster swordsage that no one ever talks about because it's slightly more obvious that it's just a suggestion.

The Tashalatora build requires a feat, and taking psionic classes. Not every builds needs what psionics offers, or wants to spend the feat.

I wouldn't say a monk is overwritten by either. Monk in 3.5 is spelled M-O-N-K for me :smallsmile:.

[Ravens_cry]

The Tetori (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/tetori) Monk archetype from Pathfinder has me a little excited.
Unlike other grapplers, it breaks the assumptions of the game by letting you use effects that negate anti-grapple defences common to magic users, and some feats, like Jawbreaker (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/jawbreaker-combat), are just brutal. Can't cast spells with a mouth of teeth, little magic man!
Others in the line are even nicer.

[Acanous]

Tetori Monk is called Luchadore in my group. We've even invented a custom feat which allows you to ignore miss chance so long as your opponent has never seen you unmasked.

[Ravens_cry]

Tetori Monk is called Luchadore in my group. We've even invented a custom feat which allows you to ignore miss chance so long as your opponent has never seen you unmasked.
What is the logic behind that?:smallconfused:
Still, Luchadore. Monk.
I love it!
Wouldn't be the first time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fray_Tormenta).:smallbiggrin:

[deuxhero]

Tetori Monk is called Luchadore in my group. We've even invented a custom feat which allows you to ignore miss chance so long as your opponent has never seen you unmasked.

Best! Fluff! Ever!

[Acanous]

Unmasking a Luchadore is a big thing. A Masked Luchadore is like Batman, you don't know who he is or what he can do. The Luchadore puts part of his personality into the creation of his mask, and uses it as much to drive him as to inspire fear in his enemies.
While an opponent has not seen a Luchadore unmasked, he cannot distinguish the reality of the man from the superego of his masked persona, granting the Luchadore the ability to strike true where others would find simply air, by striking the very psyche of his opponent.

Mechanically, There's some precident, with at least one PrC based on inheriting abilities from masks. This one is simply the ability to ignore miss chance.

[Chained Birds]

What is the logic behind that?:smallconfused:
Still, Luchadore. Monk.
I love it!
Wouldn't be the first time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fray_Tormenta).:smallbiggrin:

I am reminded of Los Tiburons from 4chan's /tg/. He was made famous for pinning a Dragon, mid-air, and living to lucha another day. By the way, he was level 3 at the time. :smallcool:

[CIDE]

To continue with the trend for 2nd AD&D the sensei kit for the psionicist class is an awesome monk sub. Basically it's a Tashalatora build for AD&D. Granted, it's from the Dark Sun campaign setting but it's awesome to play with (only recently jumped on this bandwagon).

As for 3.X/PF? I guess just avoid tier 1 classes in the party?

Edit: For that Sensei Kit also it gets full casting like a psionicist. So my earlier statement is wrong. It's more like a Psion with unarmed damage progression rather than a Tashalatora monk. My bad.

[Answerer]

A Psion can take Monastic Training and Tashalatora to get Wis to AC and full Unarmed Strike progression.

[Bahamut Omega]

As was previously stated, Monks are annoying MAD. That said, they can be pretty decent caster killers assuming you allow them to be even more MAD and don't allow Int to also be a dump stat. The reason for this is monks with a lot of skill points in mobility based skills such as climb, jump, swim, etc. can much more easily approach a caster who is attempting to throw hindering terrain in the way.

Combined with all good stats and ideally a good touch AC, and you might be able to pierce the defenses and grapple the wizard. I guess you're screwed, though, once Freedom of Movement arrives, but until then monks are really good at screwing casters by forcing them into grapples. I strongly recommend if you do this to have a wizard cast enlarge person or some other spell that'll significantly improve your grappling.

[Chained Birds]

Well, it was good to hear that Monks were okay in some of the earlier games and are viable in 4e.

My main reason for bringing this up was to see if any additions did a good job with them, and to determine whether WotC can be nice to our unarmored friend. Hopefully 5e will make them a decent class.

[charcoalninja]

I'm running a PF game right now, the guys just hit 6th level. The party is a sorcerer, Cleric, Rogue, Monk, now added a bard and a fighter and I have to say, all this hogwash about monks being bad is just that. Hogwash.

Our Dwarf drunken master monk is our cheif tank and flank buddy with our rogue. he deals the most damage, is a stealth scout with the rogue, and when all alse fails grapples minotaurs into the ground. He has the second highest AC in the group, staying power through a robust CON and strong saving throws.

I was expecting to see him lag behind or be a bit of a weakling but to be honest, our drunken dwarf is the backbone of the party. He's an absolute beast.

Mind you, my group has a higher than average statline, but that benifits everyone equally.

So I can say with confidence that the pathfinder monk is NOT REMOTELY a weak link from 1-6 at least.

[Daftendirekt]

I'm running a PF game right now, the guys just hit 6th level. The party is a sorcerer, Cleric, Rogue, Monk, now added a bard and a fighter and I have to say, all this hogwash about monks being bad is just that. Hogwash.

Our Dwarf drunken master monk is our cheif tank and flank buddy with our rogue. he deals the most damage, is a stealth scout with the rogue, and when all alse fails grapples minotaurs into the ground. He has the second highest AC in the group, staying power through a robust CON and strong saving throws.

