What's Up With The Monk?

[Gizzard]

Again, I have to question the wisdom of having creatures automatically know which characters are harder to hit by the numbers.

How many times have you read in a module something like:

Tactics: The monsters will attack; targetting spellcasters and dangerous combatants first.

Pretty standard tactics for intelligent monsters; actually pretty standard tactics for most parties as well. I wouldnt give my monsters a precise idea of the strengths and immunities of a party (which was your original (correct IMHO!) point), but they should be able to recognize general classes of characters like "spellcasters" and "dangerous combatants".

Of course, this bring up this point - how often have you seen something like this:

Tactics: The monsters will attack, seeking to quickly neutralize any supporting characters like Bards and Monks before turning their attention to Spellcasters and Fighters.

Not so often, I will bet. And I think that speaks volumes about these classes. It also is a partial explanation for why certain classes are more "survivable" than others.

 

[apsuman]

Reincarnate gives stat boosts and gross physical qualities...

Only +8, and he's only at 20 or 22 ,yeah silly silly me.

I have +8 to STR, +4 to DEX, +4 to CON, +2 Natural Armor, and 50 Speed.

Finesse or not this guy would be a monster (no pun intended) to go upagianst.

The monk gets improved trip for free, but using it against his guy would be impossible, +4 for exta legs, and the STR is now through the roof. Monk are good at grapple, but not against this guy. Monks are good at movement, but not against this guy. Monks could bull rush weaker opponents, but not this guy.

Now to the question of CR. I do not think the CR system is amazingly good, but it has it's supporters.

The average level of the party is 5.2, and if you don't think that +8 to STR, +4 to Dex, +4 to Con, and 50 speed aren't worth AT LEAST one level, then we have more to disagree about.

As to your other question, who else besides a wizard could challenge the party, I will say this. Sorcerer could if wizard could. This seems redudant. Ok, a rogue, repeatedly sniping with sneak attack, could use the terain even more. A cleric could cause havoc with summoned monsters, then move in armored and ready to beat the PCs down while he was buffed up. A barbarian wouldn't give them a chance to run, but could definately do some real damage. Druids have animals, and that could be a scary horde.

The reference about +1 is actually a range of +1 to +4. That +1 I think would have areal impact when the party is level 5 and the challenge is a level 6 wizard. Fireballs, Fly, and that extra feat as an advantage are all big thing from level 5 to level 6.

However for a party of level 12, a level 14 wizard might not be that much of a challenge, or a level 15, or16 wizard.

Sure a sorcerer might also be a challenge, but at level 7 wizards have 4th level spells, Sorcers do not. Sorcerers have not make their own magic items. Sorcerers do not have many spells to fill in their level 3 slots. Dispel, Fly, Lightning Bolt, Fireball, pick two.

You other example are not very well formed. A sniping rogue would/should be found easily, and then dispatched quickly. Fighter and barbarian are better challeged one-on-one, imho. More than one-on-one would have the numbers carrying the day.

I personally see most any other class as being better suited to this task.

Really? How many more rounds would a fighter/barbarian/bard/druid/rogue last than the monk after they are spotted?



g!

 

[Hakkenshi]

Tactics: The monsters will attack; targetting spellcasters and dangerous combatants first.

Yes, you're absolutely right. What I was criticizing (and, unless I'm mistaken, you were in agreement) is the idea that a monster would not attack a buffed-out spellcaster because it would know his AC is too high (or that he's too protected). Very illogical.

That's like saying a Behir would not use its lightning bolt against a character with lightning resistance. Bull.

For that matter, even a wizard can make false assumptions. For example, let's assume a wizard figures out that he can target a monk, a rogue, a wizard and a barbarian. Let's see this in-game:

- The wizard deduces at a glance that the monk is too nimble to strike easily with the bolt (Evasion and high Reflex save); this makes sense.
- The wizard also guesses the rogue is a difficult target (despite the fact that rogues should not be easily recognized, but I digress); this is still alright.
- The wizard sees that the other wizard is frail, and while he isn't clumsy, probably isn't up to dodging something as quick as a lightning bolt; why not?
- The barbarian is a lumbering hulk, and an easy target, but the wizard believes the walking mountain can take it, and prefers to let a fighter cohort take care of him.

However, what the wizard doesn't know (also in-game), is that:

- The monk, while agile, has been cursed by Boots of Everdancing, which he believes to be Boots of Striding and Springing; the lightning bolt which he would have thought to easily avoid would in fact have blasted him.
- The rogue focused on fighting skills, and only has a 12 Dex. More to the point, he's only taken one level of rogue and many of fighter, meaning he doesn't have Evasion.
- The wizard has an SR of 25, and has just found a Ring of Universal Elemental Resistance 30.
- The barbarian min/maxed his high stat to Strength, leaving him with a Con of 10 (but his huge muscles make him LOOK big), he's used up his Rage for the day, and he rolled substantially less than average on HP at every level, leaving him with less total HP than the rogue.

