What's Up With The Monk?

[Forrester]

An hour or two battle *is* unrealistic. This giant probably has buddies around . . . he'll probably start calling for them. What happens to the monk then?

Let's also consider what happens when our buddy the Giant starts hustling away (taking a bunch of double-moves -- and his movement speed is 40').

The monk is going to have a tough time keeping up AND still use his move-equivalent to hide, no?

Let's say the giant is just getting sick of the monk . . . and the monk is bravely cowering behind a rock 40' away.

The giant takes a double-move away (80'). Now the monk can't attack, because he's 120' away. What does he do?

He can close some of the way and hide again, but the Giant can just keep moving.

He can eventually try to work his way around the giant to head him off at the pass, but not while hiding very well. And after the first couple of hits, the giant can change direction every once in awhile.

I just don't see this working -- what's worse is that it has 0% chance of working without the Boots of Cheat. And when a character class's effectiveness in so many situations is 100% dependent on having a broken magic item, it doesn't bode well for the character class.

 

[apsuman]

Without going back and reading the challenge posted, I believe that the poasted asked if anyone would put a monk up against a hill giant. The proposition was created this way because according to CR "rules" a monk 7 is CR7 and a hill giant is CR 7.

I contend that the challenge rating system is not designed to kill an opponent but to beat a challenge, and if the hill giant retreats, or runs away, then I would count that as a win. A technical win but a win nonetheless.

YMMV

g!

 

[LokiDR]

Thank you for the offhand insult. It's nice to know how you respond to differing opinions. Which is what this is. A different opinion. Since I refernced the stat block, clearly I know what teh giant is capable of, so your ignorant comment about me "not knowing what I'm talking about" is clearly incorrect.

Anyway...

A Hill Giant has an Int of 6. An average monk will have a higher intelligence. Given the monk's high mobility, the ability to escape if necessary, the fact that a monk does NOT "suck" at ranged weapons, if required, and the higher intelligence, I think a smart character and/or player should be able to defeat a Hill Giant in single combat.

The Monk is not a fighter. Don't play him like one. Use the monk's strengths like mobility and stealth. Use terrrain to your advantage. Retreat, hide, and attack again. Play a war of attrition. Fight a guerrila battle.

If all your monks are dumbasses, then yeah, you have no chance. If you play a monk correctly, instead of a fighter who can punch, I still maintain you can beat a Hill Giant.

I welcome any intelligent, constructive comments.

First, I was only commenting on your lack of complete thought on the subject. The tatics you described were monk spring attacks, giant stands stupidly, monk spring attacks. If you said "Fight a guerrila battle" in the first place, I think it would have been more clear. Then it is monk spring attacks, giant stands stupidly, monk waits ten minutes. I don't believe you said the latter.

Second, you could not do the number of ranged feats you were talking about. In a simple matter of the rules, you were wrong. Not a huge deal, but combined with your other comments, it seemed more not-thought-out.

Third, do you have fun playing a character that has to use very large amounts of time to defeat a powerful enemy? I know not all characters are half-orc barbarians, but the time you are talking about does seem quite large in proportion. If this is fun for you, then I understand why you think monks don't suck. But I am pretty sure a clever rogue could do the same, and much faster.

I hope you consider this "intelligent, constructive comments".

 

[Christian]

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.

Re comment #1:
Killing hill giants hand-to-hand is a fighter's or barbarian's job. My party ran into a hill giant once. My monk PC stayed back & peppered him with crossbow bolts. His Intelligence was 13, not 3.

Re comment #2:
See my .sig.

Seriously, if you're saying the monk sucks because he's not as good in stand-up combat as a fighter or barbarian, then I suggest you go play a fighter or barbarian. Monks need to use different tactics and have different strengths. It really sucks for the barbarian when the hill giant had an arcane spellcasting ally hiding behind him-that high Fort save doesn't help much on the DC40 save on the hill giant's coup-de-grace after he misses the Will save vs. Hold Person.

Another quote from my game:
DM: "You can't keep making those Will saves all day."
Me: "Maybe not. But I bet I'll make them for long enough ..."

I suppose there's an image carried over from the kung-fu-ninjas-of-death-type movies that people think the monk should exemplify. He doesn't, not by any means. But a thoughtful player can find what he's good at and make him a valuable member of a party.

 

[LokiDR]

Without going back and reading the challenge posted, I believe that the poasted asked if anyone would put a monk up against a hill giant. The proposition was created this way because according to CR "rules" a monk 7 is CR7 and a hill giant is CR 7.

I contend that the challenge rating system is not designed to kill an opponent but to beat a challenge, and if the hill giant retreats, or runs away, then I would count that as a win. A technical win but a win nonetheless.

YMMV

g!

LOL. Acctually a good point. If think monks are annoying, what must the monk's targets think.

 

[Christian]

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.

All I can work by is my experience. And all of the rules-based arguments I've seen are, in fact, true. My monk wouldn't have wanted to tangle with a hill giant on his own under any circumstances. (Even if he'd had 'boots of cheat'. Although if you have issues with a core magic item. go take it up with the designers. I don't think that they're overpowered with the errated price, though, myself.)

