Monk balance test... for you, Giacomo

[Talic]

EDIT * EDIT * EDIT: The masses have spoken. Three man parties seem to be the popular way to go, so the contest will be amended.

Here is the updated contest.

We need 4 characters.

Solo has provided a full caster already (sorceror).
Rachel Lorelai and Solo have volunteered to run the level 20 support cast for the monk.
We need a volunteer to run the same cast for the NPC, and for the Full BAB.

We have 1 level 20 monk.
We need 1 level 20 full BAB class.
We have 1 level 20 cleric type.
We need 1 level 20 NPC class.

Further tests will still require additional volunteers for levels 15, 10 , and 5 versions, I'll keep you posted.

All basic rules of the contest will be observed, except that players will run in party format on three seperate groups. 1st group will use the monk, sorceror, and full BAB.
2nd group will run rogue or bard, full BAB, and sorceror.
3rd group will sorceror, full BAB class, and NPC class only.

Other rules will remain unchanged, and the test will be decided by which group can best accomplish the objectives set forth. Resources used will not be the measure of success. Time will be.

This will test each party's self-sufficiency, and perhaps provide insight as to which classes can contribute at each level.A fifth person for running the encounter challenges.

Allowable sources are core only. I will set up a series of challenges, without foreknowledge of any of the characters. Each character will choose all class abilities where applicable choices are to be made, including spells, bonus feat selection, and the like. WBL will be in effect, and allowed from any items in the DMG or PHB. If you choose to imbue an item with a spell that you are unable to cast, assume the cost is that of an NPC casting. Any spell with an experience point cost is prohibited, unless you've cast it yourself. If you are a wizard and want additional spells on your list, buy the scrolls.

The rules are thus.

1) Encounters will be varied, and challenges will be diverse. Come prepared for a wide assortment of challenges.

2) You may have a full spell preparation. You will not have foreknowledge of the challenges prior to doing this.

3) There will be a creature challenge, run by a volunteer.

4) There will be at least 1 AMF or dead magic zone. It will be of a scope that requires the PC accomplish a goal inside of it.

5) Leadership is not allowed, nor are the services of NPC's, beyond pre-game casting into items. No hiring an army.

6) WBL is allowed, no more than 25% of character wealth may be spent on any one item.

Bear in mind, this is not a PvP scenario. This is a scenario to see which groups can overcome a series of typical challenges that one would possibly face. This is a test to see how well the groups can function against a typical set of encounters that one might face in D&D. This is to test the overall viability and self-sufficiency of different classes at high levels.

EDIT: There will be followup tests at lower levels. Trust me when I say that NPC classes will not be as viable as you think. Followups will be at level 15, 10, and 5.

EDIT: The contest is beginning.Here it is...

[Rachel Lorelei]

Please--not level 20. The wealth availible makes even NPC classes viable. I'd recommend 15 for "high-level".

[Solo]

I have a level 20 sorcerer ready to go.

Shazam!

I can also create a lower level sorcerer if necessary.

Please--not level 20. The wealth availible makes even NPC classes viable. I'd recommend 15 for "high-level".

Well, if items are a problem, there's always Disjunction

[Nebo_]

We already know monks are underpowered. You're beating a dead horse.

[warmachine]

Make it a level most people play, such as 6 to 10.

[Solo]

We already know monks are underpowered.

And we also know the earth is round, and Oswald shot Kennedy.

Doesn't mean everyone else does.

[Talic]

Amen to previous poster.

I've edited the above post to show that yes, I do intend to create multiple scenarios at different levels if this catches on at high levels.

[Marius]

Better make the same charactert at 5th, 10th and 15th level. There're builds that oinly work at high levels.

[Talic]

Better make the same charactert at 5th, 10th and 15th level. There're builds that oinly work at high levels.

Please read above statement. Those are in the works if this is successful.

[horseboy]

A fourth person will do any other melee class, provided it's a full BAB class (fighter, ranger, paladin, barbarian), also on a 32 point build.

Man, as much as I'd love to see a paladin on a hippogriff on there, I'd have to vote someone do ranger for full BAB. Though it might be interesting to see if someone could pull of a fighter that did more than "smack it with a pointy stick."

