What's Up With The Monk?

[Gizzard]

And IME, the "monk friendly" situations have come up fairly regularly. I don't think it was the DM throwing me bones, either-he mostly uses published adventures (

Our group ran the main WotC adventure line (Sunless Citadel, Forge of Fury); there was only one place where I think the Monk has a chance to do something vital that no one else can do as well. Unfortunately, its also very brutal; one mis-step means instant death for Our Hero. (I survived, whew!)

Tangent: I notice that the treasure distribution in these two modules isnt particularly Monk-friendly; possibly another sign that the Monk wasnt given as much consideration as the basic Fighter-Cleric-Wizard-Rogue party.

I also have Freeport, which I am expecting to run after we finish FoF. I dont see it being particularly Monk-friendly either; though perhaps more so than the WotC stuff just because its not such a dungeon crawl.

Sometimes I thought Improved Initiative might have been a better choice.

Nah, its not. ;-) I took Improved Init, but it is really a two edged sword. Getting to move first is great when you know whats going on, but very risky in the first couple rounds when you may not know the tactical situation entirely. One of my near-death experiences was rushing into a group of "mooks" to lay the Monkly smackdown on them, only to find out that they had a big ham-fisted buddy standing just outside my range of vision. Drat.

I found it very effective to scout under Invisibility.

Mmm, yes, that would be very nice. Unfortunately, at 5th level our Sorcerer only has very limited number of those to hand out.

Tangent: There is something somewhat self-reinforcing about the Monk sucking; once the party reaches consensus that the Monk sucks, it becomes much harder to wheedle Buffs out of the others. "Monk: If you cast Bulls Strength on me, I will be able to do damage in combat." "Barbarian: Ha. Cast it on me and I will crush even the mightiest foe like a grape!" "Sorcerer: Sorry Monk, the Barbarian can hit better than you." "Monk: I suck :-(."

 

[Hakkenshi]

Tangent: I notice that the treasure distribution in these two modules isnt particularly Monk-friendly; possibly another sign that the Monk wasnt given as much consideration as the basic Fighter-Cleric-Wizard-Rogue party.

I definitely agree with you here. I ran those adventures and found it to be that way as well. Which is why I was encouraging DMs to better support their monks with magical items. Otherwise, you ARE gonna get monks that suck.

Tangent: There is something somewhat self-reinforcing about the Monk sucking; once the party reaches consensus that the Monk sucks, it becomes much harder to wheedle Buffs out of the others. "Monk: If you cast Bulls Strength on me, I will be able to do damage in combat." "Barbarian: Ha. Cast it on me and I will crush even the mightiest foe like a grape!" "Sorcerer: Sorry Monk, the Barbarian can hit better than you." "Monk: I suck :-(."

Another good point, but our party never came to this conclusion. I guess your mileage may vary. The other way you might see this is that the buffs could be used to compensate for some weaknesses. If the barbarian hits steadily but the monk doesn't, it might be more useful to boost the monk attack by a few points. Twice the amount of hits is always a good thing. And if the monk uses Weapon Finesse, you're also making him harder to hit, which contributes to party survival.

I consider the items in the DMG to be the "commonly availible" items. Others might be more rare (cost more). The comment was just a nitpick. All the rest of my comments assume you have them.

Also, I found the rules for combining items in Tome and Blood. What page is it in the DMG? Did I just glance by it?

I think pages 242-243 (including sidebar) are what you're looking for. The rules are somewhat iffy on certain things, but they work.

I think both sides of the argument are getting good points here. I'm definitely seeing what the monk-haters dislike. I've never experienced that sort of thing, but hey, that's just me.

I've noticed that the CR discussion always assumes the characters are well-prepared for the encounter. Run a standard fighter of level 5 without a source of fire or acid against a Troll (you don't always KNOW you're gonna meet one), and he's gonna lose. How many Rends can he take???

Likewise for the barb against the Giant. What if the barb's already used up his potion? CRs look great on paper, but when you run into a situation in-game (where conditions are usually less than ideal), the level 7 character is most likely to get moshed.

That is why I say this: CRs work (up until Epic-level play) if you have a full party of 4. As soon as you start adding or subtracting characters, it goes all to heck. And a single character will probably bite it one-on-one. That 4th-level caster against a Carrion Crawler needs to either roll max damage on spells, get Shield off in the first round, or be prepared to be eaten. Too many Fort saves against certain death there.

And, of course, there is the fact that the dice decide everything in all these cases anyway

 

[Acmite]

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.

Keep in mind that the Monk (and all PC classes) are CR = Level partly because they are balanced by wealth.

This means that the monk is likely able to heal himself to some degree between attacks (ie: potion of CLW, CMW, or something).

