What's Up With The Monk?

[Hakkenshi]

I dont know why the Barbarian would get killed a lot more than anyone else; with a 40' move he has a fair amount of mobility. Perhaps it was a RP thing, "Krusk stay in front line until all foes are smashed!"

Tangent: One of my favorite things about our partys half-Orc Barbarian is that he RPs both the bravery and cowardice of his Orc half. When then are going well, he's up in the front lines hacking, slashing and gloating. But if the situation looks anything but rosy he's calling for Healing and he's keeping an eye on his escape route. ;-)

Which is the way Half-Orc Barbarians SHOULD be played

The party in question has 5 members, and I always thought that the CR was "designed" (guesstimated is a better word) for a party of 4. Adding in a fifth character opens up many doors for the party. And their levels are 5,5,5,6,6 but the Centaur is more of a benefit than and hinderance, I would think that alone is worth another level.

Anyway, I expect the party to win. I would expect the party to win if I designed a 7th level barbarian, or bard, or fighter, or rogue, etc. The difference is that I think the monk could also survive this encounter, because when it is really bad he has the mobility to get out of there, everyone else is slow enough to be tracked down and killed. Viola! a recurring villian.

Yep. And yep And the Curst Monk recurring villain I had IMC was one of the most annoying (read: feared and appreciated) baddies I've run.
But unfortunately, the CR system goes down the drain when:
a) you add or subtract characters from the party, or
b) you try to make a level X character a CR X.
In my experience, there is NO WAY the latter will work. When we try it in our games, whether I DM or not, the NPC has to be at least four, if not five levels above the party to present a credible threat on his own. Unless you count sword swings as "party resources", it never adds up to enough of a challenge. Which is why templates are your friends

The party with whom I tested this most thoroughly included:
Elven Fighter 7/Sorcerer 1/Arcane Archer 4
Human Enchanter 8/Loremaster 4
Half-Orc Barbarian 5/Druid 4 (died a lot in the more extreme "tests" )
Elven Bard 6/Fighter 2/Duelist 4

...with a couple of other PCs that came and went for the "extra party member tests".

As a point of interest, the Half-Orc eventually got reincarnated as a boar (IIRC), which he tried adventuring as until his untimely death at the hands (tusks?) of another boar.

 

[Hakkenshi]

Originally posted by Ridley's Cohort
But surviving is not necessarily helpful to the other PCs in the party. The barbarian death magnet might well have been killed a lot less often if he had a couple buddies who were actually dish out some damage to take some pressure off him. I note you had three defensive minded characters in the party. No wonder the barbarian died so often...he was carrying the lion's share of the risk. That is obvious from the party makeup.

I personally take survival to be very helpful to the party, although not to the exclusion of everything else, which I take to be your point--correct me if I'm wrong.

However, it's a barbarian's job, so to speak, to be a death magnet. The monk is good to take some of the heat off by drawing attention (and attacks) to himself. Even if the barbarian is a threat, taking out the admittedly weaker supporting ally is not a bad choice. But the monk is not the easiest target to hit.

On a side note: why is it that a lot of people complain about the monk's HD while no one complains about the cleric's? Most clerics I see are fighters in disguise! (cue Transformers music )

(back to the point) And although it's an easily reversible position, the best offence is a strong defence, so the other "defensive" characters in the abovementioned party must have been pretty good at drawing fire, which in turn helps offensively. A duelist is usually no slouch in the damage department from what I've seen, but he's a defensive monster if built right. A barbarian, on the other hand, is mostly a hard-hitting damage sponge begging for a squeeze.

And that's how it should be. But they're not exactly likely to die of old age either

 

[LokiDR]

Ok, I chose the monk's belt for two reasons. First there are some individuals that would call other items cheats. The monk's belt has two uses for a monk, first one extra stunning attack a day , whoopie-do, and 10 consecutive rounds of haste. Which takes me to the second reason, it was the haste I was going for. I did not want to have a bunch of one use items, that seemed would ruin the flavoer of the challenge. Otherwise just fill up a bunch of potions of haste. Basically, I was trying to make a completely playable monk.

The feats I chose do not match the magic items exactly, I think this mimics the rate and type of magic items normal characters gather. Also, as I stated, for the monk's belt I could have purchased, bracers of armor +1, an amulet of natural armor +1, a ring of protection +1, and either gloves of DEX or a pearl of WIS +2. This would have resulted in a +4 to my AC and extra skill points for well used skills. Clearly this monk was not optimized for the encounter, for the catacombs, or for individual combat.

To continue, sure fire is a problem, it's also free damage for me. The web slows down everyone so much that the monk gets to pick where to fight. The guy with the torch might just be the one to go after first. Also, web is very useful, if you make the save and fighter types with a dex of mod of +1 will have a total of +3 to save against the web at DC 13. So half the time they would fail. That removed the immediate threat of half the fighter types. But even if you make your save you are still surrounded by webs. Simple movement requires you to be entangled. If you made your save the monk could bull rush you into more web. I would DM that attacking the monk in the web would entangle your character. I think it would be a hoot to grapple an opponent in the web while you were free to move.