I was expecting to see him lag behind or be a bit of a weakling but to be honest, our drunken dwarf is the backbone of the party. He's an absolute beast.

Mind you, my group has a higher than average statline, but that benifits everyone equally.

So I can say with confidence that the pathfinder monk is NOT REMOTELY a weak link from 1-6 at least.

It's entirely possible that your group just has a low average of optimization, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Dwarf is probably the best race for monks (+Con and +Wis, with the penalty being in Cha... the ever-dumped-stat). And yeah, if built properly they can be solid enough at low levels; it's just at high levels that they lag behind when the casters start being able to warp reality and such.

[Amphetryon]

It's entirely possible that your group just has a low average of optimization, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Dwarf is probably the best race for monks (+Con and +Wis, with the penalty being in Cha... the ever-dumped-stat). And yeah, if built properly they can be solid enough at low levels; it's just at high levels that they lag behind when the casters start being able to warp reality and such.

This is true. It could also be partly the opposition faced at low levels. For example, some groups will run up against invisible or flying opposition often enough at levels 3 and up to make the Monk have some trouble engaging the enemy, and some find those challenges coming later, or so rarely as to be the exception rather than the norm.

[ThiagoMartell]

2nd Edition/AD&D did not have a Monk class, to the best of my recollection, but there were probably a few monk-like kits for Fighters and/or Rangers around.
Baldur's Gate II had a Monk class, it was quite good.
The only Monk kit I know of in 2nd edition was a Cleric kit, btw.

[charcoalninja]

It's entirely possible that your group just has a low average of optimization, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Dwarf is probably the best race for monks (+Con and +Wis, with the penalty being in Cha... the ever-dumped-stat). And yeah, if built properly they can be solid enough at low levels; it's just at high levels that they lag behind when the casters start being able to warp reality and such.

Lagging behind the casters is hardly a fair condemnation of the monk considering EVERYONE lags behind the casters at high level.

[Daftendirekt]

Well, they tend to lag behind other melee as well; melee that has less stats that it needs to keep high in order to compete. Now, assuming anything other than the Zen Archer (which is nearly SAD-Wisdom)... you need STR for your melee attacks, DEX and WIS in whatever mix you like for AC, CON to survive. Rogues can do well with just DEX and INT (and of course CON. Everybody wants CON). Fighters and Barbarians don't even really need to worry that much about DEX or INT, making them even easier to build.

[CIDE]

I'm running a PF game right now, the guys just hit 6th level. The party is a sorcerer, Cleric, Rogue, Monk, now added a bard and a fighter and I have to say, all this hogwash about monks being bad is just that. Hogwash.

Our Dwarf drunken master monk is our cheif tank and flank buddy with our rogue. he deals the most damage, is a stealth scout with the rogue, and when all alse fails grapples minotaurs into the ground. He has the second highest AC in the group, staying power through a robust CON and strong saving throws.

I was expecting to see him lag behind or be a bit of a weakling but to be honest, our drunken dwarf is the backbone of the party. He's an absolute beast.

Mind you, my group has a higher than average statline, but that benifits everyone equally.

So I can say with confidence that the pathfinder monk is NOT REMOTELY a weak link from 1-6 at least.

The higher AC isn't exactly uncommon at those levels depending on the money distribution. Everyone else requires MOAR money in order to get better AC. Which, eventually, they probably will. The monk on the other hand simply requires their ability mods and class features and that's about all they get.

And doing the most damage is pretty much the same thing. Depending on the fighter Archetype then you're still looking at money for equipment. Rogues CAN be damage dealers when properly optimized. Most arcane casters are very poorly optimized if you're going for straight damage rather than battle field control. Clerics depend entirely on the build as well.

All in all this only further supports that the player is a huge part of the power of the character. You just need a considerably better player for Monk to work. Or....worse players for everything else not to work.

[Acanous]

There's a number of reasons monks suck, but with the right optimization, and a solid party backing them up, they can be made to not suck.

They can't be made to be game breaking or awesome, but they can be made to not suck.

[ThiagoMartell]

They can't be made to be game breaking or awesome, but they can be made to not suck.

Any class can be made to be broken with wealth by level alone. Or Pazuzu.

[Doorhandle]

I kinda like PF monks, not so much for their damage output, but their insane grappling ability. Throw a 100 monsters at a sorcerer and he'll laugh in your face. Throw a monk with the WTH dimensional headlock ability, and watch him whine about cheating and OP monsters.

Well DURRR. Conversion of ninjitsu, everyone! (also, why doesn't he have freedom of movement already?!)

That said the Tetori, particularly with chokehold and rapid grapple, is amazing, as you can't rely on somatic or verbal components to save you. Bone breaker+ it's kin helps too, what with the hilariously wimpy strength on most casters.

You can perform similar tricks and a few new ones with barbarians, strength surge and spell-sunder (for F.o.M,) but the Tetori is still king of the graboids.

[Bahamut Omega]

Mind you, my group has a higher than average statline, but that benifits everyone equally.

