Hey guys,
I wanted to show you something I did for my sandbox Isger campaign and ask your opinion about it. I designed this undead priest as the final boss of a mini-dungeon for a second-level party consisting of a Celestial-Bloodline Sorcerer, an Asmodean Inquisitor and a Two-Handed Fighter. The party had opportunity to heal up before facing this final encounter and they did. Still the battle resulted in a TPK. The boss is a Cleric of Urgathoa 3 with the Skeletal Champion Template applied to it.
Undead Priest
XP 800
Human Skeletal Champion Cleric of Urgathoa 3
CE medium undead
Init +5, Darkvision 60 ft., Perception
DEFENSE
AC 19, touch 11, flat-footed 18 (+2 Natural Armor, +1 Dex, +6 chainmail)
hp: 18 (5d8-5)
Fort: +2 , Ref: +2 , Will: +8
DR 5/bludgeoning; Immune: Cold, Undead Traits
OFFENSE
Speed: 30 ft.
Melee: Masterwork Scythe +7 (2d4+2+trip, 20/x4)
Special Attacks: Channel Negative Energy (DC 11, 2d6 damage) (II), hand of the acolythe (5 per day),
Domain Spell-Like Ability: bleeding touch (5 per day) (1d6 damage for 2 rounds)
Cleric Spells Prepared: (CL 3rd, Concentration: +5)
2nd- Hold Person (DC 14), Summon Monster II, Death Knell (DC 15)
1st- Entropic Shield, Shield of Faith, Summon Monster I , Cause Fear (DC 14)
0th- 2 Detect Magic, 2 Read Magic
STATISTICS
Str 14, Dex 12, Con -, Int 10, Wis 15, Cha 8
Base Atk +3; CMB +3; CMD 13
Feats: Command Undead, Improved Initiative, Spell Focus (Necromancy), Weapon Focus (Scythe)
Skills: Intimidate +4, Knowledge (religion) +8, Sense Motive +5, Spellcraft +8
Languages:
Treasure: mwk scythe, chainmail, unholy symbol of Urgathoa
Now my question as a novice (Pathfinder) GM is: Did I go overboard with this? Or was it just bad luck with the dice and suboptimal tactics that screwed the players over?
What was the party make-up? Also, how did the encounter go? Was it just bad die rolls, or bad decisions made by the players that did them in.
The 2d6 negative channel is hard on low level PCs.
A x4 crit with a scythe can kill a low level PC.
Hold person can incapacitate a low level PC.
And summon monster works against the action economy advatage of the PCs.
I can't comment on dice rolls or tactics...
side note: orisons aren't expended when cast, so he should have four different spells prepared.
|
I'm guessing the negative energy channeling was what did it? Other than that, it doesn't look all that bad for a dungeon boss vs 2nd level characters. My wife's half-orc two-handed weapon fighter, with power attack and furious focus, could probably have killed him in 2-3 rounds with a masterwork lucerne hammer and decent rolls. She's +7 (1d12+9) when using all her feats for a potential 21 points of damage. She'd have to roll a 12 or better to hit AC 19, so a 40% chance to hit each time, but for no worse than 10 damage. After 2 successful hits that thing would be down.
Your party was probably hurt by not having a cleric to positive channel and counteract the negative channels.
|
|
* Cleric : The fighter has wounded him . One Channel Energy later he is healed and the group is wounded... At worse he'll sacrifice a second level spell for spontaneous healing
You can't channel to heal yourself and also channel to harm, even with negative energy, as far as I know. Agreed on the rest, it'd be tough to survive the channeling.
First, that party is ECL 1, right? 2nd level characters but only three of them.
The monster is CR 3. That CR is +2 above the party's ECL. That should be something they can handle if they still have most of their resources, but if they've uses up most of their spells, have no potions, low HP, etc., this becomes very difficult indeed. You said they had time to heal, but that implies using some spell resources. Also, it wasn't their first battle, so maybe other resources were even lower.
Next, the monster has "Save or Die" kinds of abilities, such as Hold Person. That is fully capable of removing 1/3 of the PCs from the entire battle. Also, he could use his fear to get a PC to run away for part of the fight, leaving him going one-on-one with whoever is left, then handling the returning coward, then couping the held guy.
Next, you mentioned a 2H fighter but not whether he used slashing or bludgeoning weapons - that could make a big difference.