[Talic]

Well, if items are a problem, there's always Disjunction

I have a wide variety of methods for dealing with items... Heh. But with an active person running the critters and such, I anticipate more... non-standard critters. The critter runner will get a race, a class, and an ECL for each critter. After that, it's all him.

[lord_khaine]

this contest is hardly fair, running the monk against the 2 of the 3 classes widely reconised as the most powerfull doesnt prove anything, especaly not at level 20.

if you want anything resembling a fair test i honestly belive all full casters should be kept out, and we instead should get both a rogue and a bard in as well.

[Rachel Lorelei]

If "we" wanted to prove something, we'd be running the characters as a party, not solo.

[Talic]

this contest is hardly fair, running the monk against the 2 of the 3 classes widely reconised as the most powerfull doesnt prove anything, especaly not at level 20.

if you want anything resembling a fair test i honestly belive all full casters should be kept out, and we instead should get both a rogue and a bard in as well.

This isn't just a test of the class, but of the player. I'm using the casters as a good baseline for how things should go, and using the full melee build for the actual test.

This is designed to test to see how SELF-sufficient each class is. The caster will have no shield, the other classes will have no glass cannon backing them up. Before you think that it's a cake walk for casters, keep in mind, I'm throwing multiple hazards into the mix, including dead magic.

Rogues, in my opinion, are the most self-sufficient of all non-caster classes. They need no test. Alone, they can bypass 90% of what a party deals with. They can skill, bluff, or diplomacy almost all of the rest. Bards are designed as team players. That's the whole ethos of their class, is that of the booster. This test for them would be pointless. It doesn't show what a bard needs for success.

Keep in mind, this isn't meant to say, "In yo face, monk!" It's designed to give a play by play, so that people here can have a better idea of what exactly each class has for strengths and weaknesses, and where the imbalances lie.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

If you are a wizard and want additional spells on your list, buy the scrolls.

The RAW allows copying from other caster's spellbooks at a much lower cost (50 gp x spell level).

EDIT: There will be followup tests at lower levels. Trust me when I say that NPC classes will not be as viable as you think. Followups will be at level 15, 10, and 5.

It is a little backwards. Buying items for a 20th level character without restriction is much easier than if you have to make decisions throughout your carrier that will be viable at later stages and at level 20 ultimately.

Allowing items with a value of more than a quarter of your WBL is a bad idea for this reason.

Furthermore, the power of magic items is easy to underestimate. In the Battle of the Core Classes the fighter was wiping the floor with all his opponents without even trying very hard.
Of course everyone can make optimal purchase decisions, but it easily becomes a shopping contest and not a comparison of the contribution of class abilities.

Generally, since is a one shot string of challenges, so one-use items and charged items are much more useful in this scenario than if you had to depend of these items for several sessions.

The price should be 5 times higher for such items (charged items should have their charges reduced to 1/5).

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

If "we" wanted to prove something, we'd be running the characters as a party, not solo.

Exactly.

Self-sufficiency would be tested, sure, but it would not resolve the argument that claims that monks are great because the synergies with other classes and gain disproportionate large benefits from buffs etc.

If you wanted to resolve that you would have to compare two parties of 4. One with a monk and another with one of the (other) melee types.

[Talic]

The RAW allows copying from other caster's spellbooks at a much lower cost (50 gp x spell level).



It is a little backwards. Buying items for a 20th level character without restriction is much easier than if you have to make decisions throughout your carrier that will be viable at later stages and at level 20 ultimately.

Allowing items with a value of more than a quarter of your WBL is a bad idea for this reason.

Furthermore, the power of magic items is easy to underestimate. In the Battle of the Core Classes the fighter was wiping the floor with all his opponents without even trying very hard.
Of course everyone can make optimal purchase decisions, but it easily becomes a shopping contest and not a comparison of the contribution of class abilities.

Generally, since is a one shot string of challenges, so one-use items and charged items are much more useful in this scenario than if you had to depend of these items for several sessions.

The price should be 5 times higher for such items (charged items should have their charges reduced to 1/5).