I'm not sure if this is true, but I wouldn't be surprised if having higher than average stats does benefit everyone equally. Monks, Paladins and other MAD classes, I think, would get more benefit out of having higher stats than a SAD class like a Wizard. Having high strength, dex, con, intelligence, and wisdom makes those classes play to their full potential. Having high strength, dex, con, intelligence, and wisdom simply boosts the related generic features for a wizard, but doesn't make as significant a difference for them as it does a monk.

[Chained Birds]

Well DURRR. Conversion of ninjitsu, everyone! (also, why doesn't he have freedom of movement already?!)

That said the Tetori, particularly with chokehold and rapid grapple, is amazing, as you can't rely on somatic or verbal components to save you. Bone breaker+ it's kin helps too, what with the hilariously wimpy strength on most casters.

You can perform similar tricks and a few new ones with barbarians, strength surge and spell-sunder (for F.o.M,) but the Tetori is still king of the graboids.

I would like to see the Tertori Monk + Spell-sunder Barbarian combo team vs a team of spellcasters. Maybe a Zen Archer Monk for backup, using Held Actions to disrupt the spellcasters.

[TuggyNE]

I'm not sure if this is true, but I wouldn't be surprised if having higher than average stats does benefit everyone equally. Monks, Paladins and other MAD classes, I think, would get more benefit out of having higher stats than a SAD class like a Wizard. Having high strength, dex, con, intelligence, and wisdom makes those classes play to their full potential. Having high strength, dex, con, intelligence, and wisdom simply boosts the related generic features for a wizard, but doesn't make as significant a difference for them as it does a monk.

I assume you mean higher-than-average stats don't benefit everyone equally, for the reasons you gave.

Realistically, once a SAD class has gotten its 18 in casting stat, it's content with whatever; a MAD class can keep benefiting significantly from increased stats much longer.

[Rift_Wolf]

Well DURRR. Conversion of ninjitsu, everyone! (also, why doesn't he have freedom of movement already?!)

That said the Tetori, particularly with chokehold and rapid grapple, is amazing, as you can't rely on somatic or verbal components to save you. Bone breaker+ it's kin helps too, what with the hilariously wimpy strength on most casters.

You can perform similar tricks and a few new ones with barbarians, strength surge and spell-sunder (for F.o.M,) but the Tetori is still king of the graboids.

Freedom of Movement is on the clerics spell list; the party was a barbarian, 2 paladins and a sorcerer. However, the sorcerer in my game wasn't much for the buffing anyway; he had invisibility, and haste, that was it. He had blink, but never used it, even when the Oni monk (Who'd previously killed him) turned up during a fight, then, in full view of the sorcerer, turned invisible. No glitterdust either, despite two enemies turning invisible during that fight. He had a ring of wizardry II as well. I guess I shouldn't complain; it's much better than an over-optimiser wrecking my campaign.

Having looked at bone/neckbreaker, I can safely say that would result in many flipped tables if I threw it at the party. Especially if it was caster heavy.
"I'm a wizard, I'm the best class in the g-" *krrkt* "I'm a monk, and you shouldn't go to sleep with a Strength of 7 after you've annoyed me."

[Bahamut Omega]

I assume you mean higher-than-average stats don't benefit everyone equally, for the reasons you gave.

Realistically, once a SAD class has gotten its 18 in casting stat, it's content with whatever; a MAD class can keep benefiting significantly from increased stats much longer.

You assume correctly. By the RAW, I believe a character using the default races can't start with any stat greater than 20 (including racial bonuses), so once a SAD class gets themselves to that point, the rest is just for grins.

In other news, I think Monks should absolutely get the Mettle ability. Maybe at 3rd level. I would accept a house rule proposal for that with no equivalent loss.

[T.G. Oskar]

Yeah, that's a funny thing about D&D Online as well; Monks are actually really good if built correctly. The 'no moving and full attacking' thing is gone; replaced with Monks simply attacking much faster than anybody else. They're often #1 or 2 on the list of most kills.

"If built correctly"? It's pretty hard to make a bad Monk, compared to making a bad Paladin or a bad Ranger.

Monks in DDO have LOTS of potential builds. Monks with the Fire stance can deal quite a bit of damage, Monks with the Wind stance and going Path of Ineffable Dominion are often considered some of the top DPS builds, and monks following the Earth path not only get some serious damage potential, but also some resilience potential (DR, HUGE amounts of HP, insane Fort saves). Add to that the elemental attacks and finishers, plus the combinations between elements and philosophies (Wind + Light + Wind, for example, grants a 1 minute blur effect), and you get a pretty complex character.

It's hard to make a bad Monk, however, because the core chassis is actually pretty strong. Noted: they're still MAD, but in DDO being MAD isn't necessarily so bad. You do need a decent amount of Strength, Dexterity, Constitution and Wisdom, but fortunately the stances work in boosting that (and stacks with enhancement bonuses to stats), plus the enchanted handwraps (despite how broken they are) and outfits give them relative benefits to other classes.

Oh, and they're the characters who can reach the highest AC in the game, even more than Fighters and Paladins. I kid you not.

That goes without mentioning that they still are incredible dips (the only way you can beat a full Monk as a tank is becoming a Paladin with 2 Monk levels, for Wis to AC and Evasion on top of Divine Grace), but a full 20 level Monk build is viable in DDO (and at times, more than viable). The only problem (and the reason why they're so good) is that you have to pay money to get them (or get a lot of Turbine Points), so they always get a lot of support.

