airwalkrr
Adventurer
As I mention in this thread, I think the system for determining CR is flawed and needs some adjustment. So I want to see what ideas other people have for doing this. What do you think can be done?
Last edited:
Re-Vamping Challenge Ratings
- Thread starter airwalkrr
- Start date
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I don't think the CR system is broken, just that the CR of some creatures isn't correct. Since there are no rules for determining CR, there is no system to be broken, rather some of the creatures just aren't at the right point. Since "equally powerful" (whatever that means) but differently powerful groups might find the same encounter mroe or difficult depending on party composition. A group with lots of ranged attacks/spells and fly magic will have an easier time with an aerial encounter then a group with mostly groundpounders. That's not a flaw in CR, that's natural variation in groups.
As for examples fromt he other threat like the outsider that fights like a 9th level fighter, casts like a good caster, and has a bunch of immunities, that is only CR 8 ... I'll say sure there are some creatures that the CR isn't appropriate. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, the system does what it's supposed to (give a rough guideline of how nasty a monster is), even if some examples are flawed.
Cheers,
=Blue
As for examples fromt he other threat like the outsider that fights like a 9th level fighter, casts like a good caster, and has a bunch of immunities, that is only CR 8 ... I'll say sure there are some creatures that the CR isn't appropriate. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, the system does what it's supposed to (give a rough guideline of how nasty a monster is), even if some examples are flawed.
Cheers,
=Blue
airwalkrr
Adventurer
How I would do it
Here's my opinion on how this idea needs to be started. In the above-mentioned thread, I point out that most character classes provide relatively similar challenges compared to other classes of the same level. I think this needs to be used as a starting point. I think it is most apparent that a lot more time has been spent making sure the PC classes balance against each other than in making sure the monster CRs balance against NPC CRs. Before I begin, let me first address some potential refutations for this being a poor place to start.
Battling a fighter requires different abilities than fighting a cleric.
Quite true. With a few exceptions (fighter/barbarian, sorcerer/wizard), most character classes provide widely different playing experiences compared to each other and require widely different tactics to overcome in combat. Against bards, the healthiest defense is a silence spell and a big weapon. Against wizards, an anti-magic field or spell resistance would be in order. The catch is, the abilities required to successfully beat these classes are found at every level. At low levels, a party might use the aid another action to improve their chances of hitting a high AC fighter NPC. At middle levels, a party might use stoneskin to lessen the fighter's blows. At high levels, they might disjoin the fighter's magical equipment. The point is, each class has weaknesses that can be exploited at every level and those are fairly balanced against each other. There's no class that is virtually impossible to defeat until you reach Xth-level.
Character classes aren't balanced against each other; monks are wimps. How is a monk equally as challenging as a barbarian?
This is a very good point. Many classes have different power curves. A fighter, for example, progresses very evenly from 1st to 20th level in what I would call a linear progression. A wizard however, gains increasing power each time he gains a new spell level. This is somewhat offset by the fact that he only gains a new spell level every other level, but nevertheless his power increases by what I would call an exponential progression. So by the time the barbarian is using greater rage, a monk in the meantime has become one of the most difficult classes to kill in the game.
Why don't I think this is a big deal? Usually because there are balancing factors. Magic items are some of the biggest factors. For instance, a wizard has the advantage of fly, but a barbarian can simulate that with winged boots. Second, although power curves for classes may be very different, they average out over time. Consider the strength of a 1st-level fighter over that of a 1st-level wizard. From a PC's point of view, a wizard is going to run out of spells long before the fighter is going to run out of hit points and armor class. From an NPC's point of view, a wizard is going to run out of spells before he inflicts much major damage; after that his only defense is a lucky critical hit with a crossbow or staff. However, by around 10th-level, the wizard gains the ability to really hold his own against the fighter. He has more defensive spells at his fingertips and he can finally deal an even amount of damage as the fighter each round, and usually to a wider area. By 20th-level, a wizard has surpassed the fighter in power. He can deal more damage, boost his AC and hp to impressive levels, transform into creatures capable of melee combat, and even alter reality on a limited scale. The fighter is still usually a crucial part of any PC party, but by this point, the wizard is a bit tougher than a fighter of equivalent level. However this difference is not enormously pronounced. Fighters of this level usually have magical defenses that protect them so while not quite as versatile, they still have more staying power.
