Wizard vs. Monk...Winner?

[Thanee]

However, I still think the monk stands a chance, even though the class is horribly underpowered.

As soon as there are dice involved, there is also a chance, yeah. But it's very slim.

The only thing a monk is good at is killing spellcasters, you'd expect him to have the upper hand when doing the only thing he's good at.

I absolutely don't see how this is true. The monk is fairly well protected against magic, but has pretty much nothing (apart from the Stunning Fist/Quivering Palm thing) to do anything *against* the spellcasters. They are really not that good at killing spellcasters IMHO, they are good at surviving. That's something they definitely are.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

We'll not bring wishes into the equation please.

Forgot to answer this... I meant luckblade without Wish, just the basic one for ~20k.

Very good item.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Zimbel]

1e Monk

The monk has NEVER been anything other than a skirmisher-type class. Not since it's inception in 1e. The problem is that people see a high unarmed base damage and a high number of attacks and think "Oooh, this guy must be good at fighting."

Actually, in 1E, I found them to be pretty good damage dealers (if their to hits were a bit lower than a Fighter or subclass of the Fighter). At low levels (kinda like 3.0) you needed to ignore your natural attacks, and use polearms instead(okay- in 3.0, you needed to use Monk Weapons). Then, at high levels (if you ever got there), with more damage than many fighters/average attack and more attacks, you cleaned up against relatively low AC oponents (which at the highest levels was pretty much everyone- remeber the -10 cap on AC)

 

[Kristivas]

Basically, it's all coming down to player skill/deviousness at this point. There are some great wizard strategies (forcecage, contingency, ect.) and counters by the monk (ring with disentegrate or helm of teleportation, ect). No 2 players will be 100% even when it comes to skill, so that's going to be the deciding factor.

Well, that and the dice rolls. If the monk makes every save long enough to do his hand-to-hand dps against the wizard, the Gandalf is going to end up with his staff lodged somewhere in the depths of Mordor, if ya know what I mean.

On the other hand, if Jet Li rolls a 1 on his first save, he's not coming back for a sequel.

It only takes one spell from a wizard and one hit from a monk (stun/quivering) for either of them to drop the other. It's skill and dice rolls (assuming the gear and environment gave both an equal advantage).

Arena-style can favor the wizard, unless ALL spells have to be cast after the battle begins and neither can have active spells on them before someone says 'go' (no pre-casting contingencies) and if there's no leaving the arena until the fight is over.. both of which is something I would impose if I were wanting to see these two powerful figures fight for my amusement/curiosity.

Monks can have a great advantage if they meet the wizard in a random encounter sometime during a random day. The wizard may have already exhausted some spells and the monk may use hide and MS to get close.

While I would most certainly favor the wizard, I think everyone that says the monk would just get annihilated every time is just underestimating the class (which isn't that great, but useful against casters) and the skill of the person controlling the character.

 

[Kristivas]

I'm pretty much going to stop using the monk for my games. If someone really wants to play one, I won't say no. I think UFC-style fighting is much better and more realistic than Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon-style anyway. This post has shown me that unless the monk is TOTALLY min/maxed for encounters at the high level, that he's just going to get his behind handed to him.

If I want someone to scout ahead, I'll send the rogue.. or just summon some goblin minions and make them open the doors/run down the hallways.

 

[Zimbel]

Monks & Neckalces of Fireballs

It is possible to design a monk that is absolutely cheesy for a single 20th level combat. Take this example:

Monk 20. Items 20 Necklace of fireballs type VII in sack. 1 type 2 necklace of fireballs in which he has one 2d6 fireball in his hand. All the feats and dex raising items he can get so that his initiative allows him to go first and one ring of fire resistance. He moves to within 20 feet and drops the the fireball. Declares he allows himself to be hit by the 2d6 blast. All the fireballs need to suddenly make a save as if they were effected by magic fire. Total damage when they finally go up equals 1174 d 6 damage in which the wizard will get to save for half damage. The monk with improved evasion is very likely to ignore all damage completely. And even if he does get hit, it is very likely he will live through the number of items he fails.

It is very unlikely the wizard would be prepared to resist fireball. As it's not in the monks normal arsenal.

But, the question isn't wether a 20th level monk could defeat a 20th level wizard. That is easily possible given the ability to pick and choose single items for a combat. Now, the question really is can a monk given the items aquired during normal play stack up against other classes during the same set of adventures. That really depends on what items were given out.

Maybe it's just my particular PC (she had a low Con compared to a good d4 class build), but around LV 14 or so, my Sorcerer started investing in the highest Fire Res item possible (so as not to die from fire attacks/spells, which is the most common type). In 3.5, it's even better (if more expensive), since on a failed save versus a 10d6 fireball, you'd take 5 points, on average, per fireball (as opposed to the resistance taking effect 1/round). At this level, the Wizard isn't going to fail many saves.

So against such a preped wizard, this tactic would cause around 160 points assuming all failed saves. That's enough to kill a Wizard that isn't high Con, or shapechanged to be fire immune. Unfortunately, the save DC is only 14. A Wiz of this level would have at least a +5 (Res) +6 (base) +1 (Dex) = +12 to their save, which suggests a 5% failure rate. Even on max damage, a Wizard takes 0 points on a made save.