These examples are extreme, but they're all possible, and alter conditions drastically. The opponents should have no way of knowing these things, either.

 

[Numion]

Yes, you're absolutely right. What I was criticizing (and, unless I'm mistaken, you were in agreement) is the idea that a monster would not attack a buffed-out spellcaster because it would know his AC is too high (or that he's too protected). Very illogical.

I don't know. Why would a monster with an ounce of int attack a wizard with mirror images up, since he'll miss most of the time? Why not beat the crap out of the fighter type who he'll hit?

It all depends on the situation. As a DM I usually avoid having monsters do things that result in nothing, if they could reasonable anticipate that fact in-game.

 

[Hakkenshi]

But how would the monster KNOW that he's going to miss. Remember, to someone who doesn't know how magic works, or to someone whose intelligence is insufficient to understand that it's being used, it's just not there.

A dinosaur might conceivably charge each Mirror Image down, believing it to be the character. Your point that certain monsters could reasonably figure some things out is correct, but most creatures couldn't. And monsters, just like characters, should sometimes try useless things; player defences are there for a reason, and it feels good for a player to have chosen his defences correctly. It shouldn't ALWAYS be that way either, but it's more even.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Of course the bad guys need to figure what to do or not to do with in-game knowledge.

--If they miss an attack with a roll sufficient to hit AC 33, they will figure out who not to attack again.

--If one PC is springing back and forth, dishing out a whopping 9 points of damage while the barbarian up front is dishing out 50, it is pretty obvious who needs to be taken care of first.

 

[Hakkenshi]

--If they miss an attack with a roll sufficient to hit AC 33, they will figure out who not to attack again.

--If one PC is springing back and forth, dishing out a whopping 9 points of damage while the barbarian up front is dishing out 50, it is pretty obvious who needs to be taken care of first.

On top of the obvious fact that AC 33 would be a very relative number (obviously at higher levels it's a piteously low roll), there are two things to take into account:

1) Only an INTELLIGENT creature would deduce this. Some animals, vermin, undead, constructs, etc. certainly would not. How the hell would a Golem reason like that?? Or a Gelatinous Cube???

2) What you believe to be a telling blow might just miss (as in your example); would you then abandon the attack entirely? What if you were facing an entire buffed-up party? Past a certain level, you certainly will. Do you just stop attacking and let them kill you because you can't hit them and they surround you?

Now as for your second example, again you're exaggerating. By the time the Barbarian does 50 points of damage per round steadily, the monk can do so as well. Consider a Half-Orc Fighter with a Greataxe, and a Str of 24 (with items). With Weapon Spec, and let's say a +3 flaming axe, he deals 1d12 + 15 + 1d6. He needs at least two attacks to do 50 points, but for that equipment he should be higher than just level 6. So let's make him level 12. He can then quite conceivably deal 75 points of damage a round, more with Power Attack. But he's probably wearing Heavy Armour, bringing his speed down to 20'. Still, he attacks at +23/+18/+13, mostly likely easily hitting at least with the first two. Not many creatures have ACs that high at a CR 12.

Now, the Human monk (let's say), with a Dex of 22 (again, with items). He now deals 1d12 damage with (let's give him a 12 Str) a +1 damage. Now that's not much, especially with the magical axe, so let's give him an equivalent item, +3 Flaming Fists of Fury (which are special ninja gloves--not gauntlets!--with a flaming enchantment). There's still a +11 damage difference. With Weapon Finesse, this monk attacks at +18/+15/+12 (with a possible +1 for Weapon Focus if he's taken it). Say he flurries, he then attacks at +16/+16/+13/+10, which is perfectly respectable, dealing approximately 14-15 points of damage per hit. That's acceptable, and he'll most likely hit at least twice per round.

If the monk had had 22 Str instead of Dex (a probable but not altogether attractive scenario IMO), he would deal about 20 points per attack instead, not far from the fighter's 25. The monk is then a tolerable damage-dealer (certainly better than most clerics!), only falling truly short in terms of critical hits. There's no reason he has to equal the fighter. But he's not far. When they hit level 16, the monk is much closer still.

If the monk had Monk Tattoos, from Magic of Faerûn, he'd do 1d20+9+1d6 damage at level 12 compared to the fighter's 1d12+15+1d6. Not bad after all. Granted, he may be a little over-budget (not sure), but it was only a hypothesis.

