Monks are better than Wizards!

[ranagrande]

Ok not really, but in a game I'm running, a level 1 Monk recently single-handedly beat a level 3 Wizard. His teammates were incapacitated by the Wizard's opening Color Spray, but the Monk made his save and then proceeded to pummel the Wizard into submission.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Why was the wizard close enough to use Color Spray?

[Morph Bark]

Bold last words.

[erikun]

Why was the Wizard getting close enough to cast Color Spray when they couldn't even handle 2d6 damage?

[The Underlord]

Try a Level 18 monk vs Level 20 wizard. I doubt it would trun out the same :smallamused:. At low levels a monk can easily beat a wizard because of limited spell slots, but at higher levels it wouldnt be hard for a wizard to beat a monk.

[Provengreil]

well, if we ignore why the wizard was close enough for color spray and just focus on that he did, we see that some builds of monk have an admittedly good will save (pump wis, all good saves, etc...) so at the lowest levels a will save based wizard could easily lose to a monk, because if the save is made the wizard has no HP to fall back on, and isn't high enough level to reliably defend the same. it really is just a matter of range of engagement, as 2 casting of magic missile from a hundred feet out or so will almost certainly bring down that same monk.

[missmvicious]

I've heard it said that Monks are the anti-Wizard.

I kind of agree. Monks can be especially frustrating to take out when you're a spell-caster, and once they get in close (which doesn't take long) it's lights out.

I don't know why no one I play with ever wants to be a monk. I know why I don't... I'm a hit and run kind of player. I like to keep my distance and deal my damage from a good hiding spot. But I've played with several people who want to be unarmed Fighters, Barbarians, or even a Cleric... and not because they had some Prestige route in mind that I didn't know about. They just picked it for role-playing purposes. But a Monk is an unarmed fighter, and a mean one at that. I'd actually rather have a Monk protecting my thinly armored hide than any other melee type.

[Tengu_temp]

Why was the wizard close enough to use Color Spray?

Because NPCs don't have to be super-optimized or use the most optimal tactics?


I've heard it said that Monks are the anti-Wizard.

They are, in the way that wizards are the strongest PC class and monks are the weakest.

[erikun]

Well I should point out that yes, Wizards are squishy and don't have very good AC at low levels. There is a reason the low-level Wizard's best defense at low levels is "stay behind the Fighter".

On the other hand, it sounds like this Wizard had around 8 CON and 12 AC, considering that he died from a first-level Monk's flurry of blows. That is... some pretty low stats, both in DEX and CON, or some very lucky rolls on the part of the Monk. I would've expected at least a Shield or Mage Armor spell if they were considering walking into the middle of a group of adventurers voluntarily.

[ranagrande]

The Wizard was close enough to use Color Spray because he cast it when they opened the door to his room.

The Monk did get lucky; he used Stunning Fist in the first round and the Wizard failed his save. Then the Monk grappled and held on to win in round 3.

The Wizard did have Mage Armor up, but the Monk rolled well on attacks.

[The Underlord]

I've heard it said that Monks are the anti-Wizard.

I kind of agree. Monks can be especially frustrating to take out when you're a spell-caster, and once they get in close (which doesn't take long) it's lights out.

I don't know why no one I play with ever wants to be a monk. I know why I don't... I'm a hit and run kind of player. I like to keep my distance and deal my damage from a good hiding spot. But I've played with several people who want to be unarmed Fighters, Barbarians, or even a Cleric... and not because they had some Prestige route in mind that I didn't know about. They just picked it for role-playing purposes. But a Monk is an unarmed fighter, and a mean one at that. I'd actually rather have a Monk protecting my thinly armored hide than any other melee type.

You want to know why no one plays a monk? To some up the forums general opinion, monks suck. They are incredibly MAD, have increadibly low AC, cant do damage, and will get one-shotted by most things past level 5.

[Big Fau]

Ok not really, but in a game I'm running, a level 1 Monk recently single-handedly beat a level 3 Wizard. His teammates were incapacitated by the Wizard's opening Color Spray, but the Monk made his save and then proceeded to pummel the Wizard into submission.


1: Sheer luck determined the saves.

2: The wizard was lacking in buffs.

Chance happens, as does poor player skill. A DM has a lot to worry about when it comes to NPCs, and can't be expected to remember everything. This means it's largely human error VS the RNG, and that fight never ends happily when the RNG is getting 4 chances at everything.

[Dr.Epic]

Wizards at low levels aren't that powerful. Heck, even a level 3 wizard isn't anything to be worried about. The monk got lucky. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if the level 1 monk had more HP than the wizard.

[Wyntonian]

I actually did a series of experiments that proved the same thing! Turns out, an unarmed monk can beat a bound, gagged and unconscious wizard without spell slots in an AMF almost nine times out of ten!

But seriously, I do understand where you're coming from. At the level of optimization many people play at, at the levels you mentioned, that's a very possible outcome. Not exactly probable, assuming some degree of tactical assessment or skill on the wizard's part, but I'm not shocked to hear it.

[missmvicious]

They are, in the way that wizards are the strongest PC class and monks are the weakest.

