What's Up With The Monk?

[S'mon]

Ok, so do you think a 7th level monk could face a hill giant?

Well, yes. If the Monk was a PC and was played like he was a hill giant - go up and bash face to face - the giant would squelch him, naturally. But monks have a lot of advantages over hill giants, they can outwit, outsmart and outrun them, wear them down with hit & fade tactics, and so on. The monks in my game never seemed underpowered - quite the opposite, most people IMC think they're overpowered, and that the fighters, barbarians, paladins & rangers are the 'weak' classes because they lack all those special powers. Personally I find that monks are well-balanced; they can't do as much damage as fast as some other characters, but they are VERY good at doing more damage than they suffer, and surviving to fight another day - which in the long run is what counts.

 

[S'mon]

A few potions/scrolls spells on the monk - as one would expect for a 7th level PC,going by core rules - he can fly out of reach of the giant, stoneskinned, probably improved invisible, and plink it with pebbles until it drops dead. Of course, any other class can do this too. A monk is clearly not optimised vs hill giants. Neither is a rogue, given a 1-1 fight. If you want to heroically kill giants in single combat, dwarf fighters or barbarians are pretty good.

Now, personally I would have assigned hill giants a CR higher than 7, I like low magic games and the CRs seem set for high magic, but given their severe limitations, not MUCH higher.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

You know, I hate to say it, but every comment I've seen so far that claims "monks are weak" is backed up by a lot of rules-related data (i.e., something demonstrably and measurably true); Almost all (if not 100%) of those saying, "No, no, the monk is actually a very powerful class" don't seem to have anything concrete to back it up.

Anecdotal evidence versus raw, uncut, rules-related evidence just doesn't hold up to the light of reason, people. Thus, we can pretty much conclude that the monk does indeed suck.

 

[Enkhidu]

You know, I hate to say it, but every comment I've seen so far that claims "monks are weak" is backed up by a lot of rules-related data (i.e., something demonstrably and measurably true); Almost all (if not 100%) of those saying, "No, no, the monk is actually a very powerful class" don't seem to have anything concrete to back it up.

Anecdotal evidence versus raw, uncut, rules-related evidence just doesn't hold up to the light of reason, people. Thus, we can pretty much conclude that the monk does indeed suck.

I think one of the problems is that the monk has a lot of "intangibles" that rely heavily on tactics. The synergy created by many of the monk abilities does actually pack more of a punch than the numbers seem to indicate (but then again the numbers can't really account for that synergy).

 

[S'mon]

You know, I hate to say it, but every comment I've seen so far that claims "monks are weak" is backed up by a lot of rules-related data (i.e., something demonstrably and measurably true); Almost all (if not 100%) of those saying, "No, no, the monk is actually a very powerful class" don't seem to have anything concrete to back it up.

Anecdotal evidence versus raw, uncut, rules-related evidence just doesn't hold up to the light of reason, people. Thus, we can pretty much conclude that the monk does indeed suck.

You would presumably admit that monks are good at not dying, due to great saves, movement, immunities, evasion abilities, etc?

In a tough game like mine, this means monks don't die as much as other characters. So they live longer, get more XP, and get to high levels while the Fighters keep dying like flies.

The Monk players always seemed happy about this...

 

[Forrester]

If most players aren't willing to do what it takes to get the job done, then they deserve what they get for resorting to stupid tactics. A monk vs. a hill giant should open with shuriken coated with poison that drains a physical stat. A loss in any of those areas will improve the monk's odds considerably.

Hell yeah! MAKE that Giant make those Fort saves!

That'll show him!

 

[LokiDR]

I think one of the problems is that the monk has a lot of "intangibles" that rely heavily on tactics. The synergy created by many of the monk abilities does actually pack more of a punch than the numbers seem to indicate (but then again the numbers can't really account for that synergy).

But, you can measure synergy, there is a bonus for that

In reality, you might have a point. That is why I want to run a monk against a group of unsuspecting players and see how it pans out. If the monk is just doing a specialized rogue job, maybe you could see that. If a monk-on-party encounter shows the monk mixing it up in hand to hand and kicking butt, I will revise my views.

 

[Acmite]

Comment #1: Spring attack w/Boots of Cheat is about a lame as you can get. Again, a Barbarian with this combo could whup the Hill Giant in about half the time . . . or he could just walk up to him and beat the crap out of him.

Your monk is going to take *FOREVER* to kill this guy! Even when you hit, you're doing a lousy 12pts of damage, on average, and you're not hitting all the time. The Hill Giant is going to make mincemeat out of you with readied actions . . yes, I suppose you can cower and hide during that time.

How long do you want to take to kill this guy, anyway? Ten minutes? Twenty? An hour? That's not very realistic.

Comment #2: Most people don't want to play a monk because they'd like to play a guerilla warrior who prefers wussy tactics. Going by the rules, yes, a monk profits most when he uses such tactics, especially if he is wearing Boots of Cheat.

But I know when I say "Monk!" most people don't think of someone who runs up, hits someone, and then runs away.

Unfortunately, that's pretty much the only way a 3E monk can survive unless he's got a 40pt buy.

I agree with damn near everything you said, Forrester. But, the Monk does have a reasonable chance to beat a Hill Giant if they do it this way. Would it be fun to play out with a group of players bored out of their minds since only the DM and the Monk's player are doing anything? Nope. But if a monk had to do it, he could.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[Acmite]

If most players aren't willing to do what it takes to get the job done, then they deserve what they get for resorting to stupid tactics. A monk vs. a hill giant should open with shuriken coated with poison that drains a physical stat. A loss in any of those areas will improve the monk's odds considerably.

Agreed, although not about the poison.

If you want to get the job done, do what you can to get the job done. The monk excels at guerrila tactics, so in a situation like this he should use the best tactical option he has. Which is, as Forrester called it "wussy tactics", but it works.

And I don't think it unrealistic for a monk to spend an hour or two frustrating and killing the stupid giant.

 

[Acmite]

Hell yeah! MAKE that Giant make those Fort saves!

That'll show him!

LOL!