[Dusk Eclipse]

You assume correctly. By the RAW, I believe a character using the default races can't start with any stat greater than 20 (including racial bonuses), so once a SAD class gets themselves to that point, the rest is just for grins.

In other news, I think Monks should absolutely get the Mettle ability. Maybe at 3rd level. I would accept a house rule proposal for that with no equivalent loss.

Unless pathfider changed that, I don't recall any rule in any book stating you had a hard cap on stats at generation. It is relatively easy to have more than 20 even in a core only game (PH+MM+DMG) Old-age High Elf ( the elven subrace with +2 Int, -2 Str) with starting 18 in Int gets you 22 from the start. With sources from outside core you can do it on other stats (Dragonborn mongrelfolk gives a +6 con IIRC) or Water orc for a +4 str, etc.

Now many DM's think that those kinds of stats are too powerful and are in their right to houserule some hard cap on stats at character generation (I disagree with them BTW; but I like high-power and high-optimization games so yeah).

[Bahamut Omega]

I always thought using the age rules that way was cheesy, but you're correct. There is a cap, though, on starting stats before applying racial adjustments at 18 per page 169 of the DMG. However, if I were the DM I'd strongly enforce the encumbrance rules on you. Assuming a point buy method, your other stats must've suffered for that 18, add on top the age penalties, I definitely won't allow you to be carrying more than your max (which is probably not too much).

Speaking of encumbrance, why doesn't having medium or heavy encumbrance incur a penalty for spell failure? Given how it's described, it really ought to.

[deuxhero]

There's also the issue of DMs disliking having PCs start as old for thematic reasons, especially for long lived races (The ancient evil that threatened the land 200 years ago? I remember it like it was yesterday...).


Also:High Elf is the default PHB elf. You are thinking of Gray Elf.

There's also the issue of carrying capacity making such pretty hard to pull off in game. If your point buy is 11/13/15/18/8/8 (32 point buy), after the -1 from middle age -2 from old age and -2 str from gray elf, you have 6/10/10/20/10/10, which gives a capacity of 20 pounds. Standard "adventuring" clothes are 8 pounds, spellbook is 3 pounds and Handy Haversack is 5 pound. If your point buy was any lower, you couldn't even do that AND you would have negative con and dex. I do like the mental image of a frail Wizard that has to physically exert himself if his familiar lands on his shoulder.

[olentu]

There's also the issue of DMs disliking having PCs start as old for thematic reasons, especially for long lived races (The ancient evil that threatened the land 200 years ago? I remember it like it was yesterday...).


Also:High Elf is the default PHB elf. You are thinking of Gray Elf.

There's also the issue of carrying capacity making such pretty hard to pull off in game. If your point buy is 11/13/15/18/8/8 (32 point buy), after the -1 from middle age -2 from old age and -2 str from gray elf, you have 6/10/10/20/10/10, which gives a capacity of 20 pounds. Standard "adventuring" clothes are 8 pounds, spellbook is 3 pounds and Handy Haversack is 5 pound. If your point buy was any lower, you couldn't even do that AND you would have negative con and dex. I do like the mental image of a frail Wizard that has to physically exert himself if his familiar lands on his shoulder.

Starting clothes don't count.

[deuxhero]

PF says it doesn't count for GP cost, but says nothing about weight. AFB so can't tell for sure on 3.5, but encumbrance on the SRD says nothing about clothes not counting.

[olentu]

PF says it doesn't count for GP cost, but says nothing about weight. AFB so can't tell for sure on 3.5, but encumbrance on the SRD says nothing about clothes not counting.

Ah pathfinder, where nudity is optimal.

[deuxhero]

Can I get a quote on where your clothes don't count against encumbrance?

[olentu]

Can I get a quote on where your clothes don't count against encumbrance?

Oh it is not all clothes, only a specific subset. Anyway PHB page 131.

[deuxhero]

Still AFB, can I get an excerpt?

[Togo]

Monks can work fine, if you play them right.

The most obvious trap for a monk is get a relatively poor set of stats, pour most of them into wisdom, and then expect to do well against a single high AC damage dealing opponent.

Think of them as light infantry/rogues in combat, and you'll avoid that problem. People often turn to monk when they want an invulnerable martial artist, like in the movies, and that's better done with a straight melee class. Monk is more like a ninja - you get all these manoevre and special attack abilities, which if you aren't using, are a drain.

My advice for monk builds - decide at the beginning if you actually want stunning fist. If not, dump wisdom. It adds to your AC, sure, but so does Dex, Dex does other stuff as well, and more of your attacks and special abilities are geared towards Strength in any case.

[LordBlades]

Monks can work fine, if you play them right.

And by 'play them right' you mean 'find a DM willing to put the kids' gloves on for you?


The most obvious trap for a monk is get a relatively poor set of stats, pour most of them into wisdom, and then expect to do well against a single high AC damage dealing opponent.

This is somewhat correct, too many monk players tend to prioritize Wisdom above all else. Not that the monk would do well vs. a single high AC hitter with all 18s either.