I'll admit that 3.5 directed a lot of attention to spell-casters... perhaps a little too much, but I don't think it's all that fair to call Monk's the weakest. A Monk is aggravatingly hard to hit, since nothing short of immobilizing her causes her to lose her DEX bonus and can have her own bare hands enchanted right at level 1. And she's no slouch with a weapon either, and can use a wide variety of exotic weapons that most other classes can't. She's really hard to enchant when she doesn't want to be enchanted, and can use some pretty handy spell-like abilities, and doesn't have a lot of financial needs, so she's easy on the parties pocketbook, unlike the item junkies of your group: Clerics, Paladins, Fighters, Sorcerers, who have already figured out how to spend the next 1,000GP you get before you even earn it.

Monk is not exactly my favorite class, so I'm the wrong one to defend it's honor, but I'd rank it very high on the list of classes I like to travel with.

In case anyone cares, my order of preference for classes to play are (from love it, to hate it):
Cleric
Wizard
Bard
Rogue
Druid
Ranger
Sorcerer
Monk
Fighter
Barbarian
Paladin... man, I do not enjoy playing a Paladin in 3.5.

I had to write my own house rules on Paladins just to make them not suck so much. That's one thing 4e got right, I guess. I think they did a great job on the Paladin; it's now a class worth playing, even if you're not fighting hordes of the undead.

[navar100]

Gee, I thought Color Spray was one of those I Win D&D spells everyone who yells about 3E magic yells about for low level spellcasters. There's also Ray of Enfeeblement and Sleep, but Color Spray is mentioned right along with it. Now, all of sudden a Wizard who used the spell got killed anyway, and everyone is saying the Wizard was just being stupid for casting Color Spray. You can't have it both ways.

[Calanon]

Try a Level 18 monk vs Level 20 wizard. I doubt it would trun out the same :smallamused:. At low levels a monk can easily beat a wizard because of limited spell slots, but at higher levels it wouldnt be hard for a wizard to beat a monk.

Lets make it fair, the Monk is level 25 against a lvl 20 Wizard... Eh... Time Stop good day sir...

[Lord.Sorasen]

Gee, I thought Color Spray was one of those I Win D&D spells everyone who yells about 3E magic yells about for low level spellcasters. There's also Ray of Enfeeblement and Sleep, but Color Spray is mentioned right along with it. Now, all of sudden a Wizard who used the spell got killed anyway, and everyone is saying the Wizard was just being stupid for casting Color Spray. You can't have it both ways.

The issue I think is that a wizard is capable of being in almost any situation.

A fighter, for instance, can't really do all that much. So when the fighter is killed it's the fault of the class.

But the wizard has significantly more options. So even when a really good option fails, it's really easy for us to see another option that would maybe not have failed. Of course, since you can't see the outcome of dice rolls in advance, the wizard doesn't get this same foresight, and we forget that.

At low levels, a wizard has some amazing powers. But at this point he's still slave to the action economy. Mistakes are mistakes are big mistakes.

Beyond that, I think it's fair to point out that while at low levels wizards are still more powerful than the other classes, the difference really isn't as well defined yet.

The wizard was in a situation where color spray could hit all four targets. Any target that failed its save would be dead, so that's a lot of temptation to risk it.

[NNescio]

Monk is aggravatingly hard to hit, since nothing short of immobilizing her causes her to lose her DEX bonus
Wis bonus to AC. Not Dex Bonus. Another houserule of yours, I presume?

A monk also has no armour and has to split stats between Dex and Wis for AC. If you focus on those two stats, you have low Str and end up doing crap damage.

Consider a Fighter with a breastplate and a Dex of 16. He has a greater AC than a monk with Dex 16 and Wis 18. The Monk wins in Touch AC, but hey, that's a +8 stat modifier that the Fighter can invest in somewhere useful, like say, Str. Or Con.

And Wizards have True Strike.



...and can have her own bare hands enchanted right at level 1. And she's no slouch with a weapon either, and can use a wide variety of exotic weapons that most other classes can't. She's really hard to enchant when she doesn't want to be enchanted, and can use some pretty handy spell-like abilities, and doesn't have a lot of financial needs, so she's easy on the parties pocketbook, unlike the item junkies of your group: Clerics, Paladins, Fighters, Sorcerers, who have already figured out how to spend the next 1,000GP you get before you even earn it.
No, they can't. Your house-rules do not apply in a regular discussion.

And Monk special weapons are crap.

And Monks are item junkies who need a source of Fly and AC boosters to remain relevant. And some way to ignore miss chances. And some way to boost their pitiful attack bonus. And...

[The Glyphstone]

A Monk is aggravatingly hard to hit, since nothing short of immobilizing her causes her to lose her DEX bonus and can have her own bare hands enchanted right at level 1. And she's no slouch with a weapon either, and can use a wide variety of exotic weapons that most other classes can't. She's really hard to enchant when she doesn't want to be enchanted, and can use some pretty handy spell-like abilities, and doesn't have a lot of financial needs, so she's easy on the parties pocketbook, unlike the item junkies of your group: Clerics, Paladins, Fighters, Sorcerers, who have already figured out how to spend the next 1,000GP you get before you even earn it.