Monsters are supposed to be tougher than NPCs. Everyone knows NPCs are a weaker fight but they are supposed to be smarter.
First of all, this is an overgeneralization. Most NPCs may be smarter than a minotaur, but orc NPCs usually aren't. For that matter even wizards have a hard time rivaling the intelligence of mind flayers. I think the intelligence of a creature (i.e. how effective the creature ought to be played) is part of what can make it difficult or easy. However that should apply as equally to NPCs as it does to monsters. Barbarians are difficult because they mindlessly charge and wreak havoc upon hit points. Wizards are difficult because they plan for every contingency and always have just the right spell prepared. Likewise, you wouldn't expect a good melee with a spell-weaver any more than you'd expect an ooze to try to flank you.
Now that I've addressed these concerns, let me get to the meat of my explanation. First of all, I think the NPCs from the DMG should be used as a baseline. They are all balanced in the sense that they have the same value of magical equipment at each level, they all use an elite array for ability scores, and most of all, they are all based on what I consider to be one of the most balanced aspects of the game: the relative power of character classes to each other. Hence, each one ought to be a comparable challenge to a party of typical PCs at each level.
I think there are two ways to go about doing this. The first is a bit unscientific. It involves examining a monster's abilities and seeing which class it behaves most like. A babau might be compared to a rogue, a mind flayer to a wizard. From there, you look at the creature's most powerful abilities, AC, hp, saves, ability scores, etc. and see which level of NPC that creature is most similar to. Although this system is enormously useful in cut and dry situations (like comparing ogres to barbarians), it is tricky to use with some creatures who are rather abnormal. How would you classify an aboleth? Are they more like wizards or more like fighters? What if they aren't really more like one class than another?
I feel the second approach is more realistic, but it involves more work. Each creature should be evaluated on the following criteria: hit dice, AC, average damage, saving throws, spells/special abilities, and magical gear. Thereafter, each criterion should be assigned a score that is an indicator of what level that criterion is appriximating.
The score for hit dice is simply the number of hit dice the creature has.
The score for AC should be assigned based on that creature's primary role. If it is primarily a melee combatant, then its score should be measured against the classes who excel in melee (barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger, monk). The lowest level at which an AC the creature has is available should be the score for AC. If the creature is similar to two different types of classes (such as a fiend with lots of spell-casting and good melee) then compare to the two types of classes and take the average.
Average damage should be compared similarly to AC. For creatures that either don't deal damage or use spells and special abilities as their primary means of overcoming combat, skip this criterion.
Saving throws should be compared similarly to AC. Each saving throw needs to be determined individually based on whether that is an in-class saving throw or not. So a creature with a good Fort save progression should have its Fort save compared to other classes with good Fort saves and the lowest level such a save is achieved used as the score. Once a score for each saving throw has been determined in this way individually, the result is averaged.
Spells and special abilities should be measured up to the spell-casting classes. A score should be assigned based on the level that the most powerful abilties of the creature can be approximately duplicated using the lowest level caster possible.
Finally, any magic gear included in the creature's entry needs to be taken into account. The average value for a monster's treasure should be included in this part of the score is the monster usually utilizes its treasure to its advantage somehow (like how a dragon might wear the magical rings and amulets in his hoard).
When all of these scores are determined, they should be averaged. Finally, the size of the creature should be taken into account. Unless a creature's small size plays upon a strength, the size should modifier the CR accordingly by +1 for each size greater than medium and -1 for each size smaller than medium. The final score reflects the CR of the creature, as based upon comparison to the character classes.