Finally, you never mentioned HOW it was a TPK. Did the PCs just whiff on most of their attacks.
Mainly, AC 19 is pretty hard for a 2nd level character to hit. Ideally, you want the PCs to have about a 50/50 chance to hit most enemies so they would need to have +8 to hit this guy which probably a bit of a stretch for 2nd level. Also he has DR, some immunizes, and defensive spells he could use to be even harder to injure.
This is OK if the monster has weak offense. Usually, for game balance, if you increase the monster's defenses, this prolongs the fight and gives the monster more time to hurt the PCs, so to balance that out, you reduce the monster's offense. And vice versa, more offense means less defense.
But this guy has has an awesome attack and some useful offensive spells. His scythe is only mediocre, but the ability to dish out 6d6 Channeling damage every round (2d6 area affect to injure all 3 PCs each round) could really destroy the group quickly.
So what you have here is a death-dealing nasty offensive enemy, capable of battlefield control spells to eliminate some of the PCs from the whole fight, and enough defense to make him difficult to kill.
Yes, this very likely should have resulted in a TPK unless the battle had very good luck favoring the PCs.
On a side note, the CR system is a bit unpredictable. It says that PCs should be able to handle a fight that is only +2 CR, but CR is only a guide, not a rock-solid formula, and as far as guidelines go, the CR system is MUCH less reliable at lower levels (an ECL 11 group fighting a CR 13 monster is in WAY WAY less danger than an ECL 1 group fighting a CR 3 monster) and it is MUCH less reliable for smaller parties than bigger parties (a group of 6 PCs with ECL of 1 would have had a MUCH easier time killing your skeletal champion - yess, I know, you can't get a 6-man group with that ECL, but the idea is still valid for higher ECLs).
Thanks for the feedback. Here is how the fight played out.
The Inquisitor gets a suprise round, because he decides to shoot the baddie with his heavy repeating crossbow while he is still talking to the group. He misses.
Initiative gets rolled. Skellington scores a 24 and goes first, casts Shield of Faith and pulls his scythe from his back.
Fighter moves up to him and does total defense, probably afraid of the scythe.
Inquisitor casts Disrupt Undead. Hurts Skellington.
Sorcerer casts Magic Missile.
Next round Skellington casts Cause Fear on the fighter, who fails his will save and has to flee for three turns.
The casters deal damage with Disrupt Undead, Magic Missile and Heavenly Fire to Skellington who proceeds to heal himself with Channel Negative Energy for two turns in which the party reduces him below five hitpoints.
Then the Inquisitor misses his ranged touch attack and the sorcerer deals only 2 damage.
Skellington feels that now is the time to do something more offensive and casts Summon Monster II to summon 1d3 Fiendish Riding Dogs. 1 gets summoned and attacks the sorcerer.
He proceeds to summon another dog and casts Hold Person on the Fighter as soon as he returns. The fighter gets mauled by dogs and needs 3 rounds to get back into the fight. In the meantime Skellington engages the Inquisitor in close combat and brings him down to -4. Next round the fighter decides to drink a health potion instead of charging the baddie and so Skellington uses his Death Knell on the fallen Inquisitor, who fails his save and dies. Skellington laughs and proceeds to tell the party that they are all going to die. Sorcerer is out of spells and heroically charges Skellington (!) with his masterwork morning star.
Skellington retaliates and brings him down to -7 in on fell swoop. Fighter is the only one left to face him and doesn`t get a hit in before Skellington puts him down.
@DMBlake: The dungeon had a riddle that involved drinking from a cup that had a healing effect before this encounter, so they got healed without using their own resources. The inquisitor also had a wand of Cure Light Wounds with 48 charges left.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skellington feels that now is the time to do something more offensive and casts Summon Monster II to summon 1d3 Fiendish Riding Dogs. 1 gets summoned and attacks the sorcerer.
He proceeds to summon another dog and casts Hold Person on the Fighter as soon as he returns. The fighter gets mauled by dogs and needs 3 rounds to get back into the fight.
Firstly riding dog has been replaced with standard dog as of the 5th printing of the core rulebook. Riding dog was an option vastly superior to any other available with summon monster I. So that might be part of it.
Secondly I'm wondering if you were taking into account the one round casting time of summon spells?