Whaaa?

-Monks can't actually enchant their bodies at all, unless you write houserules. RAW, the only way they can get enchants on their unarmed strikes are an Amulet of Mighty Fists, a Necklace of Natural Attacks, or levels in the Kensai PrC. None of these are available from level one.

-They can use exotic weapons, but the problem is that most exotic weapons suck. They also mean the Monk is giving up one of their best class features, the unarmed strike damage.

-Monks are, against what you might think, even more dependent on items than other classes. They have more key stats than a Wizard, Fighter, Barbarian, etc (anyone except a Paladin), meaning they need more +Stat items. Their AC scales very poorly compared to magic gear, forcing them to buy overpriced Bracers of Armor to keep up. Their magical enchantments via Amulet of Mighty Fists and its equivalents are, again, priced at a premium compared to a magic sword, and also can't get enhancement powers without houserules or the Necklace of Natural Attacks.

[Ernir]

Bah. The Wizard wasn't being phenomenally stupid. He wasn't doing anything hideously wrong with his spell selection. He was just not omniscient, not all-powerful, and he got unlucky. It happens. Even in 3.5.

It still does not change the fact that a Wizard has more options than a similarly levelled Monk, and that many of those options are far more powerful than the Monk options. The balance problem is still there, and it's big. It just isn't usually absolute.

[ericgrau]

Why was the Wizard getting close enough to cast Color Spray when they couldn't even handle 2d6 damage?

Because preparing and using color spray has been recommended about 1,000 times, in these forums in particular? :smallconfused: I agree with Ernir on this one. Not only did the wizard not do anything dumb, he did what most people here say is the very best thing to do.

The range issue is part of why I've always prefered sleep, but people who prefer color spray point out the longer casting time of sleep, which has major problems of its own. There's no good way around it.

Really at level 1-4 when weapons are no save, just die, and rarely have any special conditions to success on top of the save, pummeling someone to death becomes more effective than the less reliable method of maybe incapacitating them.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I'll admit that 3.5 directed a lot of attention to spell-casters... perhaps a little too much, but I don't think it's all that fair to call Monk's the weakest. A Monk is aggravatingly hard to hit, since nothing short of immobilizing her causes her to lose her DEX bonus and can have her own bare hands enchanted right at level 1. And she's no slouch with a weapon either, and can use a wide variety of exotic weapons that most other classes can't. She's really hard to enchant when she doesn't want to be enchanted, and can use some pretty handy spell-like abilities, and doesn't have a lot of financial needs, so she's easy on the parties pocketbook, unlike the item junkies of your group: Clerics, Paladins, Fighters, Sorcerers, who have already figured out how to spend the next 1,000GP you get before you even earn it.

Hey, that's a great description of druid!

Monks are easy to hit past low levels without items or spells (item dependancy/caster dependancy), can't enchant fists without double/triple price magic items or Magic Fang (item dependancy/caster dependancy), and those exotic weapons are worse than a flail.

Druids get a meatshield to defend them as a class feature, can enchant their own natural attacks, and get combat options with Improved Grab, Trip, Pounce, and flight.

[Tar Palantir]

I also lend my support to Ernir. At low levels, everyone dies in one hit to everything; wizards can just hit more than one thing at once. See how the wizard incapacitated 3/4 of the party in the first round. He had a decent chance of getting all 4; assuming 18 Wisdom for the monk, that's a +6 will save vs DC 14-15 (being conservative). Odds favor the monk, sure, but that a single roll with a 35% chance of failure was all that stood between the party and a round 1 TPK is still rather telling.

[ericgrau]

Actually while his odds of getting any single foe is ok, getting all 4 is extremely unlikely. Keeping them stunned long enough to TPK is even more unlikely, especially since you can't coup de grace on a stun.

[missmvicious]

Whaaa?

-Monks can't actually enchant their bodies at all, unless you write houserules. RAW, the only way they can get enchants on their unarmed strikes are an Amulet of Mighty Fists, a Necklace of Natural Attacks, or levels in the Kensai PrC. None of these are available from level one.


Player's Handbook, pg. 41:
"A monk's unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons (such as the Magic Fang and Magic Weapon spells)."

Wouldn't that mean you could enchant it? That's how I always interpreted it.

[Provengreil]

i think the problem is that enchantments aren't "spells", actually, but i can see why you'd think that.


EDIT: permanency would do it though.

[Drelua]

I'm not saying monks are a great class, but you seem to be missing my favourite way to enchant a monk's unarmed strikes: Permanency and Greater Magic Fang. I can't remember exactly how much it costs, but in Pathfinder it's under 10k to get it at caster level 20 for +5, with an extra 7,500 gold to cover the XP component in 3.5. Of course, you can do the same with other unarmed combatants like the PF Brawler(Fighter Archetype)//Spy I can't wait to play, but it does really help monks. That is, if your DM doesn't mind you just saying your character found a level 20 druid to cast it for you, unless you can find one in game.

EDIT: I knew I took too long typing that. Stupid ninjas.

[Diefje]

Monks are still better...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In bed

[Hiro Protagonest]

Player's Handbook, pg. 41:
"A monk's unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons (such as the Magic Fang and Magic Weapon spells)."