Monks work best as support characters, that's true. They're not quite as bad as bards that way. But that doesn't mean either class isn't fun to play, nor that either class is ineffective! There are situations that arise with reasonable frequency where the monk is the right class for the job; and in between those situations, the monk makes an effective backup fighter, backup scout, or just a character with good speed & tumbling ability to set up flanks for the rogue. Sure, a fighter or rogue could be designed to do either of those things just as well-but then you wouldn't have a monk to cover you in those occasional situations where nobody else will do. The day the monk tumbles through the enemy lines and stuns their wizard just before he would have cast the Fireball that would have finished your side's arcane caster, then finishes him off with a flurry of blows before he gets to go again-that's a day you'll always remember.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

If we are willing to "bend the rules" for argument's sake enough to let the monk spring attack, run off and hide, wait ten minutes, rinse, repeat, (without giving the giant any chance to watch him to see where he's hiding in this "open area" they're supposedly fighting in), then we can "bend the rules" enough to let the giant stand there like a big (but patient) idiot, readying an action the whole time, until the monk comes back around the bend once more, and let him simply smash the monk in the face.

It's just not realistic that a monk would be able to do this (guerilla warfare crap), since the giant also has a very good movement rate, and, if the monk is so well-hidden, then he wouldn't be able to know where the giant is! The giant could just as easily run around the bend and stand there waiting. Any DM who would allow a monk to wear down and kill a giant like this might as well retire, IMO. I honestly don't think any single DM would actually allow a monk PC to actually pull that off.

The giant would ready an action and simply slaughter the monk, proving, once more, that we still haven't identified the actual *strengths* of the monk class, short of saving throws (and thus general survivability), in which case you might as well sit home and smoke your pipe, ala Bilbo Baggins.

 

[LokiDR]

Re comment #1:
Killing hill giants hand-to-hand is a fighter's or barbarian's job. My party ran into a hill giant once. My monk PC stayed back & peppered him with crossbow bolts. His Intelligence was 13, not 3.

Re comment #2:
See my .sig.

Seriously, if you're saying the monk sucks because he's not as good in stand-up combat as a fighter or barbarian, then I suggest you go play a fighter or barbarian. Monks need to use different tactics and have different strengths. It really sucks for the barbarian when the hill giant had an arcane spellcasting ally hiding behind him-that high Fort save doesn't help much on the DC40 save on the hill giant's coup-de-grace after he misses the Will save vs. Hold Person.

Another quote from my game:
DM: "You can't keep making those Will saves all day."
Me: "Maybe not. But I bet I'll make them for long enough ..."

I suppose there's an image carried over from the kung-fu-ninjas-of-death-type movies that people think the monk should exemplify. He doesn't, not by any means. But a thoughtful player can find what he's good at and make him a valuable member of a party.

The line that started this was

I agree - as per the DMG, a 7th level character-class NPC is CR 7, ie about equal a threat as a CR 7 hill giant (give or take about 25%, the 'graininess' of the CR system). I've seen a 7th level Sorcerer PC haste up and take down a hill giant akmost single handed, it's certainly possible. Of course some MM CRs are a bit low - I raised ogres to CR 3 and (eventually) Ettins to CR 6 for my lowish-magic game, equally Succubi at CR 9 are too high, I lowered them to CR 7, same as erinyes. But in principle it stands.

I was only trying to refute one point of a "monks are good" argument" That is why I asked if S'mon thought the lvl 7 monk could take on the hill giant. The overall response seems to be: not unless he was really cheap about it.

So the question still stands: what do monks do that is fun and would make them not suck?

Note: not getting dead isn't really fun. If you get higher level than your comrades, the challenges should be targeted at the average of the party. If you need to be high than the rest of the party to have fun, what is that saying?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Without going back and reading the challenge posted, I believe that the poasted asked if anyone would put a monk up against a hill giant. The proposition was created this way because according to CR "rules" a monk 7 is CR7 and a hill giant is CR 7.

I contend that the challenge rating system is not designed to kill an opponent but to beat a challenge, and if the hill giant retreats, or runs away, then I would count that as a win. A technical win but a win nonetheless.

Fair enough. Likewise if the Hill Giant is still standing after 10 minutes that may well count as a defeat for the monk. Depends on the circumstances.

Hit & fade, hide & seek tactics are an option for the monk, but they are not adequate unless the DM plays the Hill Giant with a 1 Int.

The Hill Giant only has to hit the monk 3 or 4 times to win. The monk needs to hit the Hill Giant 10 to 20 times, depending on combination of weapons he chooses.

That is just too wide a spread. Even if the monk maximizes his Hide, the Hill Giant still has a 20% of Spotting him. One bad roll and the monk is half dead.

 

[LokiDR]

All I can work by is my experience. And all of the rules-based arguments I've seen are, in fact, true. My monk wouldn't have wanted to tangle with a hill giant on his own under any circumstances. (Even if he'd had 'boots of cheat'. Although if you have issues with a core magic item. go take it up with the designers. I don't think that they're overpowered with the errated price, though, myself.)

Monks work best as support characters, that's true. They're not quite as bad as bards that way. But that doesn't mean either class isn't fun to play, nor that either class is ineffective! There are situations that arise with reasonable frequency where the monk is the right class for the job; and in between those situations, the monk makes an effective backup fighter, backup scout, or just a character with good speed & tumbling ability to set up flanks for the rogue. Sure, a fighter or rogue could be designed to do either of those things just as well-but then you wouldn't have a monk to cover you in those occasional situations where nobody else will do. The day the monk tumbles through the enemy lines and stuns their wizard just before he would have cast the Fireball that would have finished your side's arcane caster, then finishes him off with a flurry of blows before he gets to go again-that's a day you'll always remember.

True, there are times that the monk really shines. But mages fly. Support is good. That is why there are hirelings. I can not see the "monk friendly" situations comming up often, which puts you at support. Is that fun?