The fighter going total defense straight off the bat was probably a mistake
Other than that it looks like some bad luck.
- Torger
Secondly I'm wondering if you were taking into account the one round casting time of summon spells?
This. The party should have had the chance to attack while Skellington was casting and made him make Concentration checks or lose the spell; also, the summoned monster doesn't show up until a full round later, thus delaying some of the damage in what was ultimately a battle of attrition.
And giving a low-level BBEG a x4 crit weapon is just asking for instant PC death. No one can take that kind of damage at low levels.
However, the dice count a lot more than builds and tactics at low levels. If they continually fall against the party, there's not much you can do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like you played it like a player, not a GM. What GM uses Death Knell on a downed level one? Are you trying to make them never come back?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno, why wouldn't the skeleton priest use death knell.
That is the point of the spell
Because the skeleton isn't actually real, and we're trying to have fun, even at low levels.
For the sake of the game, it's allowed to use less than out-of-game numerically optimal tactics. Even if it's just to not kill players in bulk.
Interesting. Sounds like unfortunate tactics on both sides.
I agree, summoning those dogs sounds like it happened too fast unless your synopsis left it unclear about how much time was passing. The skeleton never even used his channel to do AE damage (an average of 7 damage to everyone in range is much better than an average of 7 damage to just one guy if he hits with his scythe). He also never used hold person, a powerful spell. The party never tried to Ready any actions to disrupt the bad guy's spells, a huge failure on their part.
The biggest fail was the fighter going Total Defense. One, that Scythe is not much of a threat unless he confirms a crit (since it crits on a 20 which is auto-hit, total defense won't help much anyway except on the confirmation). Total Defense also prevents the fighter from making an AoO. Far better would have been to move to the skeleton and ready an action to follow the skeleton if he moves. This would allow the fighter to guarantee an AoO if the skeleton casts another spell, even if it moves away first. Or just move up and hit the dang thing, although that would allow the skeleton to 5'-Move and then still cast his spell, but the two spellcaster PCs could have readied their spells to disrupt the skeleton's spells too.
In short, your monster with his AC and spells was still a very tough challenge but I think he was under-utilized which was offset by overpowering his summons (not taking a full round to cast them). But the party tactics is probably what killed them.
DM_Blake, he did use hold person.
He proceeds to summon another dog and casts Hold Person on the Fighter as soon as he returns.
@Havoc: First of all, party was level two, not level one.
Second, I do not pull punches when playing an intelligent opponent. Inquisitor got his chance to make a will save. As a roleplayer I grew up on games with high lethality like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and Call of Cthulhu. I inform my players always, that if I run a sandboxy game, actions have consequences and death is a very real possibility. As a player I hate it when a GM fudges dice rolls or does deus ex machina stuff to save the party. It takes any real sense of excitement and danger from combat. I play opponents as it makes sense, and the undead priest of Urgathoa would definitely use the chance to heal himself and get buffed when a downed PC is lying at his feat and noone else threatens him.
@rest: I probably used summon monster wrongly. I treated it as a full round action, not as a one round delay.
Also, was the fighter hit by anything? He drunk a potion for some reason.
Yes, while he was held.
The fighter gets mauled by dogs and needs 3 rounds to get back into the fight.
Seeric85, here's the text about 1 round casting times, in the Magic chapter.
A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.
...
When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the concentration from the current round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration before the casting is complete, you lose the spell.
@Havoc: First of all, party was level two, not level one.
Second, I do not pull punches when playing an intelligent opponent. Inquisitor got his chance to make a will save. As a roleplayer I grew up on games with high lethality like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and Call of Cthulhu. I inform my players always, that if I run a sandboxy game, actions have consequences and death is a very real possibility. As a player I hate it when a GM fudges dice rolls or does deus ex machina stuff to save the party. It takes any real sense of excitement and danger from combat. I play opponents as it makes sense, and the undead priest of Urgathoa would definitely use the chance to heal himself and get buffed when a downed PC is lying at his feat and noone else threatens him.
@rest: I probably used summon monster wrongly. I treated it as a full round action, not as a one round delay.
I for one totally respect you position on death and consequences. My players expect more or less the same thing when they sit down at my table and they enjoy it immensely.
So it sounds you used summon spells incorrectly. That's cool, mistakes happen. You should probably let your players know.
Other than that it seems to me like an encounter on the tough side of reasonable but still reasonable.