Wouldn't that mean you could enchant it? That's how I always interpreted it.
You must've missed my post. I remembered that spell.

Hey, that's a great description of druid!

Monks are easy to hit past low levels without items or spells (item dependancy/caster dependancy), can't enchant fists without double/triple price magic items or Magic Fang (item dependancy/caster dependancy), and those exotic weapons are worse than a flail.

Druids get a meatshield to defend them as a class feature, can enchant their own natural attacks, and get combat options with Improved Grab, Trip, Pounce, and flight.

[Prime32]

A Monk is aggravatingly hard to hitJust to point out...

Compare a wizard who's cast blink (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blink.htm)/displacement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/displacement.htm) and mirror image (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mirrorImage.htm). There is a 93.75% chance of any attack aimed at such a wizard missing, even before the attack roll. Plus they can fly through walls.

[Tar Palantir]

Actually while his odds of getting any single foe is ok, getting all 4 is extremely unlikely. Keeping them stunned long enough to TPK is even more unlikely, especially since you can't coup de grace on a stun.

Against a first level party, Color Spray doesn't just stun. It knocks unconscious and blinds and stuns. Unconscious for 2d4 rounds is plenty of time to bump off at least a couple of them, and take pot shots at the others. Still not something I'd personally charge at the party to try, but if they walk through a door and I'm right there on the other side? Heck yeah, I'm popping it off, and if it got them all I wouldn't be shocked (certainly no guarantee, but depending on party composition, will saves are going to be ranging from +6 to +0 or worse, depending on flaws and severity of dump stats; I'd say 15-25% chance of hitting all four is not an unreasonable estimate).

[ericgrau]

Ah I missed unconscious. Still not enough time to move + full round action Coup De Grace TPK them all. You can get 2 if you're lucky. And this is still in the highly unlikely event that all 4 fail the save and the even unlikelier event that all 4 also don't get low rolls on the duration. Maybe killing 1 PC over 3 rounds from a combination of poor rolls and gross negligence from his allies (Coup de Grace provokes, 3 rounds is a long time) is not what I call a possible TPK.

A level 3 NPC wizard has DC 14-15 color sprays. PC will saves are 0-1 poor or 2-4 good. (50% to 65%)^4 = 12.5%-18% to peg all 4. Then the chance of getting enough rounds to kill them all is virtually nil (~0.1-1%). Even recasting it 2-3 times between CdGs chances are overwhelmingly poor, because a single good roll on a save or spell duration blows the plan. Virtually impossible.

[tyckspoon]

Ah I missed unconscious. Still not enough time to move + full round action Coup De Grace TPK them all. You can get 2 if you're lucky. And this is still in the highly unlikely event that all 4 fail the save and the even unlikelier event that all 4 also don't get low rolls on the duration. Maybe killing 1 PC over 3 rounds from a combination of poor rolls and gross negligence from his allies (Coup de Grace provokes, 3 rounds is a long time) is not what I call a possible TPK.

A level 3 NPC wizard has DC 14-15 color sprays. PC will saves are 0-1 poor or 2-4 good. (50% to 65%)^4 = 12.5%-18% to peg all 4. Then the chance of getting enough rounds to kill them all is virtually nil (~0.1-1%). Even recasting it 2-3 times between CdGs chances are overwhelmingly poor, because a single good roll on a save or spell duration blows the plan. Virtually impossible.

I'm not a fan of the outlier chance of actually knocking them all out because you basically at that point either have to have the Wizard take the chance to run the heck away or do something really nasty to at least one party member, but otherwise this strikes me as reasonably good encounter design. The Wizard isn't very likely to put down the entire group (ProTip: Don't stand where a 15 foot cone can hit you all if you can help it), and it lets the character(s) who make their saves be the big hero of the moment by saving the rest of the party.. even the fragility makes sense, because you don't want to draw it out too much with everybody else completely incapable of doing anything for up to 8 rounds.

[Geigan]

Oh look a monk thread. "monk sucks" "I don't think it's that bad." "yeah it's that bad and here's a list of reasons why" "Well yeah, but there are these other reasons why they're not that bad" "Here's a list of reasons why those reasons are wrong" "I disagree" "oh rly?" "ya rly" "well ur wrong." "No ur wrong" *trails off into bickering*:smallsigh:

Anyway, funny story. Gotta love it when the underdog occasionally wins. Wizards are actually kind of weird among the other core tier 1s(once you get out of core they feel less lonely:smallwink:). They're probably the hardest to play to the potential they are capable of, simply because that ceiling is so high and there aren't any other class features to act as a safety net for them. The wizard in this case could have been better prepared and would have most likely won if he had, but that's a vague land of maybes and maybe nots so I won't bother pondering it. Circumstances make the match and the circumstances favored the monk. Good for him I guess?

[missmvicious]

*blink, blink*

What's with the passive aggression? None of these are house rules on Monks... these are all by-the-book rules.