Think of them as light infantry/rogues in combat, and you'll avoid that problem. People often turn to monk when they want an invulnerable martial artist, like in the movies, and that's better done with a straight melee class. Monk is more like a ninja - you get all these manoevre and special attack abilities, which if you aren't using, are a drain.

So your suggestion is to try and turn the monk into a sub-par rogue?


My advice for monk builds - decide at the beginning if you actually want stunning fist. If not, dump wisdom. It adds to your AC, sure, but so does Dex, Dex does other stuff as well, and more of your attacks and special abilities are geared towards Strength in any case.

If you're starting at low-levels, you will probably die if you try this because you're basically doing melee with the AC of an unbuffed wizard.

[Togo]

And by 'play them right' you mean 'find a DM willing to put the kids' gloves on for you?

Sorry not sure what you mean. By 'kid gloves' do you mean that the DM is making monsters weaker, or do you mean he's given you free access to every broken power in every expansion book under the sun, or that he's ignoring plot constraints and treating every encounter as a static challenge that has no time limit, or that he's giving the party free advice, or that he's using powerful monsters but playing them badly, or that he's stacking detection and encounter distance in your favour, or was that just an attempt to sneer at monks?

Honestly, I can't tell what you mean.


This is somewhat correct, too many monk players tend to prioritize Wisdom above all else. Not that the monk would do well vs. a single high AC hitter with all 18s either.

He wouldn't? Why not? At that point he has the same AC and hp as a fighter in full plate with more standard stats, and does almost as much damage.


So your suggestion is to try and turn the monk into a sub-par rogue?

Ok, you're not familiar with the term light infantry?

It comes up a lot in tournament games and team competitions where access and stats are limited, and you need to make hard decisions about what you're good at. A light infantry is someone who hits hard but doesn't have the stamina to hold a line, or to face off against a heavy hitting opponent. A meat sheild is the opposite - someone who can hold a line and take hits, but isn't so good at the killing the monsters thing.

In general being good at one or the other isn't always enough. I'd generally prefer to have them have another skill set. Stealth, grapplng, trip fighting, utility spells, something like that.

I played with a Dutch group that had light infantry down to a fine art. They'd run a group of two light infantry, one light infantry gish, and then a healer/buffer. They cooridinate initiative until they're all acting together, and then rush the monsters all at once. Most encounters went down in a single round. They also played with a stopwatch - they had all trained together to get their entire round of actions resolved in less than a minute. Those tournament dungeons where you see how far you get in a set time? They'd own those.

But they weren't very tough characters, and they knew that, and they chose tactics where it wouldn't matter so much. Interesting bunch.


If you're starting at low-levels, you will probably die if you try this because you're basically doing melee with the AC of an unbuffed wizard.

Well you don't want to stand toe to toe with a big heavy hitter any more than the mage does. And why are you unbuffed?

[LordBlades]

Sorry not sure what you mean. By 'kid gloves' do you mean that the DM is making monsters weaker, or do you mean he's given you free access to every broken power in every expansion book under the sun, or that he's ignoring plot constraints and treating every encounter as a static challenge that has no time limit, or that he's giving the party free advice, or that he's using powerful monsters but playing them badly, or that he's stacking detection and encounter distance in your favour, or was that just an attempt to sneer at monks?

Honestly, I can't tell what you mean.

By kid's gloves I mean generally protecting you from failure. Designing encounters that often play to your strengths and almost never exploit your weaknesses, dumbing down monsters that would most likely annihilate you if played to their in-game mental stats etc. It's not a monk only problem, many weaker classes need similar amounts of cuddling.






He wouldn't? Why not? At that point he has the same AC and hp as a fighter in full plate with more standard stats, and does almost as much damage.

He actually has the same AC as a fighter with 10 dex in full plate. Most fighters in full plate will go for 12 dex, and therefore pull ahead. Not significantly though. Still the AC of a THF fighter isn't exactly his strong point either. The assumption of 'almost as much damage' is also quite exaggerated tbh. For starters you hit significantly worse than a fighter (at a given level you have between -3 and -5 to hit on your best attack compared to a fighter of same level and stats with Flurry), and your damage per hit is also lower. A greatsword swing does 2d6+1.5*str, whereas your damage varies between 1d6+str and 2d10+Str(which for a str score of 26 or more, is less than 2d6+1.5*str).




Ok, you're not familiar with the term light infantry?

It comes up a lot in tournament games and team competitions where access and stats are limited, and you need to make hard decisions about what you're good at. A light infantry is someone who hits hard but doesn't have the stamina to hold a line, or to face off against a heavy hitting opponent. A meat sheild is the opposite - someone who can hold a line and take hits, but isn't so good at the killing the monsters thing.

In general being good at one or the other isn't always enough. I'd generally prefer to have them have another skill set. Stealth, grapplng, trip fighting, utility spells, something like that.

The thing is D&D doesn't work that way. There's plenty of things that hit hard but also have tons of staying power. So having a character than can do only one of the two is having a rather weak character. To leave casters out of it, consider a barbarian (doesn't even have to be the Whirling Frenzy, Leap Attack and Shock Trooper build, you can take a plain PHB one). He deals a lot more damage and has way more staying power than a monk.