If it's any consolation the last low level TPK I was responsible also involved a priest channeling negative energy... and there may have been zombies.
- Torger
I'm not arguing that the evil character should hold back... but I do claim that the all knowing GM shouldn't use his meta-knowledge to attack the fighter(which I believe was the only low will save) with two will save of suck/die spells. Was the skeleton just "lucky" or did you target weaknesses based on sheet knowledge.
Characters(mostly NPCs, because the GM is the world) shouldn't be aware of classes or stats - only perceived threat, and targeting a downed opponent is a waste, at least for an intelligent BBEG.
I'm not saying you or the players did anything wrong, it could just be classic low level rocket tag gone bad. The encounter wasn't impossible, it seems like appropriate challenge - three on one, but spell selection/usage can change a lot.
I'm not seeing how this fight could possibly be dangerous. I'd expect this guy to get one shotted by a two-handed fighter at level 1, never mind level 2. 18 HP just seems like a joke. Did the fighter just roll horribly several times?
|
|
@Havoc: First of all, party was level two, not level one.
*snip*
Keep in mind that when designing the encounter, the CRs are designed for a party of four. The book even mentions that when designing for less than 4, subtract one from the effective APL, and for more than 4 add 1. It's not a perfect system, but as some have pointed out, the Save or Suffer spells were pretty mean, considering one of them locks out 33% of the party.
Other than that, an option is to discuss post-game tactics with the players after each game. Give advice on possible counters for various things (such as spellcasting) that they can use for next time, or options to be better prepared.
Fighter moves up to him and does total defense, probably afraid of the scythe...
...Next round the fighter decides to drink a health potion instead of charging the baddie
So, there's your problem--a wussy fighter. If he had just him the guy, disrupt undead should have finished him, or the skeleton would have had to spend every round healing himself instead of CCing the Fighter. So, teach your Fighter player how to play a Fighter ;)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aside from the whole summoning too soon, I don't see anything wrong with how you played this encounter. I'd inform your players of the mistake and let them decide to either press on with new characters or replay the encounter. On a side note, if they choose to press on you should have Skellington be a recurring character because I guarantee he will put fear in your player's hearts lol. I would even turn him into the main villain of my next campaign.
Any casters , assume that fighters have low will save tho, it's nothing new, just like most casters assume that dexterous characters have low fort saves (of course they could be wrong and fighting a monk but that's another story).
My point was that those are meta-statistics, and not something characters should be basing their tactics on.
And with: raging barbarians bonus on will saves, monks, paladins, clerics, oracles, inquisitors, summoners and magus, and not even considering mock armor. How did the "caster" know the (armored) frontliner was a fighter? Did he mouse-over the character? ;)
|
|
And with: raging barbarians bonus on will saves, monks, paladins, clerics, oracles, inquisitors, summoners and magus, and not even considering mock armor. How did the "caster" know the (armored) frontliner was a fighter? Did he mouse-over the character? ;)
Monk wouldn't be armored, same for summoner or magus. A Paladin or cleric would have had holy symbols visible, most likely. Oracles are rare. Even if it had been an inquisitor, if you are a caster and the enemy charges up to you, you'll want to find a way to get them away.
And with: raging barbarians bonus on will saves, monks, paladins, clerics, oracles, inquisitors, summoners and magus, and not even considering mock armor. How did the "caster" know the (armored) frontliner was a fighter? Did he mouse-over the character? ;)Monk wouldn't be armored, same for summoner or magus. A Paladin or cleric would have had holy symbols visible, most likely. Oracles are rare. Even if it had been an inquisitor, if you are a caster and the enemy charges up to you, you'll want to find a way to get them away.
Hence "armored" in parentheses, but he could use mock armor(so, no). They only need holy symbols for casting not hitting or ducking, and a fighter can be religous. Magus and summoner can wear armor(so can wizards and horses). Your entire reasoning is based on meta-knowledge about classes, which is what I am advocating against using, so we're not really speaking the same language on this subject.
He targeted the only low will save character with all the will save spells. He(the GM) didn't cheat, but this is not chess, where the controller knows all the pieces' options, strengths, and weaknesses by looking at the shape. I believe he should be acting as the character(skeleton) would, not as a chess player.
That being said: total defense was a bad move. "If you don't want to get hit by it - hit it until it stops hitting you."
