A GM’s Problem with Monks

[Syndis]

Good evening everyone, lately I’ve had a bit of a conundrum when figuring out how to deal with my party’s monks. To preface, I have a party of 7 level 11 adventurers. 3 members of the party are monks of various types. 1 is focused on archery, 1 is focused on control, and 1 is more of a generalist.

I am having trouble building adequately challenging combat encounters for the party. In more cases than not, the monks, especially the archer, waltz through combat with ease, no matter what I throw at them.

For example, tonights session had two of the three monks facing off against a Jotunn Troll (level 15). In about 3-4 rounds of combat, the two monks and the sorceror (who missed every time when trying to hit) killed it without much issue. They took some damage in return, but overall they did not really have a problem.

Later in the session, the archer monk did a flurry of bows with explosive arrows and caused around 430 points of damage to four creatures with a single action. Afterwords, the other monk grabbed the level 15 caster boss they were fighting and prevented him from casting at all. They proceeded to waltz through what I had intended as a boss encounter as if it was nothing.

I am having trouble figuring out how to deal with this issue, as it is reaching a point that the 3 monks, especially the archer, outshine the rest of the party. I have discussed my problem with one of my non-monk players and he agreed that it was starting to seem as though the class is OP.

It is starting to feel as though the monk class has no weaknesses, and exceeds all other classes in terms of combat. The archer monk in particular is better at close combat damage than everyone else in the party, is better at doing ranged/spell damage than the rest of the party, has the highest AC, and their saves are difficult to get around.

My questions are as follows. How do I successfully build engaging combat encounters when the monks (particularly the archer) just waltz through everything? How do I give other players the chance to shine in combat? Is there something I am missing, or is the monk class just that powerful?

[Martialmasters]

Explosive arrow?

[FowlJ]

Martialmasters wrote:

Explosive arrow?

Explosive Arrow.

At 130gp a piece, it doesn't seem like something that an 11th level character will be throwing around all the time, but two of them (and some very good rolls) could total 430 damage on 4 creatures.

[Varus Wreckpoint]

Honestly, it sounds like maybe your table is implementing some rules wrong.
Are you using any variant rules?
Three (apparently, mostly two) lvl 11 characters able to defeat a lvl 15 monster without much issue? That should be extremely unlikely by the rules.

As for the explosive arrows, I'm assuming based on the damage that they were using greater ones (which, lvl 13, they probably shouldn't have access to yet):
They do 10d6 damage, so average 35. 4 enemies, so, assuming they all fail, 140 damage per arrow. Twice, so 280. They'd either have to almost max roll damage on both, or all the enemies would have to crit fail their saves on both (or some combo of the two). I could see that happening if they are using items above their level on mooks a few levels below them, though.
If they're using the basic arrows, it's theoretically possible to do that much damage, but given that the DC will be falling behind per level, they'd need nutty luck to get that damage.

In order to know how they should rate up against the rest of the party, we'd have to know what the rest of the party are. AC should be comparable, better than fighters/barbarians, worse than champions. Their saves should be slightly better, they've just got a bump, but not so high it should be a problem hitting them.

[Blave]

Quote:

the other monk grabbed the level 15 caster boss they were fighting and prevented him from casting at all.

Did the boss get THAT unlucky with his flat checks? Also, if he was a caster, didn't he have time to pre-buff a bit? No Fly, 4th level Invisibility, Contingency...? Not even Mirror Image?

Monks are overall on the low side of damage output for a martial class. Any chance you can post their builds and equipment? There might be something off here.

[The Raven Black]

OP, did you check the calculations of your players for their attack and damage rolls?

[Claxon]

Yeah, it sounds like there might be something off.

Monks are on the low side for damage dealers, so your description isn't matching the analysis that's been done of the forums.

Monks are pretty good defensively, and have some good action economy manipulation that allows them to dart in, deal damage, and dart out again to avoid recourse. However, they wouldn't normally be the prime suspects for "overpowered" or "causing problems".

My suspicion is that either the characters have been built wrong or there is some rule that is being misunderstood/ignored/misapplied.

[Captain Morgan]

Are you applying MAP to the second attack in Flurry of Blows? That seems to get overlooked quite often. The dex cap on explorer's clothing or bracers of armor is another one that could be missed.