I'm even sighting references to the pages so you can read them for yourselves. I guess if house-ruling means "use the rules as written in PH1" then I guess I'm using house rules. If you want me to get verbatim about it, then I guess I'll crack open PH1... Here goes:

Monks are hard to hit:
Pg 39: A monk has a preternatural awareness that allows her to dodge an attack even if she is not consciously aware of it.

Pg 40: A monk is highly trained at dodging blows, and she has a 6th sense that lets her avoid even unanticipated attacks. When unarmored and unencumbered, the Monk adds her WIS bonus to her AC. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level... These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the Monk is flat-footed.

Pg 41: A monk of 2nd level or higher can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful REF saving throw against an attack that normally deals 1/2 damage on a successful save... she instead takes no damage.

I've already sighted the page talking about a monk's hands counting as manufactured weapons. It was never "house-ruled" that we could enchant them, it just always got interpreted that way with every DM I've played for where we've had a Monk. Not every campaign starts PCs off with MW weapons and armor and a hefty cache of wands, scrolls and wondrous items. Some campaigns actually do start the PCs off with the free clothing on their backs and starting GP full of equipment (in a Monk's case: 5d4... not very much) and have to make due with what they've got. Pooling some money together to give a monk a magic weapon without needing to blow +300GP on that MW weapon, then tear another dimensional hole in our coin purse enchanting the freaking thing.

If it turns out that we were dead wrong about the Monk's hands, well that's not on me. I wasn't even the first one to suggest enchanting a Monk's hands in a campaign. A friend of mine figured it out, asked that we pool up the money to do it, and we did it. It made her handy in a fight against incorporeal and gave us all an effective flanking guardian when casually marching through the woods and could really benefit with a surprise blow to the encounter bosses back.

I'm not trying to say the Monk is the single greatest PC of all time. But I'm not making this stuff up either. Give me some credit here... sheesh.

[missmvicious]

Oh look a monk thread.

*Reads Geigan's wisdom... looks at the thread... reads Geigan's wisdom again*

Did I get suckered into a troll thread? *face palm*

Bleh... you're right. This thing is just going to rinse/cycle/repeat until everyone is angry and throwing ad hominem insults at each other, and I was the spark that lit the bomb on this thread by defending an unpopular class.

...Hm... I guess I will agree to disagree, smile big, roll my Diplomacy check, and hope that I can walk away from this before it gets ugly. Adieu.. I'm off to another thread. Thanks for the clever insight, Geigan.

[Arundel]

*blink, blink*

What's with the passive aggression? None of these are house rules on Monks... these are all by-the-book rules.

I'm even sighting references to the pages so you can read them for yourselves. I guess if house-ruling means "use the rules as written in PH1" then I guess I'm using house rules. If you want me to get verbatim about it, then I guess I'll crack open PH1... Here goes:

Monks are hard to hit:
Pg 39: A monk has a preternatural awareness that allows her to dodge an attack even if she is not consciously aware of it.

Pg 40: A monk is highly trained at dodging blows, and she has a 6th sense that lets her avoid even unanticipated attacks. When unarmored and unencumbered, the Monk adds her WIS bonus to her AC. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level... These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the Monk is flat-footed.

Pg 41: A monk of 2nd level or higher can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful REF saving throw against an attack that normally deals 1/2 damage on a successful save... she instead takes no damage.

I've already sighted the page talking about a monk's hands counting as manufactured weapons. It was never "house-ruled" that we could enchant them, it just always got interpreted that way with every DM I've played for where we've had a Monk. Not every campaign starts PCs off with MW weapons and armor and a hefty cache of wands, scrolls and wondrous items. Some campaigns actually do start the PCs off with the free clothing on their backs and starting GP full of equipment (in a Monk's case: 5d4... not very much) and have to make due with what they've got. Pooling some money together to give a monk a magic weapon without needing to blow +300GP on that MW weapon, then tear another dimensional hole in our coin purse enchanting the freaking thing.

If it turns out that we were dead wrong about the Monk's hands, well that's not on me. I wasn't even the first one to suggest enchanting a Monk's hands in a campaign. A friend of mine figured it out, asked that we pool up the money to do it, and we did it. It made her handy in a fight against incorporeal and gave us all an effective flanking guardian when casually marching through the woods and could really benefit with a surprise blow to the encounter bosses back.

I'm not trying to say the Monk is the single greatest PC of all time. But I'm not making this stuff up either. Give me some credit here... sheesh.

Epic level handbook, p 11:
"The epic fighter is a combat machine, a master of more battle maneuvers than any other character in the game. More than a mere sword swinger, the epic fighter knows how to best his foes in any arena."

Moral?
Fluff=/=Crunch
In fact fluff blatantly lies to you

A caster with displacement/blink and mirror image laugh at your hard to hit. Heck, I think a rouge beats that and we have an entire thread going on right now about how rogues are too easy to hit!

[Basket Burner]

Fighters have better AC than Monks for less money and effort.

Fighters are also easily hit.

You do the math.

[Arundel]

Fighters have better AC than Monks for less money and effort.

Fighters are also easily hit.

You do the math.

Certainly. I was simply pointed out that just because the fluff leads you to believe things are hard to hit does not make it so (just as the epic fighter is outmatched by pretty much everything else than can fill the niche).