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get the impression both from your stat block and the sorcerer's tactics that your group thinks cantrips/orisons can run out. The sorcerer should have had infinite disrupt undeads. He can't run out of spells.
That aside, the fighter's tactics basically meant the PCs were only a two-person group. Was the player pressured into being the "front line guy?" Is he super new? I'm just seeing a lot of emphasis on defensive actions that indicate the player may be happier playing something less up front. THF especially needs to be about the fast race to death - kill the foe before they can kill you.
Your entire reasoning is based on meta-knowledge about classes, which is what I am advocating against using, so we're not really speaking the same language on this subject.
An interesting point. Would a character in gameworld know about the internal workings of that gameworld? Does your PC consciously decide that he will be a Fighter and take a Power Attack Feat, or is he simply a trained warrior who concentrates on improving the power of his hitting? Does he recognise that he is the meatshield because he has more HP and a better AC than the others? Do PCs even recognise the existence of classes, or do they just think that some people have a better chance of throwing spells and others are more capable of being stealthy?
I think you would have to be a seriously immersive role-player to never allow metagame mechanics to enter your character's thinking. I'm not talking about minutely dissecting the NPC villain's build to target metagame weak-spots, I'm talking about not allowing yourself to realise that a skinny guy in a robe and pointy hat, wearing a quiver of wands and hanging about at the back is likely to be a spellcaster, or that the bald emotionless fellow wearing no shoes and spouting Eastern self-help chants is probably a monk.
I am all for total role-playing in some games, but I would be very surprised if experienced players ever manage to leave metagame knowledge out of their gaming, even if they include it almost unconsciously.
I'm talking about not allowing yourself to realise that a skinny guy in a robe and pointy hat, wearing a quiver of wands and hanging about at the back is likely to be a spellcaster
In the game world is that how spellcasters usually dress? Is that information my character would have considering his background? If the answer to both those questions is yes then I see no problem with my character assuming this person is a spellcaster. If the answer to either or both is no then I do see a problem with the assumption. I also don't see those as being hard questions for a person to answer in character.
As to DonDuckie's cry of metagame knowledge abuse, I think a spellcaster knows whether his spell is most effective against the weak minded (will), the clumsy (reflex) or the frail of body (fort). I also think that in most cases it's fair to make educated guesses based solely on the appearance of your enemy. You're not going to try and hit the fellow whose nimbly taking cheap shots (rogue) with grease any more than you're going to try and hit the guy altering reality with his mind (spellcaster) with hold person or the guy whose main talent seems to be hitting things and getting hit in return (fighter) with a Chill Touch.
On the other hand the guy who likes to hit and get hit has aggressively moved up to me and is all up in my business, A fear spell likely to effect the weak minded seems like the perfect tactic.
It works.
Later in the fight you want to take someone out of the picture. The fighter has proven himself weak willed (your last will save spell worked on him). This is knowledge you have. The relative strength of will of the other two are completely unknown quantities. Makes sense to me to target the fighter again.
I in no way see this as a situation where metagame knowledge unfairly effected tactics.
- Torger
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am all for total role-playing in some games, but I would be very surprised if experienced players ever manage to leave metagame knowledge out of their gaming, even if they include it almost unconsciously.
I think you're overthinking that.
If I'm walking through an airport and I see a guy in orange robes trying to sell me a flower, I assume he's a monk. In the real world. That's no different than a guy walking down the street somewhere in Golarion seeing a "bald emotionless fellow wearing no shoes and spouting Eastern self-help chants" and assuming he's a monk. Likewise, if I see a guy in dirty jeans, an orange vest, wearing a tool belt and carrying a shovel, I might assume this guy is some kind construction worker, not much different than someone in Golarion seeing "a skinny guy in a robe and pointy hat, wearing a quiver of wands" and assuming he's some kind of spellcaster.
We do this kind of thing in the real world and nobody accuses us of "metagaming" though we might get accused of "stereotyping" or even of "profiling".
However, since this IS done by EVERYBODY in the real world, I see no problem with doing it in RPGs. Any PC or NPC with even a little intelligence and a little worldly experience should be able to "profile" a group of enemies fairly easily, picking out the leaders, tanks, casters, and priests with ease.