I played with a Dutch group that had light infantry down to a fine art. They'd run a group of two light infantry, one light infantry gish, and then a healer/buffer. They cooridinate initiative until they're all acting together, and then rush the monsters all at once. Most encounters went down in a single round. They also played with a stopwatch - they had all trained together to get their entire round of actions resolved in less than a minute. Those tournament dungeons where you see how far you get in a set time? They'd own those.

But they weren't very tough characters, and they knew that, and they chose tactics where it wouldn't matter so much. Interesting bunch.

High damage glass cannons may function under certain conditions (like a DM who never throws something similar against the party, then you stand a good chance of going down before you act), but in a game where building high damage tanks is so easy, a high damage glass cannon will always be at a disadvantage.




Well you don't want to stand toe to toe with a big heavy hitter any more than the mage does. And why are you unbuffed?

Unfortunately, if you want to melee, you have to. Apart from some very specific builds, dashing in and out of melee in the same round means forfeiting tons of damage potential. If you want to lay some hurt on somebody and you don't one-shot him, you're going to be right there on his turn, and he can retaliate.

As for why you'd be unbuffed? I was talking about level 1 mainly (a monk with dumped wisdom is unlikely to make it to level 2, unless he just hangs back with shurikens), and the wizard usually doesn't have the slots to spare for the castings of Mage Armor that would bring you on par with a rogue AC-wise.

[Amphetryon]

Still AFB, can I get an excerpt?

As olentu said, PHB p.131: "A beginning character is assumed to have an artisan’s, entertainer’s, explorer’s, monk’s, peasant’s, scholar’s, or traveler’s outfit. This first outfit is free and does not count against the amount of weight a character can carry."

[Togo]

By kid's gloves I mean generally protecting you from failure. Designing encounters that often play to your strengths and almost never exploit your weaknesses, dumbing down monsters that would most likely annihilate you if played to their in-game mental stats etc. It's not a monk only problem, many weaker classes need similar amounts of cuddling.

What, like low-level wizards? :smallwink:

No, nothing like that. Starting monks aren't too bad. I don't see how you could have got that from what I said.


He actually has the same AC as a fighter with 10 dex in full plate. Most fighters in full plate will go for 12 dex, and therefore pull ahead. Not significantly though. Still the AC of a THF fighter isn't exactly his strong point either.

It's not either class' strong point.


The assumption of 'almost as much damage' is also quite exaggerated tbh.

Wait, also? You just agreed there was no significant difference, now you're calling it exaggeration?


For starters you hit significantly worse than a fighter (at a given level you have between -3 and -5 to hit on your best attack compared to a fighter of same level and stats with Flurry),

But they're not the same stats. The monk has all 18s, and the fighter doesn't. That's what you said.

I was assuming the example of a 1st level monk used earlier (see below). At the level, the advantage of higher stats is greater, and assuming an 18 versus a 14-15 strength, the advantage in hitting is actually to the monk. Str 16 and they're both the same. Flurry can only ever be an advantage, as you can flurry or not depending on the situation.

Damage favours the fighter, due to better weapons. A greatsword's 2d6 versus a quarterstaff's 1d6 is only partly mitigated by the monk's greater strength. Both fighting two handed, the fighter does 2d6+3 or 2d6+4, while the monk does 1d6+6, so a one or two point advantage to the fighter there.

At higher levels the advantage of a better stat range is less. At 10th level, the difference to hit is one or two points in favour of the fighter, although the monk has gained a extra attack at no penalty. Damage gets more complicated, since the it depends on what feats each have, and the AC of the target gets more critical.

In general, the monk is far better at fighting low AC targets than fighting high AC targets. In general the fighter is also a better combatent, which is only to be expected considering that's all he does.



The thing is D&D doesn't work that way.

Well, they do pretty well at tournaments, so maybe they know something you don't?


There's plenty of things that hit hard but also have tons of staying power. So having a character than can do only one of the two is having a rather weak character. To leave casters out of it, consider a barbarian (doesn't even have to be the Whirling Frenzy, Leap Attack and Shock Trooper build, you can take a plain PHB one). He deals a lot more damage and has way more staying power than a monk.

Sure, but he can't sneak well, isn't as good in a tar-baby grapple, and doesn't have the special abilities. So in fights he's the stronger choice, but if there's anything else to worry about, your team may lose. There was an all-tank party in the same tournament, and they didn't do as well, largely because they suffered when it came to the underwater section. A tourney team can lose to the fights, or it can lose to not having the right skills or abilities.

Fighting well is a trade off. You don't want to pay too much for it and cripple your team in other areas.




Well you don't want to stand toe to toe with a big heavy hitter any more than the mage does. And why are you unbuffed?

Unfortunately, if you want to melee, you have to. Apart from some very specific builds, dashing in and out of melee in the same round means forfeiting tons of damage potential.

So a monk wouldn't ever use reach weapons, thrown attacks, grapple an opponent, or simply receive a charge (thus only suffering a single attack) and the full attack, with the intention that the team as whole will put the opponent down that round?

Maybe we mean something different from standing toe-to-toe. You have to get in melee range, sure, but you don't want to be trading blows if you can help it.


If you want to lay some hurt on somebody and you don't one-shot him, you're going to be right there on his turn, and he can retaliate.

Only if he's still alive.