Or how Elminster is the greatest mage EVAR by FR fluff, but mechanically is hilariously bad.

[The Glyphstone]

That's because you can't stat out the special quality 'sleeping with assorted goddesses' without resorting to homebrew, or the Munchkin d20 guide (Shagging The DM is a feat).

[Basket Burner]

Certainly. I was simply pointed out that just because the fluff leads you to believe things are hard to hit does not make it so (just as the epic fighter is outmatched by pretty much everything else than can fill the niche).

Or how Elminster is the greatest mage EVAR by FR fluff, but mechanically is hilariously bad.

That comment was directed at the people that think that Monks are good for something other than being the target of various jokes.

[Valameer]

I hate it when someone comes here with an example of play that doesn't fit the paradigm of this board, and then we get a 10 page long theoretical breakdown of why monks and fighters suck and druids and wizards are awesome.

Anyway, haven't you guys noticed the trend that players usually triumph over NPCs? Here's my theoretical breakdown of why the monk won:

Players die, game stops. Players live, game continues. DM likes it when game continues. Therefore DM likes it when players live.

Please stop making up tactical reasons why the monk somehow won. It's not rocket science.

And missmvicious, welcome to a monk thread :smallsmile:. A lot of us actually understand what you're saying and see where you're coming from, but we learned to keep our opinions about tiers and optimization to ourselves in these threads.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

That comment was directed at the people that think that Monks are good for something other than being the target of various jokes.
They aren't? :smallconfused:

[Hiro Protagonest]

Monks are hard to hit:
Pg 39: A monk has a preternatural awareness that allows her to dodge an attack even if she is not consciously aware of it.

Pg 40: A monk is highly trained at dodging blows, and she has a 6th sense that lets her avoid even unanticipated attacks. When unarmored and unencumbered, the Monk adds her WIS bonus to her AC. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level... These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the Monk is flat-footed.

Pg 41: A monk of 2nd level or higher can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful REF saving throw against an attack that normally deals 1/2 damage on a successful save... she instead takes no damage.

So wait! You're taking everything at face value? Maybe if you actually spent time reading the mechanics, you'd change your mind. Page 39 is fluff, and ONLY fluff. Page 40 gives you, what, an extra 2 to AC without absurd stats? And an extra 1 for every 5 levels after that? Yeah, that's easy to hit.

Compare "add 1/5th of your class level to AC, rounded down" to "add 1 of your class level to you attack roll", "add 3/4s of your class level to your attack roll, rounded down", and even "add 1/2 your class level to your attack roll".

Also, page 41 is evasion. Everyone with a 2 level rogue or feat rogue dip has evasion. The fighter with a two level monk dip has evasion, yet he's a fighter first and a monk second.

[shadow_archmagi]

On the subject of monks being hard to hit:

They get Dex and Wis to AC, which *sounds* wonderful, but then you have to ask yourself how often your Wisdom modifier is higher than the armor bonus from armor. If you have 18 WIS and 18 DEX you're looking at 18 AC, which is exactly the same as a character with 14 dex and splint mail.

Flurry of Blows looks good, but is actually just Two Weapon Fighting. Literally, a Cleric who takes Two Weapon Fighting and uses a light weapon in her off hand will have the same to-hit as a Monk who uses Flurry of blows.

Ultimately, the monk suffers from the same problems as the soulknife, which is that the class features replace something everyone can already do, rather than upgrade it. It's like if you were choosing racecar drivers, and each had a special power that made him a better driver: one could make his car fly, one could drive through walls, one had a machinegun for attacking enemy cars, and one of them was just a guy who could run as fast as a car.

It also has the major problem that no one on this forum, myself included apparently, can ever shut up about it or treat it as a valid character choice.


I hate it when someone comes here with an example of play that doesn't fit the paradigm of this board, and then we get a 10 page long theoretical breakdown of why monks and fighters suck and druids and wizards are awesome.

I agree with you completely even as I contribute to the 10 page breakdown.

[Arundel]

And missmvicious, welcome to a monk thread :smallsmile:. A lot of us actually understand what you're saying and see where you're coming from, but we learned to keep our opinions about tiers and optimization to ourselves in these threads.

They are bad because they are mechanically terrible. Undebatable. Does this stop people from using them? No, of course not. Should it? No, of course not. We're not managing your fun, we are helping people to understand the basic principles of the game.

tl;dr
Less Stormwind is more

[Valameer]

The importance of a DM is understated around here. Rightfully so, how could we debate the game on a common level when we each have a different DM? Still, it's understated.

I understand the mechanics, as they would be in a vacuum. Thank you. Just don't be upset when a level 1 monk beats a level 3 wizard. We're not trying to manage your fun, we are helping people understand that it's a game played by people.

The line-for-line quoting and ripping apart people's posts just gets a little old. Since everyone in this thread is already aware that monks aren't a great class, you know?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Since everyone in this thread is already aware that monks aren't a great class, you know?

How are you missing missmvicious's posts!?

[Basket Burner]

How are you missing missmvicious's posts!?

She is not the only one either.

[Valameer]

I thought she said she didn't really like monks, thought they were subpar, but went to bat for them anyway? Her contention is that they aren't unplayable.