Now on top of this quite acceptable fighting ability, the monk moves 3.5 times the speed of the fighter, can heal himself spontaneously if needed, is immune to poison, and can Dimension Door out of a tight spot--or INTO one, to help friends. If one of the characters was hard-pressed by a foe, and the other started 70' out (a possible scenario), the monk would be there the same round with an attack to spare, while the fighter would have to all-out run, and THEN walk 10 more feet.

So yeah, your fighter deals more damage--but that's all he can do. In that armour, he drowns if he falls in water, while even the most hydrophobic monk stays afloat (ok, maybe not, but you get my drift). If your fighter is swallowed, chances are his Greataxe won't help; the monk's backup +1 kama is fine, though.

Just to point out that the damage difference doesn't have to be so large, and the monk can handle himself quite well otherwise. "Pulling your own weight" can mean a lot of things, and often it only involves surviving to help your friends. You can't help them fight if you're Held, Dominated, or dead. And the fighter better hope that the Dragon who breathes fire on him is young, otherwise he's a walking s'more

 

[LokiDR]

Originally posted by Hakkenshi

As for the last part, that's as may be, but the monk does ALL those things.

He is still the master of unaided mobility. Add a mobility-enhancing spell, and it's just more so. Mobility is not to be underestimated, even by the Fly-abusers (which remains one of the silliest things I've heard).

Wizards who do not leave combat, by fly or other means, die. You mobility sees to that. I will agree that monks are the king of high land speed. How much does that help you? It could be nice, but are your combats that large? I have never worried about having more mobility, and I tend to play halflings and armored clerics. I don't see you mobility as that useful. Can you think of specific encounters where it helped you? Point in case, you still can't move to hit targets 160' up.

Originally posted by Hakkenshi
He can still fight quite decently, with acceptable damage, more than acceptable number of attacks, alright BAB, and some in-built special combat abilities for which he needs no feats.

decent, acceptable, alright, some. These are the words you used to describe the monks abilities. Monks have the largest number of abilities in the game. Why, then, do they still come out as mediocre? Monk should be very cool with that number of abilites, but all of my experiences are that they are bouncing buffoons untill they get higher level abilities like SR and d20 damage. It seems most of the abilities are aimed at being "flavor" that just doesn't come up on a regular basis.

Originally posted by Hakkenshi
He can sneak around just fine, as well as a rogue, in fact.

So can a ranger. Rangers can use bows. There are lots of good feats for bows. I don't mean the monk can't do it. I mean other classes get a lot more out of it.

Originally posted by Hakkenshi
He also has a ton of class skills, for which you admittedly have to "sacrifice" a stat to Int if you want to take advantage of them.

Ok, this I will give you. The skill points are a nice boost, but 4 vs 2 isn't that amazing. Ranger gets as many skill points as monk, and have an exclusive skill to choose from. Monk are again, decent but not that well off.

Originally posted by Hakkenshi
He has what is probably the best higher-level class progression, tied with the Druid (who's a high-level disaster waiting to happen on the poor wee monsters). SR, lots of resistances, becoming an outsider (a good if double-edged sword), Dimension Door, d20 damage, etc.

I had thought the high level question died long ago. Well, it is a long thread. By the time you hit the "nice" abilites, you had to suffer through a lot. I would have gotten sick of it before that.

Originally posted by Hakkenshi
So yes, many classes can do certain things the monk does better, but he does all of them. The comparison to a bard would be good if the bard didn't rely on spellcasting so much for his power. I've seen bards become deadly opponents at high levels, and they weren't benchwarmers earlier, either. But that's a debate for another day, and another thread

Everything the monk class does, some one does better, except mobility and not dying. Monks really are annoying clowns, bouncing around and not doing terribly much. Every thing they do is decent. So you are in the backup for half the party?? What the heck is that about? If this game is supposed to be fun, shouldn't you be the best at SOMETHING that the party uses regularly?

As for bards, I may just have to start a thread on those too. I have fealing the bard likers will win though.

 

[Hakkenshi]

As for bards, I may just have to start a thread on those too. I have fealing the bard likers will win though.

What, you mean you're not one of those???
You just dislike everything, don't you

Everything the monk class does, some one does better, except mobility and not dying. Monks really are annoying clowns, bouncing around and not doing terribly much. Every thing they do is decent. So you are in the backup for half the party?? What the heck is that about? If this game is supposed to be fun, shouldn't you be the best at SOMETHING that the party uses regularly?

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but if all you're looking for is to be better than the others at something, maybe you should play solo games. Against no NPCs.

