It’s interesting. If you listen to a certain VERY vocal group of posters, the Monk is badly broken into complete uselessness and is totally worthless. However. thread after thread comes in with the Untouchable monk. But honestly, OP, this build *IS* pretty powerful in defense at low levels. I’d just let him have fun. But are the other players complaining?
Sadly even the untouchable monk falls face first in the dirt to the 5% rule.
Crane Wing and there's some sort of Cleric? Domain ability that lets you reroll 1's on saves twice a day. Those get around the 5% rule.
Indeed the ability to break the 5% rule is why Crane Wing is incredibly powerful in a specific build type.
It's a Multiplier ability. When combined with high AC (relative to the party AC/opponents Attack) it make you largely immune to Melee damage. Some see this as making melee types stronger compared to Magic types. I see it as the reverse, but I have often been accused of having a odd way of looking at things. :-)
Get around it, but not over it.
Remember crane wing only functions once a round and only against a specific subset of attacks (melee). That's amazing, true, but it would have to be to justify three feats and requiring I fight defensively and one handed to boot.
There's lots of good advice here on how to handle or mitigate this so I don't feel the need to add to it.
I gather that +6 BAB is Flurry BAB, because a 7th level Monk only has a BAB of +5, no?
One of the easiest ways to level up an enemy is to give them one or two levels of warrior.
This instantly adds +4, +2,+2 to three primary stats: grants them armor and weapon profs; two d8 hd, +3 Con save, +2 to hit...for +1 CR for 2 warrior levels.
Net effect, if stats are applied to Str/Con/Dex is +4 th, +2 dmg, +1 or higher AC depending on armor, and +1 hp/hd more. It will also qualify the monster for another feat.
He's +8 to hit. That means he misses a 26 AC 90% of the time...he's useless. Throw another AC maven at him, not even as high as he is, and he's useless.
But the biggest factor has already been mentioned...Kingmaker is set up on the 15 minute working day.
You need to give your characters 2-3 encounters a day, so they don't feel they can nova every encounter. Introduce new competitors and give them standard stats - orc barb/4's with potions, ogre f/3's, minotaur warrior/4's, 'footsoldiers' for rival enemies, and throw them into the random encounter mix. Add some magical beasts with barding...a hydra with leather barding could give him fits.
Remember there's tons of fey around, and weird and whimsical stuff should be the norm...in addition to the giant-types and monstrous humanoids they should be running across.
As things continue, his high defenses will become less and less relevant, as his inability to kill thigns quickly will just mean the rest of the party suffers while he watches, unable to do anything.
He's at his prime now. Let him get the spotlight. Then watch it move away.
==Aelryinth
Had similar issues with a monk in my homebrew game. Ruling that monk wisdom to ac and mage armor does not stack solved the issue for me without completely invalidating the monk. They were still a challenge to damage, but stayed within 4-6 ac of the rest of the party. May be a house rule you'd want to consider?
I think this is a questionable rute to take. Generally i feel the monk need extra stuff not to be Be nerfed on the few things he is good at.
To the op.First you look once again at the monk to make sure he is within the rules(i think it sounds fine but a thing like going under dex 13 when enlarged will lille the entier crane style)
Second look again to make sure you have a problem. Is it that bad to have a guy that is good in combat? Yes at the moment he looks really good but i hope that the bow ranger is at least in the game damage wise? And the 2 full casters is just about to gro win to adulthood. Also the inquisitor is having a every option to make it work.
It is a Classic GM problem that one figther is Harder to hit and hit Harder than the others. But it is not a problem, really it is his role in the party. Let him be the best and scale the encounters after the others.
Of cause some encounters can be made so some of the others shine.
But dont Fall in to the trap of wanting to hit the monk so badly that you kill of the rest.
If your player have made a monk that can take it all let him play that guy, it is only a problem if you want it to be one.
|
You could have a character who is useless (eg a PC who can't hit anything) and is also untouchable. Indeed, we have this very situation in the OP.
Yeah, the monk from the OP is going to find if he hasn't already that he'll have to temper that strong defense and start focusing on his offense. Weapon focus feat, strength belt, Boots of Speed, AoMF/brass knuckle enhancements, even retrain ability pt gains shifting from Dex/Wis to Str to increase that effectiveness if need be. It is absolutely no fun being nigh untouchable, challenging an enemy only to have the GM say, "go ahead and take your AoO I'm going play with the squishing sorceror over there." Well, they still do that for my monk, but at least they are more likely to pay for it. :)
Even doing all this, the monk's AC will still be better than anyone else's when you factor in fighting defensively all the time and throwing the occasional ki point to boost it more.
Well for me I like to remember it's not the GM's job to root for the npc's - it's just to make interesting and fun encounters for the players.
While I'd add some tactics that make the monk work a bit at it - I'd also argue here that if the party is taking time to buff the monk up - they obviously are enjoying this type of play.
The question isn't 'is the monk too powerful' - but 'could the party do as much using 4 spells in other ways?'.