Here's my opinion on how this idea needs to be started. In the above-mentioned thread, I point out that most character classes provide relatively similar challenges compared to other classes of the same level. I think this needs to be used as a starting point. I think it is most apparent that a lot more time has been spent making sure the PC classes balance against each other than in making sure the monster CRs balance against NPC CRs. Before I begin, let me first address some potential refutations for this being a poor place to start.
Battling a fighter requires different abilities than fighting a cleric.
Quite true. With a few exceptions (fighter/barbarian, sorcerer/wizard), most character classes provide widely different playing experiences compared to each other and require widely different tactics to overcome in combat. Against bards, the healthiest defense is a silence spell and a big weapon. Against wizards, an anti-magic field or spell resistance would be in order. The catch is, the abilities required to successfully beat these classes are found at every level. At low levels, a party might use the aid another action to improve their chances of hitting a high AC fighter NPC. At middle levels, a party might use stoneskin to lessen the fighter's blows. At high levels, they might disjoin the fighter's magical equipment. The point is, each class has weaknesses that can be exploited at every level and those are fairly balanced against each other. There's no class that is virtually impossible to defeat until you reach Xth-level.
Character classes aren't balanced against each other; monks are wimps. How is a monk equally as challenging as a barbarian?
This is a very good point. Many classes have different power curves. A fighter, for example, progresses very evenly from 1st to 20th level in what I would call a linear progression. A wizard however, gains increasing power each time he gains a new spell level. This is somewhat offset by the fact that he only gains a new spell level every other level, but nevertheless his power increases by what I would call an exponential progression. So by the time the barbarian is using greater rage, a monk in the meantime has become one of the most difficult classes to kill in the game.
Why don't I think this is a big deal? Usually because there are balancing factors. Magic items are some of the biggest factors. For instance, a wizard has the advantage of fly, but a barbarian can simulate that with winged boots. Second, although power curves for classes may be very different, they average out over time. Consider the strength of a 1st-level fighter over that of a 1st-level wizard. From a PC's point of view, a wizard is going to run out of spells long before the fighter is going to run out of hit points and armor class. From an NPC's point of view, a wizard is going to run out of spells before he inflicts much major damage; after that his only defense is a lucky critical hit with a crossbow or staff. However, by around 10th-level, the wizard gains the ability to really hold his own against the fighter. He has more defensive spells at his fingertips and he can finally deal an even amount of damage as the fighter each round, and usually to a wider area. By 20th-level, a wizard has surpassed the fighter in power. He can deal more damage, boost his AC and hp to impressive levels, transform into creatures capable of melee combat, and even alter reality on a limited scale. The fighter is still usually a crucial part of any PC party, but by this point, the wizard is a bit tougher than a fighter of equivalent level. However this difference is not enormously pronounced. Fighters of this level usually have magical defenses that protect them so while not quite as versatile, they still have more staying power.
Monsters are supposed to be tougher than NPCs. Everyone knows NPCs are a weaker fight but they are supposed to be smarter.
First of all, this is an overgeneralization. Most NPCs may be smarter than a minotaur, but orc NPCs usually aren't. For that matter even wizards have a hard time rivaling the intelligence of mind flayers. I think the intelligence of a creature (i.e. how effective the creature ought to be played) is part of what can make it difficult or easy. However that should apply as equally to NPCs as it does to monsters. Barbarians are difficult because they mindlessly charge and wreak havoc upon hit points. Wizards are difficult because they plan for every contingency and always have just the right spell prepared. Likewise, you wouldn't expect a good melee with a spell-weaver any more than you'd expect an ooze to try to flank you.
Now that I've addressed these concerns, let me get to the meat of my explanation. First of all, I think the NPCs from the DMG should be used as a baseline. They are all balanced in the sense that they have the same value of magical equipment at each level, they all use an elite array for ability scores, and most of all, they are all based on what I consider to be one of the most balanced aspects of the game: the relative power of character classes to each other. Hence, each one ought to be a comparable challenge to a party of typical PCs at each level.