Being best at doing a lot of things just plain well is a perfectly valid strength. And you failed to acknowledge that the monk is not necessarily "second" at sneaking, nor at overcoming obstacles without outside help: he is the best. The rogue and ranger can be EQUAL at stealth, but they probably won't be better (not until Skill Mastery, at least).

In dungeons (which are admittedly a large part of the game), monks are generally the best scouts, since they're awesome trap-springers and can move faster.

They have important item-based advantages, one of the foremost being that a Disintegrate spell aimed at a weapon won't cripple them (see the thread on "Blowing up items"). That tough fighter everyone's set on comparing the monk to is often more of a liability than anyone else due to the ease with which he can be disposed of using spells or psionics (a favourite of mine is using the Time Hop psychic power). Or Sunder.

So sure, the monk is "only" GOOD at a lot of things. But versatility is also a big issue, or else no one would play a wizard instead of a sorcerer (or vice-versa, depending on your side of that argument). And hey, if you're everyone's backup, that means they depend on you, and that's a GOOD things

 

[LokiDR]

Originally posted by apsuman

Only +8, and he's only at 20 or 22 ,yeah silly silly me.

I have +8 to STR, +4 to DEX, +4 to CON, +2 Natural Armor, and 50 Speed.

Finesse or not this guy would be a monster (no pun intended) to go upagianst.

The monk gets improved trip for free, but using it against his guy would be impossible, +4 for exta legs, and the STR is now through the roof. Monk are good at grapple, but not against this guy. Monks are good at movement, but not against this guy. Monks could bull rush weaker opponents, but not this guy.

The monk tatics mentioned also wouldn't work on a hill giant, and probably not a ogre or troll either. Eliminating some tatic for one person is something you live with. The fireball happy mage cast cone of cold on the red dragon, the fireball he has maxxed out. Whining about the centaur doesn't prove that the test is unfair. So he matches your speed, a flying wizard exceeds it. Suck it up and don't grapple him. If one centaur ruins a monk, they are even crappier than I thought.

Originally posted by apsuman
The average level of the party is 5.2, and if you don't think that +8 to STR, +4 to Dex, +4 to Con, and 50 speed aren't worth AT LEAST one level, then we have more to disagree about.

Fine, give the cenaur +2 ECL. That still puts the party at 3 level 6s and 2 level 5s. The average is BELOW 6! I think you are just trying to make excuses for this test failing before it even happens.

Originally posted by apsuman
The reference about +1 is actually a range of +1 to +4. That +1 I think would have areal impact when the party is level 5 and the challenge is a level 6 wizard. Fireballs, Fly, and that extra feat as an advantage are all big thing from level 5 to level 6.

However for a party of level 12, a level 14 wizard might not be that much of a challenge, or a level 15, or16 wizard.

One more time. The discussion here is about a CR 7 on APL 5 unless you are talking about the CR system in general, and then you are in the wrong thread. Maybe I should check to see if there were one of those threads too. I fail to see the relavance of level 12, 14, 15, and 16 characters. If you wish to provide different secnarios, be my guest.

CRs were not meant to be second guessed on every encounter. I don't believe they are perfect, but they make a prediction about how the fight will come out. Something solid, not just guess work. If you can show by rules, besides rule 0, that this calculation is wrong, I will happily withdraw my argument. But don't just wine that CR doesn't work. I have come up with stories and theories to counter yours, come up with rules that counter my rules.

Originally posted by apsuman
Sure a sorcerer might also be a challenge, but at level 7 wizards have 4th level spells, Sorcers do not. Sorcerers have not make their own magic items. Sorcerers do not have many spells to fill in their level 3 slots. Dispel, Fly, Lightning Bolt, Fireball, pick two.

you forgot haste haste, invis out of sight of the party. move up and fireball then invis again. Wash, Rinse, Repeat. MM for the rougues, some summoned cannon fodder for the fighters still up, and I will have every buff I can by the time they get to me. Who needs 4th level spells Cheap, yes, but I imagine that is how the wizard would do it.

Originally posted by apsuman
You other example are not very well formed. A sniping rogue would/should be found easily, and then dispatched quickly. Fighter and barbarian are better challeged one-on-one, imho. More than one-on-one would have the numbers carrying the day.

Hey, monk isn't the only one that can run, especially in his own catacombs. Add the fact that the rouge can open with a fireball by use magic device and does +4d6 damage on every sneak attack. A barbarian, in a 5' wide spriral hallway, could take at least a few of them, unless they have presise shot and are just behind the first character. Number probably would win, but there has NEVER been question of that.

Originally posted by apsuman
Really? How many more rounds would a fighter/barbarian/bard/druid/rogue last than the monk after they are spotted?



g!

Long enough to deal 35 to 50% losses on the party or get away. I say they would all do it better than the monk.