2 second level and 2 first level spells may not seem like a 'huge' investment - but it's still an investment - for a single encounter it's pretty steep - the last wizard I played (level 7 oddly) tried to keep his spells per encounter to 2 unless there was an emergency - those slots could be devoted instead to things that cause problems for the monsters.
|
As someone whose campaign has also been obliterated by an untouchable god-monk with Crane Wing, attack his allies and attack him with magic. It's all you can do.
Obviously, let him strut his stuff. Give him targets only he can fight. It's great to let him feel awesome about his powerful character, while still giving the rest of the group something to do.
I've found larger groups of enemies to provide a useful challenge.
As someone whose campaign has also been obliterated by an untouchable god-monk with Crane Wing,..
But, but- so many posters post over & over & over here that "Monks are teh suxxor' so obviously you're doing it wrong....
;-)
As someone whose campaign has also been obliterated by an untouchable god-monk with Crane Wing,..
But, but- so many posters post over & over & over here that "Monks are teh suxxor' so obviously you're doing it wrong....
;-)
It certainly begs the question of how that could happen, yes. It's never been denied that monks can be defensively very good, merely pointed out that being defensively awesome isn't really worth that much to the rest of the party at the end of the day unless you have a strong offence as well.
In all the "monks have a problem" threads, the challenge has been laid down "If monks are that good, and we're just not playing them right, show us a build please so we can see how it's done?" and has never been answered with a viable build, so I'd love to see this untouchable campaign-breaking monk...
In all the "monks have a problem" threads, the challenge has been laid down "If monks are that good, and we're just not playing them right, show us a build please so we can see how it's done?" and has never been answered with a viable build, so I'd love to see this untouchable campaign-breaking monk...
That's probably because all the things that can make a class like the Monk or the Rogue really solid don't come across in a mere build post. Builds can't tell you how to choose feats to synergize with your party, or how to make item choices based on buff availability, or how to ideally engage opponents.
Builds just post numbers generated by the character itself. If that's the full measure of a character, then of course the Rogue and the Monk are going to look terrible. Nuanced characters don't "perform" well in a simple build post, a format which favors "simple" characters.
-Matt
In all the "monks have a problem" threads, the challenge has been laid down "If monks are that good, and we're just not playing them right, show us a build please so we can see how it's done?" and has never been answered with a viable build, so I'd love to see this untouchable campaign-breaking monk...That's probably because all the things that can make a class like the Monk or the Rogue really solid don't come across in a mere build post. Builds can't tell you how to choose feats to synergize with your party, or how to make item choices based on buff availability, or how to ideally engage opponents.
Builds just post numbers generated by the character itself. If that's the full measure of a character, then of course the Rogue and the Monk are going to look terrible.
-Matt
Unfortunately, yes, numbers are pretty much the only common base you can work with.
That is because everything else is entirely subjective. It's also why PFS is discussed alot despite having so many specific organizational rules alot of players go by it and thus it functions as another base.
GMing, group, and game styles vary greatly. In a low magic campaign featuring many skill challenges over combat the rogue looks pretty damn decent. In a game where most enemies do nothing to the group outside of HP attrition via melee attacks than the defensive monk looks pretty good.
Against the common backdrop of the numbers in the game yes, monks don't look great, in my games monks aren't any better than the groups barbarians or rangers.
Seeing the builds gives us an idea of what's being missed by the gamemaster or monsters. The monk may be untouchable but is he ending the fights quickly enough to spare the group resources? Is he effectively controlling the pace of fight? The numbers give you an idea of what's happening beyond them. BEcause the vast majority of the psoters here don't sit at your table.
Right. So many comparos are flawed by one of two things:
The poster has a axe to grind, a point to prove (which around here is often “the monk is suxxor”.)
Or it focuses on DPR to the exclusion of all else. Mind you, that’s not a Bad Thing. DPR is important and it’s easy to compare.
But if course the monk isn't just about DPR. It has superb saves, great defenses, and fantastic mobility. Of course then, many claim that mobility is useless as you can’t move and Full Attack. True, but if you can’t get to the foe, you can’t Full Attack. I am reminded of this every time I see one of our tanks try to move up in heavy armor over difficult terrain, it’s so very hard to get into attack position at a spd of 10.
It’s true that the Monk doesn't have a clearly defined niche, like the Fighter or the rogue. Certainly, then if you are trying to fill that niche, you’ll have issues. But here, teamwork has paid off. The Monk here has taken the role of Tank, blocking foes, doing the “Nyahh, nyahh you can’t hit me’ while the archer, etc lays down the DPR. To me, this just means a well designed team (and note a FIVE member team, which means the Monk can afford to hyper-specialize) not that the monk here is “broken”. It's not the Monk, it's the team. Great TEAMwork, guys!
It is also worth noting that monks will tend to benefit more than most classes from a more generous character generation system as among the many problems monks face is MAD. The more generous the generation system, the easier it is for monks to overcome that particular problem, which in turn will make them more effective everywhere else too.
The question I have for those complaining about the Untouchable Monk is: What is his actual offensive contribution? Not dying is great, and something that every character strives for, but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter a whole lot if you cannot do anything offensively. This is particularly problematic with the Monk because there is very little, if anything, that actually makes, or even encourages, enemies to attack the monk. Sure, if every battle is in a five foot corridor or doorway against monsters that have only melee attacks, then the Untouchable Monk will likely shine as he drops anchor at the choke point and lets the party kill the monsters by shooting over his shoulder. Absent massive buffing and/or a very generous char-gen though, its unlikely that the monk will be killing the monsters all that often.
