Wizard vs. Monk...Winner?

[Arkhandus]

As I already pointed out about two or three pages ago, the monk cannot get his Quivering Palm DC high enough to have a good chance of success with it. The wizard, with good Constitution, a cloak of resistance, the Great Fortitude feat, and possibly an amulet of health, luckstone, bear's endurance spell, or the like, will be able to have a Fort bonus of +16 to +20 easily, and the monk's QP DC isn't going to be terribly high; 20 + wis mod (maybe +5 or +10, depending on how much the monk is going to sacrifice in str, dex, and con just to get better Will saves and monk DCs). The wizard will likely only have a 5-25% chance of failing the saving throw, whereas the monk will have a higher chance of failing to save against the wizard's death spells (DC 33-36 typically if the wizard has focused on boosting his save DCs).

The monk has too many things to divide ability score points, stat boosts, and ability-boosting items amongst, and isn't likely to have any given one be exceptionally high unless he's seriously, seriously sacrificing other stuff. The monk only needs one exploitable weakness and the wizard will be able to kill or disable him within the first few rounds. If the monk pumps up Wis above all else, the wizard will likely kill him with a Finger of Death or Disintegrate (with Quickened True Strike) or petrify him with Flesh to Stone. If the monk pumps Con and thus Fort, the wizard will likely kill him with a Phantasmal Killer or Wierd, or disable him with an Otto's Irresistable Dance or Dominate Person or the like. Prismatic Spray could spell doom for the monk in numerous ways. I rarely see high-level wizards who don't have at least one or two of these spells in their spellbook and either prepared or on a scroll, because relying on damage-dealing alone is a poor tactic against certain tricky or supertough enemies. The wizard doesn't have to know the monk's weakness, though he can through observation with Scrying or questions through Contact Other Plane. The wizard just needs to cast a few different spells until he finds the monk's weakness through trial and error.

 

[nameless]

Wizard, 100% of the time.

Even a wizard who isn't expecting an arena-type fight would have spells prepared to deal with various obstacles. Any one of these will probably mean that a monk simply loses, with no save:

Shapechange (give the wizard unbeatable defenses, or attacks that devestate the monk)
Bigby's Grasping Hand (only level 7!), around +45 grapple check versus what is likely +25-+30 for a monk. Wizard can then kill the monk at his leisure.
Bigby's Crushing Hand, even higher grapple check than grasping hand, and deals damage to boot. This will probably kill a lone monk by itself while the wizard takes 0 damage.

If the wizard is willing to grant the monk a save, countless spells between 4th and 9th level kill instantly.

If the wizard can negate the monk's SR (or the monk doesn't have SR because he took a prestige class), a summon monster IX will get him a gaggle of avorals that do empowered magic missles every round. On average that is 3 avorals per spell, doing 63 damage per round with no save.

A conjuror will probably have a greater planar binding or ten at work, with some beaucoup powerful outsiders doing his bidding. A monk isn't much of a match for a pit fiend, planetar, or a balor on his own, either.

Considering the sheer number of spells a level 20 wizard prepares, it isn't even a significant drain of resources to beat a mere level 20 monk.

 

[Storm Raven]

I don't think forcecage is a commonly memorized spell for wizards. The only way the wiard beats the monk is by taking spells that work specifically toward that goal. I've never seen forcecage used even once by PCs in a standard adventure. Even if you consider that one fair, quickened dimensional anchor and dimensional lock are most certainly rarely used in common adventuring.

Then your wizards are probably not being used to their full potential. Forcecage is a spell that can isolate an enemy (or protect yourself) that has no save. Dimensional lock is a utilitarian spell at high level, since so many of your probable opponents have the ability to teleport, go ethereal, or otherwise move away from where you want them to be.

So if you take a standard monk with standard gear against a standard wizard with standard spells, the wizard will most likely lose. Wizards are far more likely to take horrid wilting than quickened dimensional anchor or dimensional lock; also, the former requires a touch attack (good luck with that against a monk) and the latter has to get through SR (also not guaranteed to succeed.

True strike is a high level wizard's best friend. Combined with the Quicken metamagic feat, or a lesser metamagic rod of quicken it makes those pesky touch attacks pretty much a sure thing against most foes.

Frankly, I don't know any wizards who commonly take duel-type spells as part of their normal spells-per-day. That is somethign that requires foreknowledge of the situation. Any monk with a brain, however, will have a means to permanently be able to fly, as it's their one real weakness.

Using the core rules, how does a monk get the ability to fly permanently?

 

[tylermalan]

I don't think forcecage is a commonly memorized spell for wizards. The only way the wiard beats the monk is by taking spells that work specifically toward that goal. I've never seen forcecage used even once by PCs in a standard adventure. Even if you consider that one fair, quickened dimensional anchor and dimensional lock are most certainly rarely used in common adventuring.

So if you take a standard monk with standard gear against a standard wizard with standard spells, the wizard will most likely lose. Wizards are far more likely to take horrid wilting than quickened dimensional anchor or dimensional lock; also, the former requires a touch attack (good luck with that against a monk) and the latter has to get through SR (also not guaranteed to succeed.

Frankly, I don't know any wizards who commonly take duel-type spells as part of their normal spells-per-day. That is somethign that requires foreknowledge of the situation. Any monk with a brain, however, will have a means to permanently be able to fly, as it's their one real weakness.

Part of me wants to agree with what Anubis is saying. So far, the arguments have broken down to:

1.) Wizard's can kick all sorts of butt... if they know what they're fighting before hand.