Thank you for the well-considered input. Believe me when I say that I can handle the wealth issues. As previously stated, the nature of the challenges will not be discussed until I have all character volunteers and submissions. However, I don't wish to impose anything other than RAW for this, as much as possible. Altering item values doesn't sit well with me for that. That said, it's a very good point to consider in the post game discussion.

Exactly.

Self-sufficiency would be tested, sure, but it would not resolve the argument that claims that monks are great because the synergies with other classes and gain disproportionate large benefits from buffs etc.

If you wanted to resolve that you would have to compare two parties of 4. One with a monk and another with one of the (other) melee types.

I reject this arguement. Bard has a strong arguement for exclusion because its main function is to improve others. Fine. But when a class can't be said to be balanced unless it is supported by others is fallacy. That doesn't show a balanced character, it shows a dependent one. Monk may benefit from others, it may not. Doesn't matter. If the class can't be competent without 5 buffs from the cleric and 2 from the wizard, then it's not a competent class.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Exactly.

Self-sufficiency would be tested, sure, but it would not resolve the argument that claims that monks are great because the synergies with other classes and gain disproportionate large benefits from buffs etc.

If you wanted to resolve that you would have to compare two parties of 4. One with a monk and another with one of the (other) melee types.

I for one am willing to make a party of 3 and run it the same way beside someone running a fighter and someone running a monk (barring spell selection &etc, since that depends on the teammate).

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Thank you for the well-considered input. Believe me when I say that I can handle the wealth issues. As previously stated, the nature of the challenges will not be discussed until I have all character volunteers and submissions.

I certainly did not mean to imply that you could not.

However, I don't wish to impose anything other than RAW for this, as much as possible. Altering item values doesn't sit well with me for that. That said, it's a very good point to consider in the post game discussion.

It is actually RAW (probably a very much overlooked part).
DMG page 199 talk about creating PC above 1st level and how to handle one-shots.

I reject this arguement. Bard has a strong arguement for exclusion because its main function is to improve others. Fine. But when a class can't be said to be balanced unless it is supported by others is fallacy. That doesn't show a balanced character, it shows a dependent one. Monk may benefit from others, it may not. Doesn't matter. If the class can't be competent without 5 buffs from the cleric and 2 from the wizard, then it's not a competent class.

Well, you may reject it, but others have rejected that the Monk was über and see how that went.

The game is supposed to be team work and if the monk can be buffed into the stratosphere and wreck havoc to the opponents that may very well be the optimal party strategy.
After all it is about the party overcoming challenges, not individuals trying to contribute the most.

Your test does nothing to counter such an argument unless you go with the Rhine maiden on this one. (That would also have the benefit of reducing the number of people involved and speed things up greatly )

[Rachel Lorelei]

Exactly.

Self-sufficiency would be tested, sure, but it would not resolve the argument that claims that monks are great because the synergies with other classes and gain disproportionate large benefits from buffs etc.

If you wanted to resolve that you would have to compare two parties of 4. One with a monk and another with one of the (other) melee types.

I for one am willing to make a party of 3 and run it the same way beside someone running a fighter and someone running a monk (barring spell selection &etc, since that depends on the teammate).

[Talic]

I for one am willing to make a party of 3 and run it the same way beside someone running a fighter and someone running a monk (barring spell selection &etc, since that depends on the teammate).

We'd actually need a third group. One that was shorthanded a PC entirely, to see if removing the monk lessens the burden on the other characters. Basically, measure if the time that other classes waste helping the monk would be better used in other ways.

[lord_khaine]

I for one am willing to make a party of 3 and run it the same way beside someone running a fighter and someone running a monk (barring spell selection &etc, since that depends on the teammate).

that sounds like fun idea, im ready to run a monk there.

[Tormsskull]

I'm all for concrete "evidence" towards an answer, but this will not prove it one way or the other. There are far too many variables in the test to prove anything. For example:

1. The DM. Base on the way you make up encounters will affect which classes shine and which do not.
2. The Players. Each player's skill at playing the different classes is different.
3. Game knowledge. Both the DM and the player's knowledge of the game will likely be different.
4. Randomness of dice rolls.