I think there are two ways to go about doing this. The first is a bit unscientific. It involves examining a monster's abilities and seeing which class it behaves most like. A babau might be compared to a rogue, a mind flayer to a wizard. From there, you look at the creature's most powerful abilities, AC, hp, saves, ability scores, etc. and see which level of NPC that creature is most similar to. Although this system is enormously useful in cut and dry situations (like comparing ogres to barbarians), it is tricky to use with some creatures who are rather abnormal. How would you classify an aboleth? Are they more like wizards or more like fighters? What if they aren't really more like one class than another?
I feel the second approach is more realistic, but it involves more work. Each creature should be evaluated on the following criteria: hit dice, AC, average damage, saving throws, spells/special abilities, and magical gear. Thereafter, each criterion should be assigned a score that is an indicator of what level that criterion is appriximating.
The score for hit dice is simply the number of hit dice the creature has.
The score for AC should be assigned based on that creature's primary role. If it is primarily a melee combatant, then its score should be measured against the classes who excel in melee (barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger, monk). The lowest level at which an AC the creature has is available should be the score for AC. If the creature is similar to two different types of classes (such as a fiend with lots of spell-casting and good melee) then compare to the two types of classes and take the average.
Average damage should be compared similarly to AC. For creatures that either don't deal damage or use spells and special abilities as their primary means of overcoming combat, skip this criterion.
Saving throws should be compared similarly to AC. Each saving throw needs to be determined individually based on whether that is an in-class saving throw or not. So a creature with a good Fort save progression should have its Fort save compared to other classes with good Fort saves and the lowest level such a save is achieved used as the score. Once a score for each saving throw has been determined in this way individually, the result is averaged.
Spells and special abilities should be measured up to the spell-casting classes. A score should be assigned based on the level that the most powerful abilties of the creature can be approximately duplicated using the lowest level caster possible.
Finally, any magic gear included in the creature's entry needs to be taken into account. The average value for a monster's treasure should be included in this part of the score is the monster usually utilizes its treasure to its advantage somehow (like how a dragon might wear the magical rings and amulets in his hoard).
When all of these scores are determined, they should be averaged. Finally, the size of the creature should be taken into account. Unless a creature's small size plays upon a strength, the size should modifier the CR accordingly by +1 for each size greater than medium and -1 for each size smaller than medium. The final score reflects the CR of the creature, as based upon comparison to the character classes.
Last edited:
With regard to the CR system in general, I think Blue has stated the issue well.
However, I think that there is a seperate issue in that the rule of CR = level is unbalanced. While a few inaccurate monster CRs will likley cancel each other out (some too high, some too low) over the course of a campaign, the PC class level imbalance is more problematic. This is because a) in some campaigns (e.g. urban or high level) many, if not most of the foes have class levels and b) a small change in CR can create a big change in XP.
To see that the level CRs are unbalanced, compare a fighter (the most straightforward class) of a given level with "brute" monsters of the same CR. At first level a fighter compares well with CR 1 monsters such as the grimlock or gnoll. However by 7th level it is clear that the fighter is significantly inferior to a CR 7 hill giant or earth elemental. Our hill giant is probablly most comparable to a 10th level fighter (for the earth elemental it is probablly 12th level or higher). While a difference of 3 in the CR does not seem like much, the result is that a 7th level party is getting THREE TIMES as much XP for a 10th level fighter as for the statistically equivalent hill giant. So characters in campaigns where the primary foes have class levels are advancing two to three times faster than they "should."
So what is the solution? Airwalkrr proposes using class levels as the baseline and adjusting monster CR. This has a good deal of appeal, since I agree that the classes are as close to balanced as is possible. Whatever a monster's abilities it could be roughly compared to a given class at a given level. It would also be possible to build a monster using a class as a base and adding or eliminating abilities.