Then lets look at his other "abilities": Most of the class features the monk gets are "meh" at best. Fast movement is nice, especially for scouting and occasionally in combat (though fast movement probably won't be a huge deal in the case of the Untouchable Monk as he's less likely to be running all around getting flanks, etc.)
Slow Fall: It sounds cool and all, but is easily replicated, in better format, with a magic item and is something that rarely comes up during the course of a campaign. It is nice on those couple of occasions though where it does matter.
Stunning Fist: This is, imho, just bad. The idea is great. In practice though, its bad. First, you have to hit, and as discussed above, the monk has a lot of trouble here, especially the Untouchable Monk. Second, the creature hit has to fail a save, and that save is likely not that tough as Wisdom is going to be at best, a secondary stat to monk most of the time (there are some exceptions though, particularly if you allow the guided property). Third, you can only attempt it once per round. Finally, you have to declare it before the attack (meaning its wasted on a miss).
Evasion: This is good admittedly.
Immunity to Disease: Good, but nothing earth shattering imho. Cure Disease is fairly easy to get a hold of in most campaigns, but of course, YMMV depending on campaign/GM, etc.
Spell Resistance: This is just not that good. Its not so great that you are likely to be immune to most magical attacks, but you also have to keep in mind that depending on GM, it may actually hurt you the few times it works as it may block buffs/heals.
Flurry of Misses: The extra attacks are pretty much a necessity for the monk since he's so relatively unlikely to hit to begin with. But, you are still less likely to hit than most PCs anyway.
Bonus Feats: There are some good ones here, but most are geared toward Combat Maneuvers which create two problems for the monk: 1) Combat Maneuvers become less effective the higher level you are and 2) a lot of the Greater versions of the maneuvers require Combat Expertise which the monk will have a hard time qualifying for due to MAD.
Skills: The monk gets a decent number of skill points but will almost assuredly be outpaced by all other skill based classes, and even some 2 skill point/level classes. Very few monks are going to be able to afford more than a 10 Int due to the MAD nature of the class. Int is the 5th most important stat to the monk, but isn't even considered "dumpable" because monks are supposed to be good at skills.
I am not going to bother going into the high level abilities in part because they are really just not impressive and in part because most campaigns won't run long enough to get there anyway.
All in all, there's a reason that every monk should be taking Qinggong. Its not because "Well, maybe I'll want one of these things at some point." Its because you are almost certainly going to be trading out a fair number of your abilities.
So, again, my question to those complaining about the Untouchable Monk is, what, besides Not Dying, is the monk doing to break your campaign? More importantly, how is he doing it so much more effectively than the other PCs? It could be you have a point and I am just not seeing it, but given how far behind the monk tends to be otherwise, I am not yet convinced. Think of it this way, if a PC brought a 5 foot by 6 foot section of adamantine wall to every fight, what would the monsters do? I ask because the monk is only somewhat more effective offensively than the wall.
It’s true that the Monk doesn't have a clearly defined niche, like the Fighter or the rogue. Certainly, then if you are trying to fill that niche, you’ll have issues. But here, teamwork has paid off. The Monk here has taken the role of Tank, blocking foes, doing the “Nyahh, nyahh you can’t hit me’ while the archer, etc lays down the DPR. To me, this just means a well designed team (and note a FIVE member team, which means the Monk can afford to hyper-specialize) not that the monk here is “broken”. It's not the Monk, it's the team. Great TEAMwork, guys!
DD this is not a matter of teamwork, at least not from the OPs perspective, it is a matter of the monk winning the game and the rest of the team having problems keeping up.
I think it would be relevant to see the build of the monk. If for nothing else to see what he did rigth there. And if it looks kinda normal to be able to tell the OP that it is a team issue and that the is the team that is beating his baddies, not the monk.
Well, the Monk isn't buffing himself, and somebody has to be doing the damage, because it's sure as heck not the monk.
Thus to me, it appears to be a team, but where one member shines.
Gargs- admittedly, the Monk is "MAD as hell". That's certainly an issue.
But you forget "All Good saves". That's very nice.
Now, it is a slightly different story if the players are not having fun. If that's the case, then you might have to mix things up. However, there's a huge balance problem if you take the ONE thing a guy is good at, and effectively nerf it to the ground. If a one-dimensional character is making it harder for people to have fun, then you need to use house-rules or help rebuild the character so it isn't one-dimensional.
If the other players aren't having fun, they could consider not buffing the monk. Just because a particular tactic works doesn't mean the party has to do it every single time. Sure, drop Bull's Strength on the monk, but really, the archer should have first "dibs" on the Cat's Grace. I mean, if the bad guys can't hit him anyway, buffing the monk's AC is a complete waste of time and resources.
Of course, those kinds of decisions are more about how the players work together than it is about the characters. For example, do any of the players feel bullied into playing a particular role? Are the other players feeling left out or bored? Is it the monk who's stealing the spotlight, or is it the player who's the glory-hog? If the problem is group interaction at the player level, changing out the character won't help.