This gives roughly an average of 8 points of damage. Even octupling this (64), assuming that some of the relevant fireballs against which saves are failed (might as well not bother with the 5d6 and lower ones) have substantially higher than average damage, this won't kill a average HP for a +1 Con Wiz (and frankly, a Wiz with a +1 to Con and no other HP source is unlikely to have lived to this level): 71

As a more minor point, the Monk will take 0 damage. Their SR may not be very good against a LV 20 Wiz, but it's plenty against an item that has a 0% chance of beating it.

 

[Zimbel]

An arena setting is not really a fair test of which character is "superior."

I agree here. Here's how I'd determine it:
1) Set up a variety of encounters, say 4 of them. Make 'em around EL 20 (19-21). Try to vary the types wildly.
2) Create 5 PCs- say 1 rogue, 1 Fighter, 1 Cleric, 1 Monk, and 1 Wiz. All LV 20.
3) Try out the above encounters, 1 after another with the following parties:
A) 1 rogue, 1 Fighter, 1 Cleric, 1 Monk
B) 1 rogue, 1 Fighter, 1 Cleric, 1 Wizard
4) At the end of each party's encounters, look at the resources expended by the control PCs (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue), as well as any 1 use items by the test PC. Did they survive? Were all the enounters successfully completed? How many spells/HP/1 use items were used?
5) Declare the class with the least control resources (and 1 use items) weighed by their power/cost that were consumed the stronger class.

I have not attempted this per se, but I've seen encounters with and without a LV 20 sorcerer, and with and without a LV 20 mainliner, and frankly the first is a huge difference in the other PC's survivability; the second is a minor effect. Same with a (LV 18 in this case) Cleric vs a mainliner.

 

[Shadowdweller]

However, I still think the monk stands a chance, even though the class is horribly underpowered. The only thing a monk is good at is killing spellcasters, you'd expect him to have the upper hand when doing the only thing he's good at.

Before you make such a sweeping statement, keep in mind that the classes have never been balanced fighting against each other. Against many enemies, particularly high-level outsiders with all sorts of spell-like abilities, yet not quite the breadth or versatility of a Wizard, having a grade-A skirmisher can make a BIG difference (even though sadly lacking in the DR bypassing category). A monk CAN serve as the party's front-liner, you just have to be a lot more careful and tactically-oriented to pull it off.

 

[Bryan898]

Before you make such a sweeping statement, keep in mind that the classes have never been balanced fighting against each other. Against many enemies, particularly high-level outsiders with all sorts of spell-like abilities, yet not quite the breadth or versatility of a Wizard, having a grade-A skirmisher can make a BIG difference (even though sadly lacking in the DR bypassing category). A monk CAN serve as the party's front-liner, you just have to be a lot more careful and tactically-oriented to pull it off.

I fail to see why the classes have never been balanced fighting against each other, or could not be. Is the idea of a monk opposing an evil wizard in the game that ludicrous? Do the PCs not fight the evil fighter warlord, or the kobold theif? They should be balanced for fighting each other because they DO fight each other and quite commonly at that.

As for serving as the party's front liner, I don't think monks can do it very well. Even if they can, the other classes like Paladin, Fighter, and Barbarian do it better. They lack the ability to soak damage due to lower hit points. They lack the ability to deal good amounts of damage. They lack a good BAB. They can't break the DR of most creatures. If a 20th level monk were to go up against say a Balor (a CR 20 creature), the Balor would pound him into the ground. He has no way of breaking the Balor's DR of 15/cold iron and good. He can't afford to use Power Attack due to his low Bab, his MAD will cause him to generally have only a mediocre strength, and he can't take weapon specialization. With Improved Natural Attack and an Amulet of Mighty Fists +5 he deals 2d8+5+Str, to do five points of damage on average to the Balor he needs a +6 Str. Sure he can withstand the Balor's spell-like abilities, but his physical attacks will tear the monk apart. I admit, I did pick one of the bigger creatures, but the same 20th level monk would have the same problems with a CR 16 Horned Devil. Heck, I'd say even a solitary Elder Earth Elemental (CR 11) could possibly whack the 20th level monk. (Off topic, but when did the Horned Devil (Cornugon) pass up the Ice Devil (Gelugon)? As far as I remember the Gelugon was the more powerful of the two, now its a CR 13 vrs CR 16.)

My point is that a monk has very little to bring to the table except: Mobility, Spell Resistance, the highest saves, and a few Fort or stun/die abilities. He makes a decent skirmisher, but the Scout works better IMO. His abilities are exactly the abilities you need to have a chance of fighting off a spellcaster, but he's poor at even that.

 

[tylermalan]

I agree that the Monk is NOT the front-liner of choice, they just don't have what's necessary to tank, be it in the damage-taking category, or the damage-dealing category. On that note, I can't see why I would use a Monk to scout when I could use a ranger or rogue instead.

But on topic, what have we decided is the best strategy for both (not considering Wishes)? I think the Wizard is Time Stop, Contingency, Teleport, Horrid Wilting, Finger of Death, Scry, and Disjunction with a ridiculous Intelligence.
I think the Monk is, what, maybe Stun/Quivering Palm? But how is the Monk going to get around the Contingency? Plus, he'll need a HIGH Fort.

Is this about what it boils down to?