As for why you'd be unbuffed? I was talking about level 1 mainly (a monk with dumped wisdom is unlikely to make it to level 2, unless he just hangs back with shurikens),

So hang back if it's a high damage high AC opponent. Swap stories with your wizard buddy, your rogue buddy, and possibly your cleric buddy (depending on build). Ideally, you don't want anyone to be standing next to that kind of monster.


and the wizard usually doesn't have the slots to spare for the castings of Mage Armor that would bring you on par with a rogue AC-wise.

Save up, buy a wand. Split the cost with the wizard and you can both use it.

[LordBlades]

What, like low-level wizards? :smallwink:

No, nothing like that. Starting monks aren't too bad. I don't see how you could have got that from what I said.

Low level wizards don't need to get into enemy's face to use their class abilities. And if they're paranoid they can get Abrupt Jaunt. But yeah, a not too optimized wizard is somewhat squishy at level 1.




It's not either class' strong point.

Fair point.


Wait, also? You just agreed there was no significant difference, now you're calling it exaggeration?

Bad phrasing on my part. What I wanted to say was something like 'yeah, they have nearly the same AC, but no, they don't deal similar damage'.




But they're not the same stats. The monk has all 18s, and the fighter doesn't. That's what you said.

I was assuming the example of a 1st level monk used earlier (see below). At the level, the advantage of higher stats is greater, and assuming an 18 versus a 14-15 strength, the advantage in hitting is actually to the monk. Str 16 and they're both the same. Flurry can only ever be an advantage, as you can flurry or not depending on the situation.

Damage favours the fighter, due to better weapons. A greatsword's 2d6 versus a quarterstaff's 1d6 is only partly mitigated by the monk's greater strength. Both fighting two handed, the fighter does 2d6+3 or 2d6+4, while the monk does 1d6+6, so a one or two point advantage to the fighter there.

At higher levels the advantage of a better stat range is less. At 10th level, the difference to hit is one or two points in favour of the fighter, although the monk has gained a extra attack at no penalty. Damage gets more complicated, since the it depends on what feats each have, and the AC of the target gets more critical.

In general, the monk is far better at fighting low AC targets than fighting high AC targets. In general the fighter is also a better combatent, which is only to be expected considering that's all he does.

I never implied the fighter has all 18's, merely an 18 str. 18 12 14 8 10 8 is an acceptable 28 PB array for a fighter IMO. or 16 12 14 10 14 8 and go half-orc(or full (water)orc if it's not PHB only).

RE: flurry being only an advantage: without flurry you're usually one attack behind the fighter.

RE: monk being better at fighting low AC targets, most fighters probably have Power Attack (it's one of the best fighter bonus feats you can take, both core and non-core).





Well, they do pretty well at tournaments, so maybe they know something you don't?

Glass cannon builds do quite well in games for 2 reasons: first of all, offense is a very good form of defense. What's dead can't hurt you. Secondly, most monsters aren't glass cannons by default.It's quite hard to be one-shotted by a monster straight from the books, so you usually survive even if the enemy gets the drop on you.
Thing is, for a given array of offensive options, you can, with enough optimization skill add enough defenses so that you're nigh-invulnerable. And I think you'll agree that a character with an offensive power of X that can withstand 2000 hits is superior to a character with an offensive power of X that dies in 2 hits.

[Amphetryon]

Low level wizards don't need to get into enemy's face to use their class abilities. And if they're paranoid they can get Abrupt Jaunt. But yeah, a not too optimized wizard is somewhat squishy at level 1.
Could you - or Togo, or anyone else - name a particular Class (not a specific build, which speaks to optimization ability) that isn't at least somewhat squishy at level 1 in 3.5? For example, a Class that wouldn't have to worry about a single critical hit from a bog-standard, CR 1/2, Orc dropping it (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/orc.htm)?

[tyckspoon]

Could you - or Togo, or anyone else - name a particular Class (not a specific build, which speaks to optimization ability) that isn't at least somewhat squishy at level 1 in 3.5? For example, a Class that wouldn't have to worry about a single critical hit from a bog-standard, CR 1/2, Orc dropping it (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/orc.htm)?

Crusader, and even that can get punched into negatives with a full-damage crit. (d12 HD, 16 Con, 5 point delayed damage pool = 19 damage capacity, 29 if you count the down-but-not-dead range.) It can survive it to get healed, tho, which is more than most classes can claim, and it stays on its feet against an average damage roll.

[ThiagoMartell]

Crusader, and even that can get punched into negatives with a full-damage crit. (d12 HD, 16 Con, 5 point delayed damage pool = 19 damage capacity, 29 if you count the down-but-not-dead range.) It can survive it to get healed, tho, which is more than most classes can claim, and it stays on its feet against an average damage roll.

Crusader has d10 HD. Even a Dwarf Crusader with Con 20 (15 hp, 5 points of delayed damage pool) would be in trouble, though.

[tyckspoon]

Crusader has d10 HD. Even a Dwarf Crusader with Con 20 (15 hp, 5 points of delayed damage pool) would be in trouble, though.

Herp. Right, it's Warblade that got the 12.

[Amphetryon]

Crusader has d10 HD. Even a Dwarf Crusader with Con 20 (15 hp, 5 points of delayed damage pool) would be in trouble, though.