Also, it sounds like you're letting your party get 2-3 rounds of buffing before combat: closing the gap there should help close the gap, challenge-wise. And don't forget to watch the casting times on those spells.
Well, the Monk isn't buffing himself, and somebody has to be doing the damage, because it's sure as heck not the monk.
Thus to me, it appears to be a team, but where one member shines.
Gargs- admittedly, the Monk is "MAD as hell". That's certainly an issue.
But you forget "All Good saves". That's very nice.
Indeed. I did not talk about the saves mainly because it runs with the same thing as being Untouchable. Its still a defensive ability. Though to be fair I did mention Evasion which is the same thing. You are right though, they generally get good saves with only Fort possibly being low due to MADness.
I agree with the sentiment here too that the issue seems to be that the party is buffing the heck out of the monk. The question is why? Are they having fun doing this? If so, no biggie. Are they doing it though because the monk's player is being overly demanding of the buffs and they feel its necessary in order to keep peace at the table? The answer to this question is pretty important because I agree, the archer should be getting the Cat's Grace for instance.
Also, to be fair, I still love monks. Mainly because I love the idea of the monk. That being said, they are a challenge to play well, particularly if you want to be offensive.
Um...monks are quite below the bar. Read several threads here and they'll go into the numbers.
I
What numbers are those? DPR? Sure, standard monks fall behind a Barbarian for DPR. So?
What is (arguably) the most powerful class? Wizard. What’s (arguably) the best version? The controller wizard aka Gawdwizard. How much DPR does that build do? Almost none. Yet, it’s the most powerful build of the most powerful class. Hmm. Maybe DPR is not the best way to measure how great a class is.
Not that a monk compares to a Wizard- at the very highest levels, full spellcasters only compare to other full spellcasters.
Still a Monk can deal out lots of DPR (if you choose the right archetype, especially) and has many special abilities. Sure, you give up some DPR for those abilities and one can argue whether or not the trade off is worth it.
I agreed here that a monk does have a couple of issues- Niche and MAD.
But I don’t buy the whole “Monk is teh suxxor” meme some few vocal posters have been pushing.
The problem is that the Monk doesn't really fill any niche. Except the "not die" niche, seen here. At least not naturally.
Great Monks can be built, but with much more effort...and overall much less effect than if you turned your effort to building a better class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He asked for advice.
He has a party that sucks. He wanted tactics to stop the one slightly less sucky, hard to hit character from tying up all the monsters and making it so the party never gets touched.
Answer: Have them attack other people.
That's really the only answer you can give.
If he doesn't want to kill the rest of the party of suck by doing that, he can continue to attack the Monk. But that's not what he wants to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is one more option, which is to teach the rest of the players how to come up to the monk's level.
Should you succeed, you'll have to adjust how you run things as a GM. But that's the point.
In all the "monks have a problem" threads, the challenge has been laid down "If monks are that good, and we're just not playing them right, show us a build please so we can see how it's done?" and has never been answered with a viable build, so I'd love to see this untouchable campaign-breaking monk...That's probably because all the things that can make a class like the Monk or the Rogue really solid don't come across in a mere build post.
The mechanics do, and the complaint is that the monk is mechanically weak. This has been proven time and time again in build after build. It has been demonstrated in live games and in theorycrafting. Compare the mechanics to those of any combat-oriented class, and the monk is weaker.
Roleplay is great fun, it's why we play, but if you want to role-play a hero and then get sidelined as being ineffectual in every tough fight you face, it kind of takes the fun out of it. The mechanics should ideally support the other aspects of the game, and in the monk's case they don't.
Builds can't tell you how to choose feats to synergize with your party, or how to make item choices based on buff availability, or how to ideally engage opponents.
This is very true. However, if you need the rest of the party to make you shine, something is usually very wrong. If you cannot make a monk work with unlimited equipment choice, you aren't going to achieve it with limited equipment choice. How to ideally engage your opponents is not something you can rely on happening every time - opponents want you to engage them ideally for them, after all.
Builds just post numbers generated by the character itself. If that's the full measure of a character, then of course the Rogue and the Monk are going to look terrible.
They do, with the exception that the rogue can actually DO what the little bit written under "Role" in the character class description says.
Nuanced characters don't "perform" well in a simple build post, a format which favors "simple" characters.
The problem is, what does "nuanced" mean here? It means non-mechanical, where no class has any advantage or disadvantage. The argument is that the mechanics for the monk class are weak. How does this help?
Or it focuses on DPR to the exclusion of all else. Mind you, that’s not a Bad Thing. DPR is important and it’s easy to compare.
But if course the monk isn't just about DPR.
No, nor is every other combat class about DPR...BUT all of them have to be able to deal DPR when all else fails, because all else that a combat character can do (monk included) is situational and fallible. So not being able to do DPR is a serious handicap to put on any combat class, and at the end of the day that's what the monk is. He has no other way to influence the outcome of a combat encounter but to fight.
It has superb saves, great defenses, and fantastic mobility.
Which help the party overcome the enemy how, exactly? The monk's defences are good, almost as good as the paladin's, but that doesn't make him asset, it just stops him being a liability.