A standard Hill Giant likely does not have this option. I aluded to this above, but somehow it slipped through the cracks.

 

[Acmite]

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.

How is using a strike-retreat attack pattern "bending the rules"?

The "open area" was...umm...clarified to have some sort of terrain, like a wooded area, or foothills, or something. One of the arguments myself and others made was that the monk would be able to use terrain to his advantage more so than the other base classes with his higher movement. The only other class than can use terrain as well as the monk (IMO) is the druid.

I have a feeling we are so far apart on this argument that we may never come to an agreement.

 

[Acmite]

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.

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. The Giant doesn't necessarily have to stand there immobile. My guess is, the stupid giant would think the monk gone, and go about his business. Well, at least until the second attack.

My point is, guerrila tactics tend to be very effective when you have a small mobile force versus a stronger, slower force. In a situation like this, it is probably the monk's only option.

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.

My bad. I didn't think that through when I was posting. Possibly because I was already thinking guerrila tactics, so the monk didn't necessarily need the "Shot-on-the-Run" feat , just similar tactics. Move, shoot. Reapeat.

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 think monks are fun, actually. I think they have many more interesting combat options available to them than any other non-spellcasting class (and by this I mean primary spellcasters), save maybe the druid.

And, this discussion I thought revolved around a more tactical exploration of the monk's ability to defeat a lone hill Giant, not how much fun it would be to do so. The backstory I was using for this encounter was basically along the lines of the monk thinking, "I have to defeat this giant or my friends die. How do I do it?".

In any other situation, an average monk would probably just retreat. There has to be a strong reason for the monk to spend the time to defeat this giant.

I hope you consider this "intelligent, constructive comments". [/B]

I do.

 

[Acmite]

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.

Amen, brother. Amen.

 

[Acmite]

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!

I'd agree with that. It's all about overcoming the challenge, not pummeling it into a very fine paste.

 

[Villano]

Tangent: There is something somewhat self-reinforcing about the Monk sucking; once the party reaches consensus that the Monk sucks, it becomes much harder to wheedle Buffs out of the others. "Monk: If you cast Bulls Strength on me, I will be able to do damage in combat." "Barbarian: Ha. Cast it on me and I will crush even the mightiest foe like a grape!" "Sorcerer: Sorry Monk, the Barbarian can hit better than you." "Monk: I suck :-(."

I know just what you're talking about! In the online RttTotEE game I played, the damn druid refused to cast magic fang on me. He was "saving it".

The thing is we were 4th level, so it wasn't like he was going to go wild shape and use it on himself. The only thing I can think of is that he wanted to use it on a summoned animal.

And it's pretty sad when the monk rates lower than a dire rat.

I ended up getting into a fight with something with DR (I can't recall what it was exactly), and I hit it several times (I even flurried it), but didn't cause a single point of damage.

What really irritates me is that all this happened as I was playing "mage bodyguard". I'm covering the spellcasters' butts and they won't cast any spells for me.

I got my revenge when one of the mages (sadly not the druid) got wiped out by the dragon. One hit.

 

[Hakkenshi]

I know just what you're talking about! In the online RttTotEE game I played, the damn druid refused to cast magic fang on me. He was "saving it".

The thing is we were 4th level, so it wasn't like he was going to go wild shape and use it on himself. The only thing I can think of is that he wanted to use it on a summoned animal.

And it's pretty sad when the monk rates lower than a dire rat.

I ended up getting into a fight with something with DR (I can't recall what it was exactly), and I hit it several times (I even flurried it), but didn't cause a single point of damage.

What really irritates me is that all this happened as I was playing "mage bodyguard". I'm covering the spellcasters' butts and they won't cast any spells for me.

I got my revenge when one of the mages (sadly not the druid) got wiped out by the dragon. One hit.

Ouch. That's pretty bad, but then (and I mean no offense) that was some pretty terrible teamwork on the druid's part, ESPECIALLY given your "mage bodyguard" role.

 

[Christian]

I'm not going to try to quote anybody here ... too many responses & I have to get to a game (new campaign-first time DMing D&D3-wish me luck!).

I don't know what modules the DM was running-I didn't recognize them & I didn't try to find out. Definitely none of the WOTC 'core' adventure line, though. Setting was homebrew, average magic level.

I never had trouble getting a Magic Fang or a Bull's Strength. WRT the latter, we even had fighter-types in the party; I successfully sold the cleric on the argument that since I had more attacks, the spell would get more total use. A valid one, I think.

We often didn't have an arcane spellcaster in the party. Nor a rogue. I made a point of keeping a potion of invisibility or two on hand.

And one more thing to add ... aside from the ressurrection fund the group started, one of the players is talking about playing a monk in my new campaign. A half-orc. I think my position on strength as the core monk attribute has been taken to heart.