2.) Monk's don't have much variety or even many options when going up against the wizard, but they can do some damage once they get past that "wall of spells."

3.) Monks can get magic items to take care of glaring weaknesses (such as the inability to fly, etc).

I'll agree with others though that in an arena type setting, the wizard wins a majority of the encounters. But as Anubis said, that's also assuming that the wizard sat down at the dinner table one night and said, "How can I crush this martial artist guy who swings with just his bare hands?" This is also assuming the wizard has a spellbook that has access to all those nifty monk killing spells that everyone is talking about, and that said wizard is going to make it a point of memorizing all of these spells. This also assumes that in-game, the monk will actually willingly call out the wizard, declare what his "class" is, and give the wizard knowledge as to how to defeat him.

"Dear Wizard:

I just wanted to inform you that I'm going to attack you head on with my hands and feet. Careful, I have spell resistance that you'll need to crush. I will charge you from 100 yards away, in an open field. Let us begin this fight tomorrow.

Signed - Dumb Monk"



Sure, the wizard is more "powerful," as are all spellcasters at high levels compared to their melee counterparts, but melee characters have a few methods, albeit very limited, to dispatch of their spell-slinging friends, especially the monk.

Good lord, how many times does it have to be pointed out that the MONK AND WIZARD ARE BOTH TOTALLY PREPARED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS DEBATE!! I'm pretty sure I've said that 3 or 4 times now, read the thread. Yes, in a "standard" situation, there are certain things tht we cannot assume, but for the purpose of this argument, it is NOT a standard situation.

 

[Artoomis]

Good lord, how many times does it have to be pointed out that the MONK AND WIZARD ARE BOTH TOTALLY PREPARED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS DEBATE!! I'm pretty sure I've said that 3 or 4 times now, read the thread. Yes, in a "standard" situation, there are certain things tht we cannot assume, but for the purpose of this argument, it is NOT a standard situation.

And how many times does it need to be pointed out that an arena-type setting is a really ridiculous way to figure out relative character power.

A monks' real power comes from the fact that he is virtually ALWAYS prepared for combat, even if stripped of all equipment.

 

[Nail]

Good lord, how many times does it have to be pointed out that the MONK AND WIZARD ARE BOTH TOTALLY PREPARED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS DEBATE!!

I can understand your frustration, OP.

...but keep in mind, the thread is now 5 pages long. A significant faction of the people that "read" the thread really just skim the first parts - or skip them entirely - before posting their own ill-thought through opinion. What, did I just write "ill-thought through". I meant to just imply it.

 

[Nail]

...A monks' real power comes from the fact that he is virtually ALWAYS prepared for combat, even if stripped of all equipment.

...or at least, it seems as if a Monk is always prepared, regardless of equipment.

As this thread has showed time and again, the only way a Mnk 20 can take a Wiz 20 is if he is prepared with the right equipment. A wizard, OTOH, doesn't need much in the way of equipment to beat the Monk. That's the point, Artoomis.

 

[tylermalan]

And how many times does it need to be pointed out that an arena-type setting is a really ridiculous way to figure out relative character power.

A monks' real power comes from the fact that he is virtually ALWAYS prepared for combat, even if stripped of all equipment.

1) Seconding Nail's above post.

2) Yes, it is ridiculous, but those were the conditions laid out for the purpose of this debate. We can have a new debate about all that other stuff, about how an arena-type combat is a ridiculous way to determine character power (which I am NOT arguing against), but for the purpose of this debate, that's how it is.

3) And yeah, I know Nail, its just gaaaaaaah! Thanks for the same opinion that we've already refuted 1000 times, you know?

 

[Storm Raven]

A monks' real power comes from the fact that he is virtually ALWAYS prepared for combat, even if stripped of all equipment.

Sort of. A high level monk stripped of all his equipment will usually lose a significant portion of what makes his ability scores really high (probably dropping his Wisdom, Dexterity, Strength, and possibly Constitution by 6 points or more each). This, off the bat, drops his AC, attacks, damage, saves, the save DC of his monk abilities all by a not insignificant amount. He retains his ability to flurry, stun, and so on, but everything is less effective. Without items the monk's AC enhancers go away. His saves come down to earth. He loses the ability to fly. He loses the ability to counter magical barriers and attacks.

Without his equipment, a high level wizard still has access to high level spells. His save Dcs might go down, and he loses a lot of his AC and so on, but he can compensate for that to some extent with his spell casting ability.

 

[Artoomis]

Actually, what's truly been shown is:

1. The wizard has greater raw power (well, duh!)
2. Given the right equipment choices, the monk could win, but it definately depends upon equipment vs. wizard choices.
3. The terms of the dual really can, to a large extent, determine the victor. The ideal conditions for the monk and for the wizard are far from the same.
4. With absolutely no equipment or preperation at all, the monk wins (well, duh, the wizard needs his spell book and spell component pounch, or at least have been able to prepare spells that are V & S only.) Yes, the wizard COULD counter this with feats, but then he has NOT taken other feats, has he?
5. Who wins is GREATLY intiative-dependent. In many cases the wizard could be completely neutralized in the first round if the monk goes first and takes the right actions.
6. Feat choices have also figure largely in the debate, but only so many can be taken and, really, have these two characters ONLY been preparing for THIS FIGHT all their lives?

Bottom line: Monks are wizard-killers, but not so much if the wizard is well-prepared to face the monk one-on-one.

The whole discussion is a bit silly, really.