His defences, well he can have a great AC, but it's not guaranteed. His hit points are not among the best, but he does usually have excellent CMD. Those are good, but not "great".
Mobility is cool, when he gets it, up until the wizard can cast fly after which it is second rate (so it's great at 3rd and 4th level, basically - as good as a barbarian's). It enables him to run away fast, or get anywhere around the party, but when he gets where he's going, what can he do? Especially as he has probably just isolated himself from the rest of the party...
It’s true that the Monk doesn't have a clearly defined niche, like the Fighter or the rogue.
Yes, he does, it's written as follows:
Monks excel at overcoming even the most daunting perils [how the monk overcomes a daunting peril I don't know as it doesn't really say what a "daunting peril" is], striking where it’s least expected [he can be stealthy, but rogues are undeniably better at this, and given sneak attack better at the striking too], and taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities [except he is no better at this than anyone else - arguably worse, in fact]. Fleet of foot [true] and skilled in combat [3/4 BAB and no ability such as other combat classes have of pumping his attacks is not really "skilled in combat" so far as I can see], monks can navigate any battlefield with ease [as long as they can run there], aiding allies [how do they do this? poor offence isn't helping and any commoner can "aid another"] wherever they are needed most.
You see they HAVE a role, a niche, they just can't actually deliver on it.
But here, teamwork has paid off. The Monk here has taken the role of Tank, blocking foes, doing the “Nyahh, nyahh you can’t hit me’ while the archer, etc lays down the DPR. To me, this just means a well designed team (and note a FIVE member team, which means the Monk can afford to hyper-specialize) not that the monk here is “broken”. It's not the Monk, it's the team. Great TEAMwork, guys!
But it's not the monk that's doing the heavy lifting, it's the TEAM. You could take ANY melee combat character and put him at the head of the party and they would perform as well if not far better. The only difference in their cases would be that the GM would be complaining they were ending encounters in one or at most two rounds by dealing massive damage. The net result of them not hurting the party much would be the same.
I agree with the sentiment here too that the issue seems to be that the party is buffing the heck out of the monk. The question is why? Are they having fun doing this? If so, no biggie. Are they doing it though because the monk's player is being overly demanding of the buffs and they feel its necessary in order to keep peace at the table? The answer to this question is pretty important because I agree, the archer should be getting the Cat's Grace for instance.
I think because no-one else selected a melee oriented character, while with the monk it's all he can do. Hence they buff the monk to put at the front of the party.
Also, to be fair, I still love monks. Mainly because I love the idea of the monk. That being said, they are a challenge to play well, particularly if you want to be offensive.
Amen to both sentiments. The monk doesn't need much drastic improvement, but it needs something to make it mechanically a little more viable.
It would help if people read what the GM tells them about the situation. Namely that the other players ACs are much worse and that their Attacks aren't that great either.
It's not hard to be much worse than AC32 at level 7, to be fair. It's also a symptom of the fact that they have all taken 3/4 or 1/2 BAB classes with the exception of the ranger who is a ranged specialist. The OP says that the monk's attacks are nasty, but I have sneaking feeling that the ranger might actually be the damage dealer for this party.
He's made clear several times by party standards the Monks attack is decent and people look at the numbers and say "those numbers are crap. I have PCs with much better attacks. Use monsters he can't hit" ignoring that by the GM's comments the rest of the party won't be able to do anything in Melee either.
Oh I get that, but he's also saying that the monk and his Crane Style are the problem, when they're not. The buffs and the poor combat quality of the rest of the party are a big part of the problem too.
Compare the mechanics to those of any combat-oriented class, and the monk is weaker.
Inb4 claims of "Monk isn't a combat class!" followed by lots of floundering about as they try (and fail) to explain what he is when pressed without resorting to combat things ("Yeah he's totally a support class. He can Grapple and stuff. That's not combat, right?").
Its also worth reiterating what was mentioned up-thread. It should be nigh-impossible for the monk to have all these buffs up at the start of combat all the time. Bull's Strength and Cat's Grace have a duration of minute/level for instance. Though at level 7 Mage Armor will last most of the day.
@Dabbler: Technically, the monk does have a very limited ability to boost his damage/number of attacks through his ki pool. However, its neither powerful enough, nor frequent enough, to really help.
In the end, the problem comes down to that the monk in theory should stand out as that jack of all trades, master of none, except that he has too many competing needs to really pull it off. The ranger in this group for instance should be better at skills. The ranger is almost certainly better at stealth and at best scouting is a wash (owing to fast movement).
The monk can't be the party face because he almost certainly dumped Cha (though I suppose he can pump enough ranks into Dip/Bluff to be a mediocre backup to the face). He's not going to add knowledge to the party either because his Int will be too low. Finally, in most parties, he's not going to be much of a combatant either. Even as the secondary melee guy, he falls behind the rogue due to SA AND the rogue is better at the skills too.
In the end, the true appeal of the monk class is in their "mystical abilities" but as mentioned, most of these (especially in the Core, non-archetype monk) are just not that good. Its why everyone takes Qinggong because at least with that you can start to make some interesting characters with neat abilities that really do pull from some of the "niches" of other classes.