[Taja the Barbarian]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Are you applying MAP to the second attack in Flurry of Blows? That seems to get overlooked quite often. The dex cap on explorer's clothing or bracers of armor is another one that could be missed.

Also, remember that Flurry combines the damage before applying resistances and weaknesses.

[Schreckstoff]

One of my players is playing an archery monk and it's kind of weird in that it's mostly better for him to just melee instead. Which feels bad after investing a lvl 1 feat into it.

Also sometimes it's better to not enter the stance for those range increments and action economy, which isn't a bad thing just a bit weird.

Damage wise the monk is way worse than the fighter, very good at getting into flanking positions and similar AC but the better proficiencies and straight strenght scaling make big difference in the early levels.

[shroudb]

Also, Flurry is a Flourish move, i sure hope you don't allow your Zen arcehr to do 3 flurries in 1 round or something crazy like that.

[jdripley]

I also feel like the rules are not being applied correctly. 2 characters shouldn’t stand a chance against an opponent 4 levels higher than they are. That should be a tough fight for 4 characters.

A table of 7 players can be rough to handle. One group I play with has 6 players and I feel that stresses the game a bit. In my experience as the number of players goes up over 4, it just gets harder and harder to keep track of everything. There is just so much going on, and the combats get pretty crazy with all of the enemies to keep track of. Very likely that monsters aren’t being used to max capability due to GM overload. Very likely that players are getting rules wrong but the GM can’t catch it due to so much happening all the time.

I don’t blame the OP for any of this. I get having a big group of friends and not wanting to exclude any of them. Friends are more important than the game after all. And for the rule bits, especially in a big group it is each players' responsibility to get their character right.

But if it problematic, and it is based on OP's statement, then a general sit down and figuring out what is being done wrong is in order.

[KrispyXIV]

jdripley wrote:

2 characters shouldn’t stand a chance against an opponent 4 levels higher than they are. That should be a tough fight for 4 characters.

They should be struggling to hit it without significant outside support, let alone quickly defeat it.

I agree that there must be something funky going on here - I dont consider monks bad, but they're far from powerhouses.

[Claxon]

shroudb wrote:

Also, Flurry is a Flourish move, i sure hope you don't allow your Zen arcehr to do 3 flurries in 1 round or something crazy like that.

I have a suspicion something like this is the culprit.

Missing things like the flourish trait or the press trait can cause someone to completely misunderstand how to use an ability.

The fact that flurry can only be used once per round can become problematic if that restriction is missed.

KrispyXIV wrote:

jdripley wrote:

2 characters shouldn’t stand a chance against an opponent 4 levels higher than they are. That should be a tough fight for 4 characters.

They should be struggling to hit it without significant outside support, let alone quickly defeat it.

Given the level difference of the party vs the enemy they should likely only be hitting on rolls of 16 or better (rough guess) for their first attack. Anything with map will only succeed on a nat 20.

That's why I strongly feel something is being missed.

Edit: Monks would be experts in their weapons at level 11, giving: 11 + 4 + 2 (item) + 5 (ability) = 22 to hit. The troll has an AC of 35. That requires a roll of 13 to hit on a no MAP attack.

[Mark Seifter]

How did the monk get enough actions to activate all those explosive arrows before firing them so that they would have their special effect?

[Eric Clingenpeel]

Mark Seifter wrote:

How did the monk get enough actions to activate all those explosive arrows before firing them so that they would have their special effect?

That's exactly what I was going to ask. :D

[Claxon]

Mark Seifter wrote:

How did the monk get enough actions to activate all those explosive arrows before firing them so that they would have their special effect?

That's a great question too. Each explosive arrow takes it's own interact action to activate before firing.

Maybe interact twice with the two explosive arrows and then flurry?

Is that legal? Kind of preparing both in advance? Flurry of Blows is only a single action, so it would add up to 3, assuming they can draw the arrows for free.

[Mark Seifter]

Claxon wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

How did the monk get enough actions to activate all those explosive arrows before firing them so that they would have their special effect?

That's a great question too. Each explosive arrow takes it's own interact action to activate before firing.

Maybe interact twice with the two explosive arrows and then flurry?