Dragonborn Mongrelfolk might make it, but that's pretty specific.

[Togo]

RE: flurry being only an advantage: without flurry you're usually one attack behind the fighter.

Not true 1-5 (both have one)
True at 6-7 (Fighter has one extra)
Not True at 8 (Both have 2)

Past that point flurry no longer gives a penalty.


RE: monk being better at fighting low AC targets, most fighters probably have Power Attack (it's one of the best fighter bonus feats you can take, both core and non-core).

The trade off between two handed fighting and relying on mutiple attacks is an old and complicated one, and I don't want to rehash it here. I'll just say:

At 20th level, the fighter attacks are 20/15/10/5
The monk's attacks are 15/15/15/10/5

The advantage to hit isn't that huge. The fighter is giving up two attacks for +5 to hit on a single blow. It's mainly feats and equipment, at high level.

The reason why the fighter is better off overall, is because of all the times you can't full attack.



Glass cannon builds do quite well in games for 2 reasons: first of all, offense is a very good form of defense. What's dead can't hurt you. Secondly, most monsters aren't glass cannons by default.It's quite hard to be one-shotted by a monster straight from the books, so you usually survive even if the enemy gets the drop on you.
Thing is, for a given array of offensive options, you can, with enough optimization skill add enough defenses so that you're nigh-invulnerable. And I think you'll agree that a character with an offensive power of X that can withstand 2000 hits is superior to a character with an offensive power of X that dies in 2 hits.

Sure, but most tournament games weild the banhammer hard enough to stop nigh-invulnerable builds.

[Rift_Wolf]

Could you - or Togo, or anyone else - name a particular Class (not a specific build, which speaks to optimization ability) that isn't at least somewhat squishy at level 1 in 3.5? For example, a Class that wouldn't have to worry about a single critical hit from a bog-standard, CR 1/2, Orc dropping it (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/orc.htm)?

Halfling Cleric with 14 Dex, Chainmail, Heavy wooden shield, with Shield of Faith prepared for an AC of 23, 24 if you take dodge as your feat. While he may threaten a crit, he'd be hard-pushed to confirm it.

Okay his HP is probably 9-10 and a regular hit could drop them if the d4s are against you (Curse those dicebag caltrops and their mean ways)

[Loxagn]

In D&D, Monk has, it seems, rarely been very powerful (in the editions I've played). This was infuriating to me, because I grew up on Final Fantasy and my favorite character class was Paladin, with Monk a very, very close second.

You can imagine my dismay to find that my two favorite character archetypes were both horribly underpowered, especially when I was used to them being very powerful and very effective.

Over time, I grew to understand their weaknesses, and I really wanted to see them shine.

Swordsage was nice, and it preserved the Monk flavor, but it still left the actual Monk class quite lacking.

Then a friend linked me to Frank Trollman's Tomes, and there was much rejoicing. Melee classes had nice things, my two most beloved classes could genuinely compete with more powerful ones, and good times were had by all.

[deuxhero]

As olentu said, PHB p.131: "A beginning character is assumed to have an artisan’s, entertainer’s, explorer’s, monk’s, peasant’s, scholar’s, or traveler’s outfit. This first outfit is free and does not count against the amount of weight a character can carry."

Thanks. Odd that it applies to the outfit and not the "worn" status.

[Amphetryon]

Halfling Cleric with 14 Dex, Chainmail, Heavy wooden shield, with Shield of Faith prepared for an AC of 23, 24 if you take dodge as your feat. While he may threaten a crit, he'd be hard-pushed to confirm it.

Okay his HP is probably 9-10 and a regular hit could drop them if the d4s are against you (Curse those dicebag caltrops and their mean ways)

That's a specific build, is it not?

[Bahamut Omega]

Improved Grapple monks are pretty awesome until the monsters start getting too big to have a practical chance to grab. Depending on how you read the grapple rules, a monk in grapple has the opportunity to use flurry of blows to damage their opponent, so a 1st level monk can reasonably get two grapple checks to deal their unarmed damage plus strength modifier every turn.

A same level two handed weapon fighter is in serious trouble if this happens. They're likely to be a few points behind the monk for their grapple bonus, and should they win the grapple check, they only get out, they don't get to attack. The monk can just grab them with a flurry of grabs and put them back to square one pretty much on a whim.

[LordBlades]

Could you - or Togo, or anyone else - name a particular Class (not a specific build, which speaks to optimization ability) that isn't at least somewhat squishy at level 1 in 3.5? For example, a Class that wouldn't have to worry about a single critical hit from a bog-standard, CR 1/2, Orc dropping it (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/orc.htm)?

All level 1 characters are ultimately squishy and most of them fail the 'survive a crit from an orc' test. It's one of the 2 reasons I don't play at level 1. I dislike seeing a perfectly good character going down the drain just because random orc #234 got lucky.

However, lower HD classes (like wizards and rogues) don't even pass the 'survive a critical hit from a kobold/goblin' test. A goblin with a small morningstar crits for 2d6, average 7 damage, max 12. A kobold with a small spear does the same for 3d6-3, average 7.5, max 15. Most 1st level wizards don't have over 7 HP, and most 1st level rogues (or other d6 classes) probably don't go over 10.