As I said, I still love the monk and have a blast playing them, but typically, he's going to have to really work to be highly effective unless the party is just otherwise missing certain niches. (As an example, my current monk is in a party consisting of Sorc, druid, fighter, cleric), so he has kind of taken to the skill monkey role, but only because there's no rogue, ranger, bard, etc.
@Dabbler: Technically, the monk does have a very limited ability to boost his damage/number of attacks through his ki pool. However, its neither powerful enough, nor frequent enough, to really help.
By a boost in attacks, I refer to the fighter's weapon training that adds up to +4 to hit and damage above and beyond their full BAB (and bonus feats that add up to another +2 to hit and +4 to damage). The paladin's smite adds charisma bonus to hit and damage, the barbarian's rage boost strength which in turn boosts to hit and damage...
The monk gets no bonus to hit, and is on either 3/4 BAB or Full-BAB-2. His MAD reduces this further, as does his lack of enhancement. In short, he needs it more than other classes, and doesn't get it.
One bonus attack only on a full-attack isn't really that much. In my custom changes I made it such that it was one bonus attack on ANY attack - that makes the monk halfway good at skirmishing at least. I gave the ki-strike an actual enhancement bonus a la magic fang, and unarmed strike an ability to bypass one point of hardness or DR per monk level, whatever that DR may be against. That at least gives the monk an actual fighting speciality that isn't just fluff.
In the end, the problem comes down to that the monk in theory should stand out as that jack of all trades, master of none, except that he has too many competing needs to really pull it off. The ranger in this group for instance should be better at skills. The ranger is almost certainly better at stealth and at best scouting is a wash (owing to fast movement).
The monk can't be the party face because he almost certainly dumped Cha (though I suppose he can pump enough ranks into Dip/Bluff to be a mediocre backup to the face). He's not going to add knowledge to the party either because his Int will be too low. Finally, in most parties, he's not going to be much of a combatant either. Even as the secondary melee guy, he falls behind the rogue due to SA AND the rogue is better at the skills too.
In the end, the true appeal of the monk class is in their "mystical abilities" but as mentioned, most of these (especially in the Core, non-archetype monk) are just not that good. Its why everyone takes Qinggong because at least with that you can start to make some interesting characters with neat abilities that really do pull from some of the "niches" of other classes.
As I said, I still love the monk and have a blast playing them, but typically, he's going to have to really work to be highly effective unless the party is just otherwise missing certain niches. (As an example, my current monk is in a party consisting of Sorc, druid, fighter, cleric), so he has kind of taken to the skill monkey role, but only...
I fully agree.
Pacing and consumables sound like the solution. If they're just throwing all their buffs on the monk and hiding behind him then spread out your encounters. Instead of throwing one fight with 6 enemies at them throw one with 2 at them and have the other four back off and wait for the monk to shrink. Most of your NPCs should be smart enough to not just smash their faces against a wall until they die, even animals will hit and run if they're not immediately successful on an attack and then start wearing the prey down.
This is sound advice.
If you insist on having your one big encounter than have the enemies bring potions/scrolls/etc that they can fire up while your nonstealth party is making your way towards them. This let's you fiddle with the power of the encounter without any of the power falling into PC hands like permanent magic items would. Ideally by the end of the day's adventure all of your PCs should be nearing the end of their resources. If your cleric and sorcerer are going to bed with half their spell slots still full you're not pacing properly. Remember, while it is fun to go nuclear on one fight with everything, it's also fun and more challenging to put your PCs in a situation where they have to evaluate what they have left and figure out how to make it work.
I did this with my Kingmaker party a week or two back. The foes were ones that I came up with on the fly because the rest of the party wanted to go on a werewolf-hunt after freeing a man from lycanthropy. I had the pack of natural werewolves include some casters (a witch and an inquisitor) and a lot of potions...they had heard of the party, saw them coming, and set an ambush with them buffed up. It was an epic encounter as the enemy used battlefield control and terrain to their advantage.
Another one I used, as my party tended to buff up their pet barbarian, was to use a lot of minor foes to surround the party and attack from all sides. It worked, the barbarian took out the Big Bad in one critical hit, but then the rest of the party had to contend with lots of lesser foes. One went down (but not dead), and no-one escaped injury.
DrDeth wrote:
"It has superb saves, great defenses, and fantastic mobility."Which help the party overcome the enemy how, exactly? The monk's defences are good, almost as good as the paladin's, but that doesn't make him asset, it just stops him being a liability.
Well, if you read the OP, it helps the party HUGELY so much so that the OP here (and on many other threads) is complaining about how easy it is for the party to defeat encounters, as the monk can tank his way thru them.
And, even if the Monk isn't the BEST at DPR, it certainly can dish out decent DPR. Thus it isn't a case of " So not being able to do DPR.." it's a case of "Not being able to do the DPR of some other hyper- optimized no-defense- all offense, rocket tag builds".
I have seen those builds- the fall to a will save spell easily, where the Monk won't. And, you know what's worse than a "hyper- optimized no-defense- all offense, rocket tag build"? A "hyper- optimized no-defense- all offense, rocket tag build" that's been Dominated or Confused and is now attacking the party.