The only reason the kama is there is because the designers made it impossible for the monk to damage DR creatures, really +1 at level 10! But really the kama takes away 2000 gold that could really have been used elsewhere. I think this clearly demonstrates that this monk is not optimized.

And, as for the money, I asked twice if I should equip this character as a PC or as an NPC. Hearing no answer, I spent the 19000 gp suggested byt the DMG for a PC.

g!

You made some good choices. I wouldn't mind playing this character The monk belt, like the boots, were put in the game intentially and you used them to the best of your ability. You have proved that, even under just core rules and splat books, there are things this monk does that no others can. And yes, any way you can get a renewable haste, it is a good thing.

The gold isn't bad, just one major reason that your monk is better than the earlier posted one. Every one seems interested in 19000, so who am I to argue? Besides, treasure goes to the party unless you wipe them out

I still don't know that this monk really proves in general that monks don't suck, but I think it would be a better trial. If you don't mind, I think I will have the PCs face him in a few days.

 

[LokiDR]

How do you think this reinforces that the monk only does well in certain circumstances? Other than a wizard who at level seven can cast that same web spell from afar and the pelt the party with cones of cold, lighning bolts, acid arrows, while flying above them, what level 7 character would be effective against this party/challenge?

g!

I made the comment based on another person experience about why a monk is cool. He said the monk survives, so the monk is cool. I say: needing to run away shouldn't be your top priority. It doesn't come up much in any of the games I am involved in. A situation that does not come up often. The comment you replied to had nothing to do with the party vs level 7 monk.

 

[Forrester]

I like the monk, and I think he might be effective if the fighter fails his save, but I'm not sure that he does something that no other class can.

A Barbarian with said cloak and a potion of Speed (or Boots of Speed) can do pretty much the same thing. Of course, he has to worry a lot more than the monk does about the cleric getting a Hold Person off

On a completely different note, I've recently posted my Brand New Monk Class (don't you know, everyone has one!) over in House Rules, under "Monkly Feats". Main difference between my guy and other monks is that mine is forbidden from using magic items (!).

Also, he can punch through walls at some point. Just like all monks should be able to.

Looking for feedback, in case you're bored.

 

[Hammerhead]

I personally take survival to be very helpful to the party, although not to the exclusion of everything else, which I take to be your point--correct me if I'm wrong.

However, it's a barbarian's job, so to speak, to be a death magnet. The monk is good to take some of the heat off by drawing attention (and attacks) to himself. Even if the barbarian is a threat, taking out the admittedly weaker supporting ally is not a bad choice. But the monk is not the easiest target to hit.

On a side note: why is it that a lot of people complain about the monk's HD while no one complains about the cleric's? Most clerics I see are fighters in disguise! (cue Transformers music )

(back to the point) And although it's an easily reversible position, the best offence is a strong defence, so the other "defensive" characters in the abovementioned party must have been pretty good at drawing fire, which in turn helps offensively. A duelist is usually no slouch in the damage department from what I've seen, but he's a defensive monster if built right. A barbarian, on the other hand, is mostly a hard-hitting damage sponge begging for a squeeze.

And that's how it should be. But they're not exactly likely to die of old age either

Clerics can have better HP than Monks because they can usually afford a better Con score. Also, clerics will often bump their own Con with Endurance. Usually, if they drop, the party's healing ability drops dramaticly, so it's often a good idea for the cleric to cast the spell on himself so he can stay conscious.

Defensive ability only matters if you get attacked. If Monk runs up, flurries, and misses with every attack, or hits once for a pathetic amount, it's not really going to matter if he has a 100 AC and a cloak of displament. Enemies are going to ignore him and attack actual dangerous people. Dangerous people or easily killed people are going to be bigger targets. If the Monk is going to be impossible to take out, and an annoyance rather than a threat, then he's not exactly going to be the #1 target. So between attacking the hard to hit monk that doesn't hit often or hard, or the raging barbarian that's so easy to hit one can power attack, most enemies are going to attack the barbarian.

Once upon a time, our group fought an evil wizard. My cleric had Deathward, 26 SR, immunity to lightning bolt, magic missile, and enervation. Guess what? Our wizard ate the Finger of Death, and the sorcerer and barbarian died to lightning bolts. The best defense means your friends get attacked instead.

 

[S'mon]

I made the comment based on another person experience about why a monk is cool. He said the monk survives, so the monk is cool. I say: needing to run away shouldn't be your top priority. It doesn't come up much in any of the games I am involved in. A situation that does not come up often.

DMG pg 102 - in the typical campaign, 5% of Encounters should be 'Overpowering' - +5 or more CR to the party and only survivable by running away, while 15% should be 'Very Difficult', +1 to +4 CR to the party - possibly winnable by a full strength party, but retreat may often be the best option.