That said, it's possible for some people to go to great lengths to conceal their "profile", e.g., a wizard could wear mock armor and carry a greatsword to disguise the fact that he's a wizard. If anyone at my table goes to this kind of effort, I reward it by having enemies fail to correctly "profile" them.
Otherwise, I never object to PCs profiling the bad guys and I never hold back on intelligent bad guys "profiling" the PCs - and I never consider it "metagaming".
i believe this is actually a CR 4 encounter... 3 PC levels +1 from skeletal champion; that is a tough fight for a party of only three 2nd level characters- especially, when you place it at the end of a dungeon when spells and other resources (like judgement, for example) are running low or gone.
that said, i do think it was a win-able fight (though, tough enough that bad luck could result in TPK even if played well). the inq. should have started with a knowledge check (that's why he has Monster Lore, after all)- that would have told him that his crossbow was a useless option, then he should have moved to flank and drawn his weapon (usually a fairly safe bet the armored skeleton doesn't have combat reflexes). the fighter needed to fight- he should have charged: he probably didn't have a very good chance to hit (one of the reasons this is such a tough encounter), but with the bonuses from charge and flank (assuming 18 Str and furious focus) he should have hit on around a 9 or better, i think, for weapon damage +11 (-5 if not bludgeoning)... that should have forced the boss to fight reactively, rather than really being able to control the pace of the fight. the sorc should have readied an action each round (as soon as he know it was a caster) to disrupt its casting with a magic missile, its not guaranteed to ruin the spell but that would have been really helpful in potentially stopping the fighter from being removed from combat.
in a fight that's already going to be close, letting the boss summon as a full-round action instead of a 1 round action is kind of devastating (plus, it looks like there was 1 round where he cast summon 1 and hold person?!? that ain't right)- that's on you, make sure you understand how to use all the abilities you give the baddies correctly! but there's always a learning curve in any new system. if you feel bad about the TPK you could make a plot point out of it- the PC's all wake up from dreaming about that dungeon and the inquisitor has a profound sense that Asmodeus wants them to actually go through the dungeon (presumably, successfully this time) for some reason. with foreknowledge of what they'll fight and where they should be able to reach him with more resources and a strategy for the fight; this time when the priest is almost dead have him escape through a secret passage they didn't live long enough to discover last time (so you can use him as a recurring villain) but have him leave behind (either by dropping, or because it was stashed somewhere near by) some item that was the 'reason Asmodeus wanted them to go there' and will serve as its own quest hook (if they choose to follow it up, don't want to force anything in the sandbox).
i believe this is actually a CR 4 encounter...
Nope. It's CR 3. In Pathfinder CR is equal to PC class level -1 or NPC class level -2. 3rd level Cleric is CR 2, +1 for skeletal champion template.
If I'm walking through an airport and I see a guy in orange robes trying to sell me a flower, I assume he's a monk. In the real world. That's no different than a guy walking down the street somewhere in Golarion seeing a "bald emotionless fellow wearing no shoes and spouting Eastern self-help chants" and assuming he's a monk. Likewise, if I see a guy in dirty jeans, an orange vest, wearing a tool belt and carrying a shovel, I might assume this guy is some kind construction worker, not much different than someone in Golarion seeing "a skinny guy in a robe and pointy hat, wearing a quiver of wands" and assuming he's some kind of spellcaster.
There's a difference between a profession and a class, though. Yes, the guy in armour is likely to be someone involved in combat, and the furtive chap in the black hooded cloak might be a criminal, but that doesn't mean you should automatically know that they are likely to have +1 BAB/level or be likely to Sneak Attack you.
If you see a the flower-selling monk in Real Life, you don't think, 'Aha, he's can kick my arse using unarmed combat and has some good resistance to hostile environmental factors.' That's what I mean about knowing the universal workings. In Pathfinder, a monk is a class with a set (or very likely) pool of abilities rather than just a guy who has devoted his life to internal reflection. If you are suddenly faced with a monk opponent armed with a shortsword, you are going to hard-pressed to stop your metagame knowledge telling you that a)he shouldn't have a shortsword, and b) it's no good disarming him because he doesn't need a weapon.
Your PCs need to learn the GLORY of Grappling, for it is the bane of singular enemies.
If you see a the flower-selling monk in Real Life, you don't think, 'Aha, he's can kick my arse using unarmed combat and has some good resistance to hostile environmental factors.'
i do...