The issue here as stated is not the monk. It is the spells cast upon him, that are making him awesome. I made a crane monk averaging 34 AC in one of my games, that my DM thought was "broken" He could not quite envision ways to defeat my flying monk (non flying, but obssessed with heights and jumping).
To prove my point, i ran the next campaign. The group was 1 cleric, 1 sorcerer, 1 ranger, 1 rogue, 1 alchemist and 1 gunslinger all level 7. Their foes? 8 Level 9 Warforged(mod'd from 3.5) with 9 levels of crane monk, and a level 12 boss." Each one had deflect arrows and all the crane abilities plus a homebrew effect i called "slave mind" Any single Warforged could "shutdown" on its turn to reset anothers "status" to cure things such as blinded etc. The group had quite some difficulties, but managed to defeat the entire encounter in less then 15 turns with NO ONE unconcious. Now for those of you math nuts out there, this encounter was at least cr 11-ish to a group level of 7... using crane monks, and yet they wrecked them despite the ability to clear affects.
The alchemist quickly learned throwing bombs first was a bad idea, and had to wait til after the ranger went if an arrow was deflected. The ranged characters focused on one at a time, while the melee and spellcasters focused on another. The cleric occasionally healed and there was no real OH S+*& moments beyond the first 2 rounds when the party was realizing what they were fighting.
All in all, it's really hard to challenge this character without completely destroying the rest of the party as a result.
My game is going to start in about 13 minutes. Snake Style is worse - I'll show the college level statistics data later. One of my players made a L3 character with the entire Snake Style feat chain (legal character).
Crane Style is bad because of the autododge the first hit every combat thing, so the first attack that has a +17 to hit will automiss. If you want to hit this guy, go for traps, aoes, combat maneuvers, and nonrolled spells like magic missile. Obviously, not every encounter will have these features.
Does the monk also have the ability to hit enemies on a regular basis? If not, treat the monk like a movable wall that the enemies (generally) ignore. Generally, if you think it is broken, let the player play it out until he retires his character / his character dies / the campaign ends, then ban it from future use.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks to all of you for your feedback. You've all been very helpful. This thread has made me calm down about the whole thing and some of the suggestions on here are pretty great. I've decided I will only tell the monk player to tone things down a bit if, and only if, the other players are not enjoying the power level dynamic anymore. Otherwise, I'm sticking with the way things are. At least this experience has taught me a lot about designing encounters.
|
Three dread zombie cyclopes (Varnhold Vanishing, pg 18). CR 9 encounter. The three zombies surround him and start swinging (each gets 4 attacks a round, and should be able to flank as well). The first time one of them hits and he uses Crane Wing to block, the zombies use their flash of insight to hit him with natural 20s, which they then get to try to confirm as possible crits. Just do it once, and you'll see the confidence evaporate like water on a hot griddle.
Yeah, I saw this. Not gonna lie... I got pretty excited for it. I am afraid the x3 crits will insta-gib some players, though...
Enemy casters can help you. Be ready to have someone throw targeted Dispel Magic(s) at the monk, breaking through Cat's, Owl's, and Mage Armor drops his AC by 8. Also Magic Missle never misses, perhaps throw an evoker at him with some empowered MMs.
Also remember the thing about tactics, the character who doesn't get hit becomes less of a problem when there are 3-4 other guys pummeling you. You have to reduce enemy numbers, and you don't do that by not hitting the one enemy out in front. There is no "aggro" mechanic in DnD, the bad guys do not have to go after the unhittable monk every fight every time just because that's what the player wants the enemies to do. That is the main problem with high AC builds and DMs that aren't willing to think like players do.
Yeah, the main thing to consider, is you don't have to attack him if he's not the biggest threat. This is why when I make a tank, it has to at least keep up pretty well on damage (so things like the armored or tower shield archetypes on fighters are bad since you give up some important damage tricks).
Only a threat draws attacks. A wall doesn't.
Three dread zombie cyclopes (Varnhold Vanishing, pg 18). CR 9 encounter. The three zombies surround him and start swinging (each gets 4 attacks a round, and should be able to flank as well). The first time one of them hits and he uses Crane Wing to block, the zombies use their flash of insight to hit him with natural 20s, which they then get to try to confirm as possible crits. Just do it once, and you'll see the confidence evaporate like water on a hot griddle.
Why not “rocks fall you die”? Come on, three 3PP monsters appear out of no-where and decide to solo him?
“Just do it once” and I’d walk.
Three dread zombie cyclopes (Varnhold Vanishing, pg 18). CR 9 encounter. The three zombies surround him and start swinging (each gets 4 attacks a round, and should be able to flank as well). The first time one of them hits and he uses Crane Wing to block, the zombies use their flash of insight to hit him with natural 20s, which they then get to try to confirm as possible crits. Just do it once, and you'll see the confidence evaporate like water on a hot griddle.
it's an interesting idea, but it doesn't pass the encounter design basics because it's a dick move that is obviously a dick move.
You could use it as the foundation of a good design though.
All you need is some sort of BBEG (a necromancer, or death knight or something) who knows a bit about the party. Throw them in with the Zombie Cyclopses, add a few other lower power fodder undead, like skeleton archers, or crawling claws or something, and have the boss direct traffic. Let the PCs know the fight is coming so they have time to prepare and don't feel quite like rocks have fallen on them.