The problem with this solution is that it would require redefining what "Challenge Rating" is. If class levels were the baseline, most monster CRs would go up and a 5th level party would no longer get an "appropriate" challenge from a CR/ EL 5 encounter. Because leveling is based off of 14 encounters at an appropriate EL, the xp chart would need to be changed or characters would gain levels much faster.
My solution would be to just reduce the CR for class levels by 1 for every 3 or 4 levels. CR = level is a convenient rule, and it seems to have been adoped for simplicity rather than accuracy. By reducing CR for class levels it would bring these foes more in line with the "true" CR, based on how CR is defined.
However, I think that there is a seperate issue in that the rule of CR = level is unbalanced. While a few inaccurate monster CRs will likley cancel each other out (some too high, some too low) over the course of a campaign, the PC class level imbalance is more problematic. This is because a) in some campaigns (e.g. urban or high level) many, if not most of the foes have class levels and b) a small change in CR can create a big change in XP.
To see that the level CRs are unbalanced, compare a fighter (the most straightforward class) of a given level with "brute" monsters of the same CR. At first level a fighter compares well with CR 1 monsters such as the grimlock or gnoll. However by 7th level it is clear that the fighter is significantly inferior to a CR 7 hill giant or earth elemental. Our hill giant is probablly most comparable to a 10th level fighter (for the earth elemental it is probablly 12th level or higher). While a difference of 3 in the CR does not seem like much, the result is that a 7th level party is getting THREE TIMES as much XP for a 10th level fighter as for the statistically equivalent hill giant. So characters in campaigns where the primary foes have class levels are advancing two to three times faster than they "should."
So what is the solution? Airwalkrr proposes using class levels as the baseline and adjusting monster CR. This has a good deal of appeal, since I agree that the classes are as close to balanced as is possible. Whatever a monster's abilities it could be roughly compared to a given class at a given level. It would also be possible to build a monster using a class as a base and adding or eliminating abilities.
The problem with this solution is that it would require redefining what "Challenge Rating" is. If class levels were the baseline, most monster CRs would go up and a 5th level party would no longer get an "appropriate" challenge from a CR/ EL 5 encounter. Because leveling is based off of 14 encounters at an appropriate EL, the xp chart would need to be changed or characters would gain levels much faster.
My solution would be to just reduce the CR for class levels by 1 for every 3 or 4 levels. CR = level is a convenient rule, and it seems to have been adoped for simplicity rather than accuracy. By reducing CR for class levels it would bring these foes more in line with the "true" CR, based on how CR is defined.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
Personally I think that the following thing should be kept in mind when determining the CR of a creature, and it should be the core tenet of CR determination.
How well does it compare to a PC of the equivalent level with appropriate gear.
Also, some things that should be totally ignored when considering NPCs
"Unlimited uses per day is effectively 3/day, because no combat goes on for more than 3 rounds." Bull. Almost any half-decent monster can drag a fight out for longer than that, especially if it's on it's home turf.
"The PCs are expected to know all about the resistances of this creature, and therefore be prepared to counter or avoid them." Bull. Parties that cover every knowledge skill are not that common. Having a knowledge skill success should be a BONUS against a monster, not a given, and it certainly shouldn't be essential to a monsters defeat.
"The CR of this creature is determined assuming that it won't use the most effective killing method that it has available". Eg: I daresay that most dragon CRs do not in the slightest take into account their vast potential use magic device skill, or the 9th level scrolls that a dragon could hit the party with as early as CR 10...
How well does it compare to a PC of the equivalent level with appropriate gear.
Also, some things that should be totally ignored when considering NPCs
"Unlimited uses per day is effectively 3/day, because no combat goes on for more than 3 rounds." Bull. Almost any half-decent monster can drag a fight out for longer than that, especially if it's on it's home turf.