Reminds me of me, when I was young :smalltongue:.

Anyway, I could have missed something, but that's the impression I got from her posts.

[Seatbelt]

This sounds like that one time my fighter rolled 3 20s in a row, which in my group = an instant slay. (20, 20, crit confirm = instant slay) and killed a great wyrm. Sometimes you get lucky. Don't need to go running to the forums every time you roll well.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I thought she said she didn't really like monks, thought they were subpar, but went to bat for them anyway? Her contention is that they aren't unplayable.

Reminds me of me, when I was young :smalltongue:.

Anyway, I could have missed something, but that's the impression I got from her posts.

Nope. She was saying that monks are super hard to hit (based on fluff text), can enchant their fists (she forgot to mention that requires a caster or gold, and the caster version is temporary), and aren't item dependent (see enchanting their fists).

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Monk can be super hard to hit, or kill for that matter. That's one thing that a Monk can optimize decently. It's just not enough to matter in the game.

[Kurald Galain]

Monk can be super hard to hit, or kill for that matter. That's one thing that a Monk can optimize decently. It's just not enough to matter in the game.

Well, they can also use partially charged wands... :smalltongue:

[Hiro Protagonest]

Monk can be super hard to hit, or kill for that matter. That's one thing that a Monk can optimize decently. It's just not enough to matter in the game.

Really? +1 to AC every 5 levels and a +6 from dex and wis does not make someone super hard to hit. Maybe +10 from dex and wis at level 15+. So that's an AC of 23 at level 15.

[Valameer]

*goes back to read page 1*

Well, I suck at skimming this morning. Monk rides the fence between bad and unplayable, but I'd never accuse a monk of being hard to hit.

Carry on.

[Yuki Akuma]

Monks cannot enchant their unarmed strike. Because their unarmed strike is not a masterwork weapon.

And, seriously, Monks are mechanically inferior to most classes. They get a lot of special abilities... which aren't very useful. They are incredibly MAD, needing every ability score except Charisma. And their main class features, running fast and attacking lots, can't even be used together.

Monks are good at not dying. Compared to, say, a naked Fighter, or a Commoner.

It's okay, missmvicious. We were all newbies once. Alas, most of the people on this board are jaded grognards who actually know how the game rules work, rather than listening to how WotC thinks the game rules work.

(Protip: when they wrote 3.5, WotC had absolutely no idea what they were doing. Never trust anything they write in their fluff, it's often hilariously wrong.)

[NineThePuma]

You know, I've been thinking.

Would swapping the Monk's AC bonus progression as it currently is for something similar to the Defense Bonus variant fix the Monk's "low AC" problem?

(I'm also thinking about a dozen other thugs to turn Monks into Hard To Kill For Casters tanks, but that's all fluffy.)

[Valameer]

There's a lot of homebrew fixes that make monks alright. I think half the people on these boards have a monk fix.

But that won't stop these monk threads until one of them becomes the official errata.

[NineThePuma]

Why, yes, there are a lot of fixes. The problem is that the word "monk" means different things to different people, hence me asking mechanical questions. Just because, say, T.G. Oskar thinks monks should have a Ki Pool doesn't mean I agree.

Hell, Monks have it almost as bad as Ninjas do in terms of what people want out of the class.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Really? +1 to AC every 5 levels and a +6 from dex and wis does not make someone super hard to hit. Maybe +10 from dex and wis at level 15+. So that's an AC of 23 at level 15.
You're joking...
I had a Monk that could get +50 AC at level 12, but couldn't do very much (couldn't do a thing actually) besides that. It's called turtling and isn't a viable tactic in game.
As I said, not getting hit and staying alive is one thing that a Monk can do decently if optimized.

[NineThePuma]

You're joking...
I had a Monk that could get +50 AC at level 12, but couldn't do very much (couldn't do a thing actually) besides that. It's called turtling and isn't a viable tactic in game.
As I said, not getting hit and staying alive is one thing that a Monk can do decently if optimized.

Details. Please. Lots of details.

[Big Fau]

Players die, game stops. Players live, game continues. DM likes it when game continues. Therefore DM likes it when players live.

E. Gary Gygax would disagree with this assessment.

Seriously, some people get their jollies on killing characters.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Details. Please. Lots of details.
What, you don't believe me?


E. Gary Gygax would disagree with this assessment.
Did he said all players?

[Hiro Protagonest]

E. Gary Gygax would disagree with this assessment.

Seriously, some people get their jollies on killing characters.

He made the Tomb of Horrors when people complained the adventure modules were too easy.

[Big Fau]

But that won't stop these monk threads until one of them becomes the official errata.

I don't think even the guys at BG would errata an entire class into Tier 4 or Tier 3.

WotC's greatest mistake was not naming the Martial Adept classes Paladin, Monk, and Fighter.

[Valameer]

E. Gary Gygax would disagree with this assessment.

Seriously, some people get their jollies on killing characters.

So you think Gygax was in it for teh lulz? He must not have had very long campaigns then. If you wanted to critique my logic, I suggest taking this angle instead:


Players die, game stops. Players live, game continues. DM likes it when game continues. Therefore DM likes it when players live.