Then, when the BBEG specifically targets the untouchable monk with the big Cyclopses is will actually make sense. Play up the tactics and make the villain smart. Then it goes from being a dick move to a memorable and challenging encounter.
The "Don't attack him!" guys are promoting a sort of dickish strategy. It's tactically optimal, but flawed: it's not letting your player shine - the whole @#$%ing poing of his build is to be hard to hit. Have people try to hit him. And fail.
If your player is essentially playing a dickish PC ("hey, my guy is invincible because I found some cheesy feat") why would you expect the DM to tolerate that?
The DM should either fix the problem or at least find a way around it. Such as one of the options you listed (Magic Missile).
Here's the situation: I'm running Kingmaker right now and we're starting the third book. The players are level 7. The party is...
-A Fire/Healing Cleric of Sarenrae (Queen of the kingdom)
-An Inquisitor of Gorum who wields a spiked chain
-An Aquatic bloodline Sorcerer
-A bow-wielding RangerAnd one cranestyle monk that makes my job as GM quite challenging.
You see, I've always considered myself pretty good at encounter balance. But this monk is a huge problem when it comes to keeping the game challenging and fun. Behold my dilemma:
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
I haven't read though the entire thread, but I still want to give my 2 coppers here.
The problem here isn't the "OP MONK" it's your thinking that he's OP. Now before you get offended let me explain why I say this.
First off the only thing this PC is good for is being a punching bag, he is all bark without any bite whatsoever. You as the GM need to think up other things that will challenge him. Examples are things like introducing high AC minions into the game that do static damage and only have 1 hit point, have them run around keeping the monk occupied while the other members of the party deal with the real threats. Ignore him completely as he doesn't have any real power behind his hits so everyone will just sit there and laugh at him as he flails about and spins about like a ballerina. Use skill challenges that work against his weaker areas that he isn't trained in, use snipers and sharp shooters to target him from afar. Go after his Touch AC instead of his normal AC, things that deny his dexterity bonus and make him flat footed. Use invisible foes.
The point is, YOU need to think outside the box here my friend. You are the one in control of the game world and it is up to you to become a better GM and challenge your players. This is a three dimensional game and the more you think outside the stat blocks the better it will be fore everyone who plays.
|
|
Three dread zombie cyclopes (Varnhold Vanishing, pg 18). CR 9 encounter. The three zombies surround him and start swinging (each gets 4 attacks a round, and should be able to flank as well). The first time one of them hits and he uses Crane Wing to block, the zombies use their flash of insight to hit him with natural 20s, which they then get to try to confirm as possible crits. Just do it once, and you'll see the confidence evaporate like water on a hot griddle.Why not “rocks fall you die”? Come on, three 3PP monsters appear out of no-where and decide to solo him?
“Just do it once” and I’d walk.
Dude, they're monsters from the adventure he's running (you know, Varnhold Vanishing? the 3rd book of the path mentioned in the OP?). And they're playing Kingmaker, where roughly half the XP is random encounters. It's also worth noting that dread zombies aren't mindless - they have Int 6, so they can actually use cunning tactics if so desired.
Frankly, he's going to run into them anyway before the book's over, so I'm not sure where the hostility is coming from.
You could use it as the foundation of a good design though.
All you need is some sort of BBEG (a necromancer, or death knight or something) who knows a bit about the party.
Yeah, like, oh, I dunno...
The "Don't attack him!" guys are promoting a sort of dickish strategy. It's tactically optimal, but flawed: it's not letting your player shine - the whole @#$%ing poing of his build is to be hard to hit. Have people try to hit him. And fail.
I think you misunderstand.
We, or at least I, are not saying "Never attack the Monk". We're more suggesting "If the untouchable Monk frustrates you when he's untouchable...try not trying to touch him every once in a while."
Or, at the very least, don't have EVERY enemy focus on him. If there are 4 enemies on the field, have one or two guys engage the tank, and half the other two attack everyone else.
If the enemies are intelligent, have them move on to softer nuts every now and then, instead of beating ineffectually at the guy.
And so on.
It's not dickish, and it's not "not letting your player shine". It's "Not letting your player turn every encounter into a slog".
My RotRL Barbarian can one round pretty much any enemy we come across (he used to have troubles with incorporeal stuff but then I learned that Ghost Rager was a Rage Power. Dan, that one is GOOD.).
Every now and then, the GM will toss something at me that either keeps me out of the fight (his saves are pretty good. I almost inevitably roll 1's vs things like Stinking Cloud and Dominate Person. =/), gives me something I don't wanna engage, to let the party take care of it (Hasted Dread Wraith? No thanks, I'll let the Monk/Magus/Alchemist/Fighter/Unhittable hard hitting beast handle that...And yes that's a multiclass, not a list of possible party members. And yes, it is damned effective.), or just otherwise switches up the encounter so that "RAGEHAMMERPOUNCE" is not the default beginning and end of any encounter.
I'll admit I'm always a bit disappointed when I fail a save and have to sit out a whole combat, but it's not a dick move, it's an understandable one.