In the end, all you can hope to prove with something like this is that when Party A with volunteer player Bob playing a monk was compared against Party B with volunteer Joe playing a monk, versus Party C with no monk on x date, Party x "performed better" (lost the fewest hitpoints, used the fewest spell slots, used the fewest amount of consumable magic items??).

Seems kind of pointless to me.

[Rachel Lorelei]

I think just seeing the monk in combat, as part of a reasonable group (i.e. isn't going to refill his Ring of Spell Storing 4x a day, isn't going to take kindly to being choked and blinded by a smoke bottle) should be fairly telling.

[Ne0]

This isn't just a test of the class, but of the player. I'm using the casters as a good baseline for how things should go, and using the full melee build for the actual test.

Wait, you think full casters are a base line for how things should go in D&D?
...No wonder everyone dislikes the monk.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I'm all for concrete "evidence" towards an answer, but this will not prove it one way or the other. There are far too many variables in the test to prove anything. For example:

1. The DM. Base on the way you make up encounters will affect which classes shine and which do not.
2. The Players. Each player's skill at playing the different classes is different.
3. Game knowledge. Both the DM and the player's knowledge of the game will likely be different.
4. Randomness of dice rolls.

Then the test is simply repeated until the results become statistically significant.

In the end, all you can hope to prove with something like this is that when Party A with volunteer player Bob playing a monk was compared against Party B with volunteer Joe playing a monk, versus Party C with no monk on x date, Party x "performed better" (lost the fewest hitpoints, used the fewest spell slots, used the fewest amount of consumable magic items??).

And that might be sufficient to convince the other side in the argument, depending on how extreme the outcome is.

This example is not a proof in the mathematical sense, but it might show the flaws of certain arguments and if the results are convincing enough might sway opinions.

Considering the state of the current discussion this is just a new take on presenting those argument in a slightly more realistic example.

Seems kind of pointless to me.

But even if the outcome is less than satisfying with respect to removing doubt, the process might still be fun.

[The Mormegil]

I'm posting this here, because I can't find another more appropriate non-dead monk thread.
I'm not against the monk for the simple fact that I consider it more of a PrC to dip in than a full class. 2 to 4 (Better with UA fractioned Bab) levels are good for a melee typo that dodges a lot. He gains AC bonuses, flurry (ECS has feats for using flurry with *good* weapons), unarmed damage, mobility, bonus feats (UA again to make them useful), evasion and good saves to the cost of losing one point Bab.
Monk is underpowered at higher levels beause it has got nothing really good to take, but dipping in for a few levels is good and doesn't loose flavor.

[kamikasei]

I'm not against the monk for the simple fact that I consider it more of a PrC to dip in than a full class...
Monk is underpowered at higher levels beause it has got nothing really good to take, but dipping in for a few levels is good and doesn't loose flavor.

A (core) base class which is only good for a handful of levels (and not before you PrC out, like Wizard, but only a handful in some other unrelated build) fails at being a base class.

[Kurald Galain]

this contest is hardly fair, running the monk against the 2 of the 3 classes widely reconised as the most powerfull doesnt prove anything, especaly not at level 20.

Well, this is to prove wrong the vocal minority-of-one who claims that those widely recognized classes are no match for the monk.

Anyway, level 20 is not a good benchmark. I'd suggest anything between 5 and 15. Furthermore, we need the usual caveats (no diplomancers, no polymorph, no multiclassing with other base classes, no shivering touch or celerity, no intentionally crippling your own party) and rules on whether or not prestige classes and LA races are allowed.

See, every time we try one of these, the strongest monk turns out to be the one that tries hardest at not being a monk; there's no argument that monk 1 / druid 19 is very strong.

[horseboy]

Exactly.

Self-sufficiency would be tested, sure, but it would not resolve the argument that claims that monks are great because the synergies with other classes and gain disproportionate large benefits from buffs etc.

If you wanted to resolve that you would have to compare two parties of 4. One with a monk and another with one of the (other) melee types.

There's also his claims that monks are the most self-sufficient class (some how despite all the 4th level buffs he uses in every example)