Are you assuming that ranagrande's DM isn't a killer DM? How do you know his intention wasn't to cause a TPK? He threw a 3rd level wizard at their 1st level party! Obviously, handsome sir, you are mistaken.

[NineThePuma]

What, you don't believe me?
No, but that's not why I'm asking. I'm looking at the Monk and trying to figure out how you managed AC 50 at level 12. Even assuming you broke WBL completely, 13 armor, 5 NA, 5 Deflection, +7 Wis, +7 dex only comes to 47. Whoops, 49 with the +2 from 10 levels of monk.

[Big Fau]

So you think Gygax was in it for teh lulz? He must not have had very long campaigns then.

I've never met him myself, but I can say that he would not shy away from killing off a character if circumstances called for it.

And I wouldn't lump him in with the crowd that kills for lulz.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

No, but that's not why I'm asking. I'm looking at the Monk and trying to figure out how you managed AC 50 at level 12. Even assuming you broke WBL completely, 13 armor, 5 NA, 5 Deflection, +7 Wis, +7 dex only comes to 47. Whoops, 49 with the +2 from 10 levels of monk.
http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=258705
I remember that it could get up to 51 AC, but I might be misremembering it.

[Hiro Protagonest]

http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=258705
I remember that it could get up to 51 AC, but I might be misremembering it.

Ohhkay. That uses a PrC, the AC bonus from VoP which significantly handicaps your character, and an absurd number of feats that I don't even know how you got so many. What does [number]p even mean?

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Ohhkay. That uses a PrC, the AC bonus from VoP which significantly handicaps your character, and an absurd number of feats that I don't even know how you got so many.
PRC does nothing for the AC (as far as I remember).


What does [number]p even mean?
Level.

[Mboss]

Is there any lvl 20 wizard build or npc that serves as a good reference for a hipothetical fight against any other character class (core only)?

I think that would help a lot for these kind of discussions.

[Basket Burner]

I would like to rescind my earlier statement, in which I said that Monks had an incredibly difficult time not being hit and staying alive.

They are actually very good at this.

After all, when the enemy ignores the Monk and kills the rest of the party, the Monk is not being hit, and is not dying. It is unlikely that the enemy will successfully kill the party except for the Monk before the party kills it. That means that the Monk continues to not be hit and to not die.

[NineThePuma]

I would like to rescind my earlier statement, in which I said that Monks had an incredibly difficult time not being hit and staying alive.

They are actually very good at this.

After all, when the enemy ignores the Monk and kills the rest of the party, the Monk is not being hit, and is not dying. It is unlikely that the enemy will successfully kill the party except for the Monk before the party kills it. That means that the Monk continues to not be hit and to not die.

Win. :smallcool:

[RelentlessImp]

Is there any lvl 20 wizard build or npc that serves as a good reference for a hipothetical fight against any other character class (core only)?

I think that would help a lot for these kind of discussions.

Sure. Core Wizard 20. Feats are: Empower Spell, Maximize Spell, Extend Spell, Craft Wondrous Item, Improved Initiative, and five others. Spells known are: All of them. Spells typically prepared are: Defense (Mirror Image, Blur, Blink, Etherealness, Wind Wall), Offense (Empowered Maximized Enervation xseveral), Utility (True Strike*all 1st level slots, Overland Flight).

Wizard has BAB of +10/+5. Let's be silly and give him a 25PB.
STR: 8
DEX: 10
CON: 14
INT: 18
WIS: 8
CHA: 8

He casts an Extended Overland Flight every 2 days. Now you need some kind of flight to reach him. If you don't have it, he sits out of range, throws down a Wind Wall to deflect arrows, and spends every two rounds hitting you for six negative levels - one round to cast True Strike, the next round to cast Maximized Empowered Enervation (1d4 maximized +2). You're dead in four rounds, or less.

If you have Flight of some kind, the fight's a little dicier. Oh wait, no it isn't, he casts Blur and Mirror Image, shutting your chance of hitting him down to next to nothing. (20% miss chance, and 5 mirror images) He laughs at you wailing at miss chances that, in core, you have no way of shutting down, while he continues to True Strike + Enervate you.

If he's ever in danger, he casts Etherealness. Good luck catching him.

This is a standard loadout for a balanced Wizard. He may have divinations prepared to tell him what to expect the next day, which he casts before taking his 8 hour rest in a rope trick.

This is a God Wizard. done only in core. Look upon him and despair if you are not similarly loaded.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I would like to rescind my earlier statement, in which I said that Monks had an incredibly difficult time not being hit and staying alive.

They are actually very good at this.

After all, when the enemy ignores the Monk and kills the rest of the party, the Monk is not being hit, and is not dying. It is unlikely that the enemy will successfully kill the party except for the Monk before the party kills it. That means that the Monk continues to not be hit and to not die.

Nah, the monk doesn't get hit because he's staying at home while the swordsage goes adventuring.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

I would like to rescind my earlier statement, in which I said that Monks had an incredibly difficult time not being hit and staying alive.

They are actually very good at this.
Exactly. Nice that you came to your senses and saw the right path.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Locked for review.