Is that legal? Kind of preparing both in advance? Flurry of Blows is only a single action, so it would add up to 3, assuming they can draw the arrows for free.

That is indeed legal "Once you activate the ammunition, you must shoot it before the end of your turn. Otherwise, it deactivates (but it isn’t consumed) and you must activate it again before you can use it. If you shoot the ammunition without activating it first, it functions as non-magical ammunition and is still consumed." But it would mean only a pair of shots and no other actions on that turn (notably Stance Savant is 12th level so entering the stance itself is an action).

[Claxon]

Yeah, they would need to already have entered the stance on a previous turn or maybe be benefiting from haste.

Edit: Actually haste only gives you an extra basic stride or strike, so it can't be used for the other stuff.

And that could be something else that is being done incorrectly.

If the players are buffed using haste, and don't realize that the extra action granted is limited to stride and strikes only, and can't be used for other special actions, even if they're only a single action.

[lemeres]

Monks have 'meh' based damage on their hits, and usually make up for it by consistently getting hits in and getting their debuffs in. There are a few builds, such as a trip/stand still monk that can get more damage, but it is nicer for other benefits (like tanking enemy action economy) rather than nuking like this.

They are certainly not a class that can easily overturn issues of basic system math of higher level enemies and their base defense. You would usually look to a bard buffing up a high damage team mate if you want that. But even if the monks have the bard dedication (a rather nice combo actually), this would be a thread about bards being overpowered.

[PawnJJ]

Syndis wrote:

Good evening everyone, lately I’ve had a bit of a conundrum when figuring out how to deal with my party’s monks. To preface, I have a party of 7 level 11 adventurers. 3 members of the party are monks of various types. 1 is focused on archery, 1 is focused on control, and 1 is more of a generalist.

I am having trouble building adequately challenging combat encounters for the party. In more cases than not, the monks, especially the archer, waltz through combat with ease, no matter what I throw at them.

Since this seems to be applying just to the three monks, each with different builds, then I suspect as others have stated that Flurry of Blows is being incorrectly used. You can only use one Flourish ability a turn and it applies MAP as normal.

Syndis wrote:

For example, tonight's session had two of the three monks facing off against a Jotunn Troll (level 15). In about 3-4 rounds of combat, the two monks and the sorcerer (who missed every time when trying to hit) killed it without much issue. They took some damage in return, but overall they did not really have a problem.

So at level 11, assuming the monks have a +5 from their attack score, they should be rolling a +22 (+5 dex/str, +15 expert prof, +2 weapon potency) for their first strike. This will drop to +18 for any of the monks attacking with an agile fist or +17 for nonagile and the archer. Then any strikes following the flurry of blows will drop to +14 for agile and +12 for the archer/nonagile.

The Jotund Troll has a 35 AC, so the first attack roll needs to be 13 or higher to hit, the second roll needs to 17 for agile or 18 for nonagile and any further hits would have to be a nat 20 to hit. So you're looking at a 60% chance to miss for the first hit, an 80 or 85% chance to miss with the second strike and a 95% miss chance on any follow up attacks.

Let's assume the monks have greater striking runes on a d8 weapon with two of the elemental weapon mods one of which is flaming for the weakness. A strike is doing ~ 3d8+6 + 2d6 + 10 Weakness (which only applies once during a flurry of blows), using those hit chances and damage, your expected damage per round is going to be sub 30.

I just don't see how two monks could take him out in 3-4 rounds unless they rolled a bunch of nat 20's.

Syndis wrote:

Later in the session, the archer monk did a flurry of bows with explosive arrows and caused around 430 points of damage to four creatures with a single action.

So before we get to that damage, explosive ammunition requires an interact action to activate, So it would have had to be two actions to activate and then one action to Flurry of Blows so it would be an entire turn, not just a single action.

Also that damage seems really high. I'm going to assume it's more trolls and they have weakness 10 fire. 6d6 is an average of 21 damage. So assuming all four creatures each failed twice, thats (21 + 10 weak)*4*2 damage or 248 damage. If your including the bow strikes as well, that will bring the average damage up to 320ish. That's a lot of better than average dice rolls to push it up another 130 damage.