IMO therefore games where the PCs never need to run away are just as variant from core 3e as are games where PCs need to run away all the time (a la CoC).

 

[Hakkenshi]

Clerics can have better HP than Monks because they can usually afford a better Con score. Also, clerics will often bump their own Con with Endurance. Usually, if they drop, the party's healing ability drops dramaticly, so it's often a good idea for the cleric to cast the spell on himself so he can stay conscious.

Defensive ability only matters if you get attacked. If Monk runs up, flurries, and misses with every attack, or hits once for a pathetic amount, it's not really going to matter if he has a 100 AC and a cloak of displament. Enemies are going to ignore him and attack actual dangerous people. Dangerous people or easily killed people are going to be bigger targets. If the Monk is going to be impossible to take out, and an annoyance rather than a threat, then he's not exactly going to be the #1 target. So between attacking the hard to hit monk that doesn't hit often or hard, or the raging barbarian that's so easy to hit one can power attack, most enemies are going to attack the barbarian.

Once upon a time, our group fought an evil wizard. My cleric had Deathward, 26 SR, immunity to lightning bolt, magic missile, and enervation. Guess what? Our wizard ate the Finger of Death, and the sorcerer and barbarian died to lightning bolts. The best defense means your friends get attacked instead.

...and then you drag their singed asses back to town. The logic behind your cleric not getting the Finger of Death, Lightning Bolts, etc., is that every DM metagames. Knowing that a PC has a bunch of protections, the DM will generally try to thwart the PC by not targeting those strengths.

BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. How do the monsters know who can do what, who has what protections??? As a DM, if I know that the Egoist in the PC party can manifest Acid Touch as a free action with no problems, I STILL will make a grappling monster attack him if it seems more logical in-game. And creatures don't KNOW the PCs AC either, so they don't immediately know who's harder to hit. By the time they do, the creatures ought to be dead already.

Having a monk jump around annoyingly should be enough to draw the attention of stupider monsters. It's a reflex to get rid of annoyances almost as much as it is to get rid of sources of pain.

Anyway, as to your story, what did the wizard do afterward? Die horribly at your hands, most likely, which is fine considering he had enough time to cast so many spells.

And let's face it, a monk with those buffs is as well-protected as your cleric, hits more, and moves much better.

As for this,

If Monk runs up, flurries, and misses with every attack, or hits once for a pathetic amount,

all I can say is stop rolling 1s. Seriously, I have NEVER seen a monk hit less than 2 times out of 3, unless it was a session of terrible luck for everyone--by which I mean ALL rolls of less than 10.

(edit) Oh, and for the record, we don't tend to run away much either, but then we've learned that that leads to casualties. There ARE consequences to foolish recklessness, after all. We just live with the fact that we have to make new characters

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Once upon a time, our group fought an evil wizard. My cleric had Deathward, 26 SR, immunity to lightning bolt, magic missile, and enervation. Guess what? Our wizard ate the Finger of Death, and the sorcerer and barbarian died to lightning bolts. The best defense means your friends get attacked instead.

..which is exactly my point about the barbarian dying because the monks are weak. Except you stated more clearly.

We discovered that same lesson the hard way with Improved Invisibility against giants. While on paper keeping the Wizard safe and giving the archer/rogue all those sneak attacks was a great move, the net effect was the giants attacked the targets they could actually hit and one PC was dropping unconscious per round.

A great defense for one or two characters actually made our party weaker because it encouraged the enemy to squash an individual vulnerable PC instead of spreading the damage around in the more natural way.

The same is likely to happen with any party with one single melee Damage Machine. The opposition will usually squash the barbarian and ignore those "effective" bouncing monks.

People bragging about how their monk lived while all their comrades kept dying is the main problem with the class I have been arguing about all along. That is a symptom the monk may not be pulling his own weight, not a point to brag about.

 

[LokiDR]

DMG pg 102 - in the typical campaign, 5% of Encounters should be 'Overpowering' - +5 or more CR to the party and only survivable by running away, while 15% should be 'Very Difficult', +1 to +4 CR to the party - possibly winnable by a full strength party, but retreat may often be the best option.

IMO therefore games where the PCs never need to run away are just as variant from core 3e as are games where PCs need to run away all the time (a la CoC).

DMG pg 102? I will have to read that section more carefully, and use it against my players. For the record, I didn't say "never run", I said "doesn't come up often"

Two points arise from what you have said, besides more problems for my PCs First, if only 5% of encounters are supposed to be absolute run-away encounters, how does optimizing for this 5% make monk any better? You have only put a statistic on how little this really should come up. Even with the other 15%, you are only looking at 1/5 of the encounters, not all of which you should run from. That still isn't a large margin.

Second, on a related note, by what you have quoted, the lvl 7 monk vs the party at APL 5 should be "'Very Difficult', +1 to +4 CR to the party - possibly winnable by a full strength party, but retreat may often be the best option." No one yet has believed that any of monks posted will get the party to leave the catacombs. Do you think any level 7 monk would?