"The PCs are expected to know all about the resistances of this creature, and therefore be prepared to counter or avoid them." Bull. Parties that cover every knowledge skill are not that common. Having a knowledge skill success should be a BONUS against a monster, not a given, and it certainly shouldn't be essential to a monsters defeat.
"The CR of this creature is determined assuming that it won't use the most effective killing method that it has available". Eg: I daresay that most dragon CRs do not in the slightest take into account their vast potential use magic device skill, or the 9th level scrolls that a dragon could hit the party with as early as CR 10...
coyote6
Adventurer
I don't think NPCs (w/NPC gear) are CR = level (not without carefully designing a situation and picking gear to opitimize the NPC). A single 7th level fighter doesn't use 20% of the resources of a party of four 7th level PCs.
Therefore, unless you completely redefine the meaning of CR, basing CRs of monsters on the CRs of "equivalent NPCs" is, at best, going to under-CR everyone.
Plus, figuring out "equivalent NPCs" is going to be a crapshoot. IME, different classes appear to be different challenges. For example, a single 13th level wizard, sorcerer, or cleric, is, IME, more challenging for a party of 4 PCs than a single 13th level monk or rogue.
(You'd have to create some kind of point-based system to accurately compare creatures -- i.e., "this ability is worth x points, this ability is worth y pts." Given that you get XP for overcoming creatures with methods other than combat, you'd also need to account for things like Diplomacy, Bluff, & stealth skills. Once you've done that, you'd basically be creating a point-based character creation system.)
(At that point, we invoke Hong, so he can talk about the "creeping HERO-ization of D&D".)
Therefore, unless you completely redefine the meaning of CR, basing CRs of monsters on the CRs of "equivalent NPCs" is, at best, going to under-CR everyone.
Plus, figuring out "equivalent NPCs" is going to be a crapshoot. IME, different classes appear to be different challenges. For example, a single 13th level wizard, sorcerer, or cleric, is, IME, more challenging for a party of 4 PCs than a single 13th level monk or rogue.
(You'd have to create some kind of point-based system to accurately compare creatures -- i.e., "this ability is worth x points, this ability is worth y pts." Given that you get XP for overcoming creatures with methods other than combat, you'd also need to account for things like Diplomacy, Bluff, & stealth skills. Once you've done that, you'd basically be creating a point-based character creation system.)
(At that point, we invoke Hong, so he can talk about the "creeping HERO-ization of D&D".)
smootrk
First Post
One broken aspect of the CR system is the scale and how it relates to XP distribution.
Why not have the scale start at 1 and go up, or at the very least start the table(chart) at the lower end of 1/10, 1/4, 1/3, 1/5 and so on. I really hate the backwards calculations that are necessary for those very low level encounters (and I just had a new campaigne begin, and hated the extra calculations that were necessary).
I think CR = level would not be acurate in any sense, because of lack of equality among the classes, not to mention level adjusted races, monsters with class levels, templates with un-realistic LA... and so on. The factors that unbalance the equation go on and on.
CR should just be a tool to help the DM create encounters that have some sense of scale... where the PC's fit onto that scale is way too subjective, and also depends on the general skill level of the players.
I apologize if it sounds like a rant, but it is certainly an area of the game that could use a little tweaking.
Why not have the scale start at 1 and go up, or at the very least start the table(chart) at the lower end of 1/10, 1/4, 1/3, 1/5 and so on. I really hate the backwards calculations that are necessary for those very low level encounters (and I just had a new campaigne begin, and hated the extra calculations that were necessary).
I think CR = level would not be acurate in any sense, because of lack of equality among the classes, not to mention level adjusted races, monsters with class levels, templates with un-realistic LA... and so on. The factors that unbalance the equation go on and on.
CR should just be a tool to help the DM create encounters that have some sense of scale... where the PC's fit onto that scale is way too subjective, and also depends on the general skill level of the players.