And that's assuming weakness 10 and they all fail their reflex DC25 saves. A CR8 two-headed troll (+15 ref) would have to roll less than a 10 to fail, so worse than a coin flip chance eight times.

Syndis wrote:

Afterwards, the other monk grabbed the level 15 caster boss they were fighting and prevented him from casting at all. They proceeded to waltz through what I had intended as a boss encounter as if it was nothing.

So grabbed doesn't prevent casting completely, it imposes a flat DC5 check to use any manipulate action (ie any somatic/material spells), so the Caster would have an 80% chance to get their spell off.

Unless you crit on the grapple of course. Looking at the saving throw table for creatures, if your caster had a low saving throw bonus for fort then he would be at a DC33 Fort. So assuming +5 str, master prof, and a +2 item bonus to athletics, you're looking at a +24 athletics roll. So the monk would succeed and grapple on a 9 or better and crit succeed and restrain on a 19 or better. And of course he would have to keep at the successes turn after turn to maintain it.

[Deriven Firelion]

7 characters way overloads the game if you don't heavily modify creatures.

Sounds like the monks got lucky. Hard to know what went wrong without seeing it call. I can see explosive damage and a really good round leading to some whackiness.

[Ravingdork]

Why would the Weakness only be applied once in a Flurry, PawnJJ?

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

How did the monk get enough actions to activate all those explosive arrows before firing them so that they would have their special effect?

That's exactly what I was going to ask. :D

Darn. Beat me to it.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Ravingdork wrote:

Why would the Weakness only be applied once in a Flurry, PawnJJ?

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

How did the monk get enough actions to activate all those explosive arrows before firing them so that they would have their special effect?

That's exactly what I was going to ask. :D

Darn. Beat me to it.

The text of flurry, like magic missile, explicitly states to apply weaknesses or resistances to the combined total damage, not to each 'hit'

[lemeres]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Why would the Weakness only be applied once in a Flurry, PawnJJ?

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

How did the monk get enough actions to activate all those explosive arrows before firing them so that they would have their special effect?

That's exactly what I was going to ask. :D

Darn. Beat me to it.

The text of flurry, like magic missile, explicitly states to apply weaknesses or resistances to the combined total damage, not to each 'hit'

Ah, I missed that. Huh, it is nicer than I thought. Sure, less weaknesses, but resistances seem like a more common problem. At least for melee. Although ki strike is worse as an antizombie option as a result.

[Loreguard]

It isn't that much worse, just means you need to target 2 zombies during your flurry. They don't combine if you targeted separate foes. (then begin re-targeting original ones with your subsequent hits)

[Fumarole]

Mark Seifter wrote:

How did the monk get enough actions to activate all those explosive arrows before firing them so that they would have their special effect?

This is why when one of my players does something in the game that we haven't seen before I say to them "Tell me about x" as I look it up myself, to make sure we get the rules right before it is performed. I've prevented some rules being used incorrectly this way due to assumptions from first edition or other RPGs. Sure it slows the game down a bit, but I find it's best to get the rules right the first time they're used.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Fumarole wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

How did the monk get enough actions to activate all those explosive arrows before firing them so that they would have their special effect?

This is why when one of my players does something in the game that we haven't seen before I say to them "Tell me about x" as I look it up myself, to make sure we get the rules right before it is performed. I've prevented some rules being used incorrectly this way due to assumptions from first edition or other RPGs. Sure it slows the game down a bit, but I find it's best to get the rules right the first time they're used.

Yeah, I get players to read abilities aloud now, had a few grumbles but overall people have gotten better at the game.

[mrspaghetti]

Too bad the OP hasn't checked back in to the thread. I'd like to know what the root issue was.

[Thomas5251212]

I'm curious myself.

[graystone]

Taja the Barbarian wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Are you applying MAP to the second attack in Flurry of Blows? That seems to get overlooked quite often. The dex cap on explorer's clothing or bracers of armor is another one that could be missed.

Also, remember that Flurry combines the damage before applying resistances and weaknesses.

It would only add together for resistances/weaknesses if the attacks targeted the same creature: if the monk targeted 2 different creatures that close enough that a 10-foot burst hits the other then hitting both would trigger weakness twice. If all 4 creatures are within the bursts, that's weakness possibly being triggered 8 times.