What's Up With The Monk?

[LokiDR]

The monk was missing better than 50% of the time, despite the fact that he had +9 to hit. I didn't use flurry, because I thought I would miss even worse. The fighter hit on 11+ when the monk was doging him, so that was exactly 50%. In this case, the fighter was 2 levels lower than the monk and was hitting slightly better (another argument for fighter BAB I guess)

 

[Voneth]

Actualy to not be hit and tie up other combants is a valid tactic. My 1st level Living Arcanis Psy Warrior is learning that lesson well. I can't hit much in combat yet, but he manages to move in a tie up other opponets with the hope that someone will heal him when his hit points go down.

 

[LokiDR]

Actualy to not be hit and tie up other combants is a valid tactic. My 1st level Living Arcanis Psy Warrior is learning that lesson well. I can't hit much in combat yet, but he manages to move in a tie up other opponets with the hope that someone will heal him when his hit points go down.

That is exactly what I tried to do when I played a monk. It has also been discussed in this thread. The tatic fails when you fight enemies strong enough to out-right kill you (damn T-Rex). It also fails if your comrads are ever effective, since even animals will fight the things hurting it before the guy just jumping around. If you can't really threaten some one but your comrads do, your comrads will die. Surviability is not all some claim it is.

 

[Hakkenshi]

See, now I don't understand how the mnk/ftr could have had better to hit (this is monk 4/ftr 1, right?), since the monk's level should have added at least enough BAB to EQUAL him, plus the extra (lower) attack that the PC doesn't get, but that can still hit. It doesn't make sense.

 

[LokiDR]

See, now I don't understand how the mnk/ftr could have had better to hit (this is monk 4/ftr 1, right?), since the monk's level should have added at least enough BAB to EQUAL him, plus the extra (lower) attack that the PC doesn't get, but that can still hit. It doesn't make sense.

The fighter I was refering to was the centaur, with 20 str, weapon focus, and 4 BAB. The mnk/ftr in the party is 2/3. I think he also has weapon focus, 16+ normal str, +1 weapon, and was buffed before the combat. I was not considering the additional attack, which could have been a major advantage, given time.

Why is it surprizing the traditional fighter, with a party to back him up, outclasses the monk toe to toe on damage? Wouldn't that just be expected?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Actualy to not be hit and tie up other combants is a valid tactic. My 1st level Living Arcanis Psy Warrior is learning that lesson well. I can't hit much in combat yet, but he manages to move in a tie up other opponets with the hope that someone will heal him when his hit points go down.

This tactic is good in theory but extremely difficult to implement in practice unless you are willing to stand still where the opposition can hit you. Standing your ground is not a problem for a barbarian, fighter, psywarrior, paladin, or even a cleric, but it is a poor choice for a monk.

Where the monk excels at the distraction technique is when they can tumble through lines and harass a spellcaster. That is sure a fun role when you can get it, but it doesn't really address what you are supposed during those other 9 of 10 combats. Note that some clerics are quite capable of taking a monk apart single-handedly.

 

[Hakkenshi]

No, it's expected and not at all surprising, but that the mnk/ftr would do so well DOES surprise me. Against a monk 7 he shouldn't really stand a chance, although buffs do, of course, make a great difference.

So the mnk 2/ftr 3 would have had +9 to hit (buffs notwithstanding), correct?

The monk 7 should have had at least +9/+6 to hit (again, buffs notwithstanding). +5 Unarmed BAB, +3 from Strength (Str16, right?), +1 kama, and then the other possible bonuses from buffs.

Normally, I'd certainly give the odds to the monk in this case...
Even with a Flurry, that's +7/+7/+4, which is far from bad against a level 5 character. Meh, whatever, I must be missing something.

Note that some clerics are quite capable of taking a monk apart single-handedly.

That's a well-placed "some", since the opposite is also true

 

[LokiDR]

I don't think you are missing anything, Hakkenshi. The monk didn't have any buffs to hit, as he spent money on other things. The +10 or so at d10+5 beat the +9 attack at 1d6+4. The monk's extra attacks reduced his to hit enought that it didn't really matter, flurry or not.

I feel this isn't a huge problem for the monk. The mnk/ftr had to use a lot to beat him, and the monk would have won if it was just those two.

 

[Gizzard]

I didn't use flurry, because I thought I would miss even worse.

You do better in almost every case to just go ahead and Flurry, though it gets worse the more attacks you get. If I've done the math right (in my head) the break-even for a Monk with two regular attacks is when he needs an (unmodified) 16 to hit. Everything less its better to Flurry. This should hold for all two-attack Monks, which is levels 6-9.

No Monk thread would be complete without this discussion. ;-)

 

[Emirikol]

You do better in almost every case to just go ahead and Flurry.

What about weapon use with a spiked chain (exotic weapon feat)?

jh