I apologize if it sounds like a rant, but it is certainly an area of the game that could use a little tweaking.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
See, I think this is a fallacy. A single 13th level wizard, sorceror or cleric with an effective combination of spells available and already cast, starting outside melee engagement range is more challenging than a 13th level monk or rogue in plain sight with a bad selection of gear and crap tactics.coyote6 said:
Simply put - when you screw up with a cleric or wizard, it's much more obvious than with the rest of the classes. As a DM, I've put the party up against fighters that have given them a serious run for their money, and on more than one occastion, a caster has gone out with a whimper instead of a bang.
airwalkrr
Adventurer
Saeviomagy said:
You're dead on, Saeviomagy. Part of the reason a rogue can be just as difficult is because they never attack unless they take you by surprise (or at least have a very good Hide/Move Silently to rely on) and they always have a plan to flee if the party takes them by surprise. With the right equipment, a rogue is an extremely deadly opponent. Consider a "typical" NPC halfling rogue of 6th-level. His equipment is mainly boots of elvenkind and cloak of elvenkind (not unrealistic choices for a rogue). He has maximum ranks in Bluff/Hide/Move Silently, the Stealthy feat, Improved Initiative, and Skill Focus (Bluff). Assuming he starts with a 17 Dex (counting racial mod) and a 12 Cha, he now has +24/+22 to Hide/Move Silently, +13 to Bluff, and a +10 to his ranged attack (assuming a masterwork weapon; improves to +12 when successfully hidden). First of all, he is likely to take the party by surprise with skill checks like that. Second of all, he is likely to go at least early in the first round with his high Init mod. Two attacks with his crossbow can deal a total of 8d6 damage and the party hasn't even had a chance to act. If he is seen, he can create a diversion to hide and repeat the cycle. And don't even get me started on battles with multiple rogues (oh the flanking humanity).
In summary, only a player who doesn't understand how to successfully play a rogue would think they aren't as challenging. Sneak attack is only the tip of the iceberg. How about the rogue who uses his Forgery and Disguise skills to impersonate the PCs and get them in trouble with the law? Or what if he uses Disable Device to sabotage their cart so that it breaks down as soon as they are a few miles outside town? And fear the rogue with an impressive UMD skill who pulls out a staff of fire after a successful sneak attack!
Monks are the same way, although they are arguably the most difficult class to play in the game. My sentiment is that at levels 1-5 the monk is not on par with ANY of the other PC classes unless the game uses a high point-buy or ability score generation that favors very high scores. The reason for this is that the monk at these levels is so difficult to play effectively that it almost isn't worth the bother. At level 6 and beyond however, the monk becomes a force to be reckoned with. Stunning attacks can decimate any PCs that suffer from a low Fort save (Bard, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard). Plus, a combination of feats like Karmic Strike and Defensive Throw is a harrowing prospect (I get an AoO on you whether you hit me OR miss me, nyah nyah). Or behold the monk with Iron Fists, Flying Kick and Leap Attack who hits you for 3d6+1d12 damage on a charge and doubles his Power Attack damage. On top of that, no one can outrun a monk, which means if he wants to get away, he will. Need I mention improved evasion at 9th level (earlier than any othe class gets it) which makes the monk the bane of spellcasters everywhere. Toss in diamond soul for spell resistance and you've got a character that can go toe-to-toe with most melee fighters by virtue of their diverse combat options and is virtually immune to most magical effects.
The character classes really are one of the most balanced aspects of the game. To think otherwise tells me you don't have much experience with some of the classes or you haven't ever learned to play them properly. That's perfectly understandable. The monk is a class for advanced players. The easiest classes to play are the sorcerer, fighter, and cleric because they can fulfill a straightforward role that is useful and doesn't take much thought. The other classes have greater potential, but aren't as forgiving to errors. But when it all comes down to it, they are all relatively similar in power. Now that I've hijacked my own thread, I'm done.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
