What's Up With The Monk?

[Hammerhead]

Okay, so the Monk flurries, and hits twice, doing 2d12+10. Often that will be less 20 for Stoneskin or Inertial Barrier. The fighter type hits twice 4d4+26 and threatens on 12 to 20, or does some other really mean damage. Stoneskin, while still having a signifcant effect, doesn't completely destroy his damage. If I'm choosing between a hard target that doesn't do much, or a guy that hits twice as hard and is easier to it, I think I'll choose the damaging, easy to hit guy.

Or you can make the Monk focus more on strength and thus damage dealing. However, except in really high stat games, his Dex will suffer. Then he's easier to hit and loses that great defense aspect to the class, especially since he can't wear armor.

Regarding my little anecdote: Evil wizard guy was scrying us as we buffed, and our group had 1 rank in Scry at the time, IIRC. So he saw all the spells I cast. Also, multiple Abjuration effects on the same person create a shimmering in the air that can be noticed with a relatively easy Spot check. But, yes, those spells eventually came in handy because my cleric was the only one that could see Evil Wizard Guy, and because my Flamestrike provoked an ice storm and cone of cold - that my SR defeated. But for a (mistaken, IMHO) interpretation of an effect, he would have died faster to my other spells. And a Monk would have been rather poor in that situation.

 

[apsuman]

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?

Would ANY level 7 character?

Possibly a wizard.

I would say that the "real" level of the party would be something closer to 6.4-6.7, in part because of their numbers, and in part because of the centaur.

But, then again, I am wrong often.

g!

 

[LokiDR]

Would ANY level 7 character?

Possibly a wizard.

I would say that the "real" level of the party would be something closer to 6.4-6.7, in part because of their numbers, and in part because of the centaur.

But, then again, I am wrong often.

g!

The centaur was reincarnated and only has the stat boosts, and they lack a cleric (they buy and go through healing potions by the case). One or more people don't show up on a regular basis. I wouldn't put the party above 6. A single hill giant would stomp them pretty good

What I am saying is that your math shows the monk should be something the party should consider running from, by the math you quoted. I don't see that. This is why I think the monk is weak.

 

[S'mon]

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?

If you want my opinion, the party with numbers & levels as posted is more a strong lvl 6 or weak lvl 7 party anyway, so one wouldn't expect a lone level 7 monk to defeat them in the sense of forcing a retreat. If I were running the battle and wanted to hurt the PCs I'd combine the monk with some orcs or whatever for distraction.

 

[apsuman]

The centaur was reincarnated and only has the stat boosts, and they lack a cleric (they buy and go through healing potions by the case). One or more people don't show up on a regular basis. I wouldn't put the party above 6. A single hill giant would stomp them pretty good

What I am saying is that your math shows the monk should be something the party should consider running from, by the math you quoted. I don't see that. This is why I think the monk is weak.

I do not have my MM, but the centaur should have the stat boost (what stats and how many?), extra movement, an improbably high boost to being tripped, bull rushed, or grappled. Heck, you even get to introduce the tactic of engaging opponents in melee while someone riding you gets to pepper them with missle fire, or even lance attacks.

I do not like the CR system I think it breaks down easily and often. I asked a question twice now, what level seven character equipped as a PC would be a challege to this group? even if one person does not show up? even if they had to buy the case of cure potions instead of that cloak of resistance to bad things?

I think only a wizard. Anyone they can engage in combat (excluding flying opponents) should be beaten without much danger.

g!

 

[LokiDR]

I do not have my MM, but the centaur should have the stat boost (what stats and how many?), extra movement, an improbably high boost to being tripped, bull rushed, or grappled. Heck, you even get to introduce the tactic of engaging opponents in melee while someone riding you gets to pepper them with missle fire, or even lance attacks.

I do not like the CR system I think it breaks down easily and often. I asked a question twice now, what level seven character equipped as a PC would be a challege to this group? even if one person does not show up? even if they had to buy the case of cure potions instead of that cloak of resistance to bad things?

I think only a wizard. Anyone they can engage in combat (excluding flying opponents) should be beaten without much danger.

g!

Reincarnate gives stat boosts and gross physical qualities. If you are lacking a MM where you are (or the PH for reincarnate), try http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html The centar has only 4 level, and is new to his form. And the "improbably high boost to being tripped, bull rushed, or grappled" is only the extra 2 legs and +8 strengh. He is only at 20 or 22, as he was a finess fighter. The centaur can be avoided, as all the tactical discussions here have pointed out.

Now to the question of CR. I do not think the CR system is amazingly good, but it has it's supporters. It is the only published technical means to compare threats to a party. The published material says the monk is CR 7, the party is APL 5 (where does it say "based on party of 4"?) and the challenge is +2 over the party level. The published material calls this a very difficult encounter, one that the party should potentially run from. This is all published, without any situational modifiers. The situation favors the monk, who can use the local terain and confound the PCs.

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.

I personally see most any other class as being better suited to this task. I proposed the challenge in the first place because monk was at the bottom of my list. I want those who like monks to show me how they have advantages over others. Every thing that has been proposed, save "not dying" is something that another class better.

 

[Hakkenshi]

Whatever buffs you give the level 7 character, a level 5 party (especially with 5 members) will slaughter him unless the scale you keep for equipping PCs and NPCs is really skewed. An extra party member is an extra set of actions. Average party level means nothing there. Think about it: have a 10-person party all at level 5, and that's a party averaging level 5. They'll take any CR of less than 9 or 10 apart.

And the CR system IS based around a party of 4 characters, although I don't have a specific reference for you. Read the CR section in the DMG, I guess.

Originally posted by Ridley's Cohort
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.

Well, that or the characters who die aren't built as well, and aren't pulling THEIR own weight. Survival is pretty essential to the game, and a barbarian (or fighter, or whatever other class) who can't tell when a battle is lost and retreat is the best option is asking for it. If the monk cannot hit at all, odds are the rogue can't either, nor the cleric. You're then catering almost solely to offensive spellcasters and brute strength fighters, who should not take up so much game space.

And if the monk never hits, your dice are cursed somehow. The odds are on his side, if anything at least for the number of attacks. And once he gets damage in, it's quite respectable, if not what a barbarian or fighter would do.

Hammerhead, if the fighter has items that give him a threat of 12-20 and +13 damage to each attack, but the monk has nothing remotely comparable, the DM's at fault, not the monk. As has been stated, there are many rules that permit the addition of similar items for unarmed strikes, and you can always rule 0 if you must. It's not needed, but you can.

 

[Hakkenshi]

Originally posted by LokiDR
I personally see most any other class as being better suited to this task. I proposed the challenge in the first place because monk was at the bottom of my list. I want those who like monks to show me how they have advantages over others. Every thing that has been proposed, save "not dying" is something that another class better.

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).

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.

He can sneak around just fine, as well as a rogue, in fact.

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.

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.

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

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Well, that or the characters who die aren't built as well, and aren't pulling THEIR own weight. Survival is pretty essential to the game, and a barbarian (or fighter, or whatever other class) who can't tell when a battle is lost and retreat is the best option is asking for it. If the monk cannot hit at all, odds are the rogue can't either, nor the cleric. You're then catering almost solely to offensive spellcasters and brute strength fighters, who should not take up so much game space.

If you have one offensive-minded and many defensive-minded characters in the party, it is predictable that the offensive-minded character will die much more often unless you exercise truly masterful teamwork.

It is my observation that naively super-stacking on defenses for a specific character often hurts the party as a whole because attacks are simply directed at more vulnerable teammates. If the opposition is encouraged to focus all attacks on the one or two most vulnerable PCs, you will have dead PCs; it really doesn't matter how the lightning rod PCs are built or played.

 

[Hakkenshi]

It is my observation that naively super-stacking on defenses for a specific character often hurts the party as a whole because attacks are simply directed at more vulnerable teammates. If the opposition is encouraged to focus all attacks on the one or two most vulnerable PCs, you will have dead PCs; it really doesn't matter how the lightning rod PCs are built or played.

Again, I have to question the wisdom of having creatures automatically know which characters are harder to hit by the numbers. A Purple Worm shouldn't be able to tell your cleric's AC is bumped through the roof. A Dragon might. An elven wizard might. An intelligent humanoid, sure. But any mindless (golems, certain undead), animalistic (dire animals, dinosaurs) or simple-minded creature (characters with an Int score of 6 or less) should not be able to tell off-hand.

It would be perfectly reasonable for an Int 6 Half-Orc (or Orc, or whatever) to believe he's fighting godly beings that cannot be hit (supposing he never connects). Most opponents (look through the MM!) should NOT realize what's going on and automatically attack the low-AC guys.

Remember that you're also making it so that players think their planning was useless. Sure, he's protected, but does he feel it was useful if he's not attacked? No. So, because the game is also about having the players feeling rewarded, I sometimes "sacrifice" an opportunity by attacking a character who's well-prepared for it, because his character took the time. If the protected character is always thwarted, he won't really enjoy himself.

For instance, last week I had a Devil use his whip to try and entangle (and subsequently) grapple a PC, a 23rd-level Egoist, knowing full well that the frail-seeming Kuresh (from If Thoughts Could Kill) was a likely target for the Devil, but had, in fact, a temporary Strength modifier of something like +25.

That being said, I'm not a big proponent of "super-stacking" either. I think there's a time for everything, and buffing yourself straight through three rounds of combat with people bleeding and dying around you is stupid.

And with that, I think I've gone far enough afield of the topic