Monk... Why do they suck?

[Z3ro]

Anecdotal evidence = logical fallacy.

While the "evidence" you presented may in fact be true (You were able to keep up with the fighter and not feel useless), that does not change the fact that monks are bad.

I just want to point out that anecdotal evidence is actually not a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is something like a strawman argument. While anecdotal evidence is often times subpar, as you yourself noted, it can be true, and therefore valid (in this case, that under certain circumstances, the monk doesn't feel useless). Large groups of anecdotal evidence can actually be put together to create legitimate data.

[Malevolence]

The bar for the ride is adjustable. Saying that fighters and monks can't kill anything, when clearly they can, is false on its face. A decent DM can compensate for a Fighter, Monk, Ninja, Healer party a LOT more easily than he can make challenging but not overwhelming encounters for a Wizard, Archivist, Druid, Beguiler party. The main reason for this is that the DM knows EXACTLY what the low-op party can do on a given day.

The bar cannot go below a certain point, and they are below it. It can however be raised to an infinite height. It is trivial to make encounters for capable parties. You have to really dig around to find something that won't kill a gimp party by looking at them. And that still doesn't mean they win, only that they don't automatically lose. Such a party dies to Fireballs and pure classed Barbarians. And that's already pitching a bunch of softballs at the group.

[Gnaeus]

The bar cannot go below a certain point, and they are below it.

Really? I can make encounters below CR1. A first level party with that composition can pretty easily handle 4 CR 1 encounters in a day. Throwing under CR encounters for a weak party, including lots of mooks and stuff that is vulnerable to straight damage, is not hard at all.

It is trivial to make encounters for capable parties.

It can be done. It isn't trivial, if you want to avoid cakewalks or accidental TPKs.

You have to really dig around to find something that won't kill a gimp party by looking at them. And that still doesn't mean they win, only that they don't automatically lose. Such a party dies to Fireballs and pure classed Barbarians. And that's already pitching a bunch of softballs at the group.

Every member of that party can handle a same level fireball with little risk. A same level Wizard is an equal CR encounter, and if the DM thinks it is a problem, he can easily drop the wizard's level, or have him cast different spells, or have the party encounter him after he has cast some spells in another encounter. The fighter + monk can almost certainly beat a same level pure classed barbarian, if he isn't a charger (i.e. built at much higher optimization than they are). All 4 members of the party can certainly do so.

There are a lot of people who play in low-op parties and have little difficulty. You seem to think that this is hard or impossible. I will admit it isn't to my taste, but there seem to be plenty of people who think that it is not only possible, but the easiest/best way to play. Please explain to me why their experiences are wrong. Please use actual facts, not a mix of baseless assertions and incorrect details.

And that's already pitching a bunch of softballs at the group.

Lots of people have fun playing softball. There isn't anything wrong with pitching softballs in a softball game.

[LordBlades]

It doesn't require it, but it is a common result. If my group regularly breezes through CR+2-3 enemies, and I start throwing CR+4-5 enemies at them to compensate, it is likely that the attacks that they generate are one shot kills against characters 4-5 levels lower than they were expected to fight.

From my experience that's rarely a problem, unless you're talking about monsters with HD based effects like Blasphemy. Of course, you don't need to throw enemies blindly at the party just because the MM says they're CR x. Some things are horribly under CR (see Adamantine Horror) while others are extremely weak (see Tarrasque)

Of course, DMing for an optimized party takes effort but then so does babysitting an unoptimized party.

On the topic of level appropriate encounters, this is the benchmark the designers of the game intended the characters to be judged (a party should face a level appropriate challenge without much trouble). Now look at a CR 10 fire giant; and try to make a level 10 core only monk or fighter that can stand up to that guy in melee.

[Gnaeus]

From my experience that's rarely a problem, unless you're talking about monsters with HD based effects like Blasphemy. Of course, you don't need to throw enemies blindly at the party just because the MM says they're CR x. Some things are horribly under CR (see Adamantine Horror) while others are extremely weak (see Tarrasque)

The CR system is part of the problem, to be sure. The problem with Tier 1s is that you never know from day to day if a druid or a cleric will be a melee fighter, a ranged blaster or spam SoDs or summons or something else. That can make an encounter trivial, or unbeatable.

On the topic of level appropriate encounters, this is the benchmark the designers of the game intended the characters to be judged (a party should face a level appropriate challenge without much trouble). Now look at a CR 10 fire giant; and try to make a level 10 core only monk or fighter that can stand up to that guy in melee.

But they don't have to. The entire party has to beat it. A fire giant is unlikely to be able to kill even the ninja in a single round. It has an AC that most level 10 characters will hit pretty easily, and only 145 HP. No combat reflexes. Averages only 25 damage per hit. Probably only about 50 damage per round against PCs with ACs in the 23-25 range, which isn't high even for unoptimized level 10 characters. Against 3 damage dealers and a dedicated healer, it isn't too hard a fight. And again, if the party proves particularly bad, it isn't hard to pretend that every monster has a +1 or +2 circumstance adjustment to its CR. If you put the party at level 11, the healer alone can heal more damage than the giant can deal.

[Lhurgyof]

Its mostly due to poor BAB and you can't enchant unarmed strikes, nor can you cast spells.

You can enchant unarmed strikes.

And if your DM says no, just get a necklace of natural attacks for 600gp + Enchantment.

[Veyr]

Anecdotal evidence = logical fallacy.

That's not correct; anecdotal evidence is just that - type of evidence. It's no good for a generalized proof (though it's great for disproving generalized theories), but it is certainly a valid form of corroborating evidence. On some level, science is based on a long string of carefully planned and tested 'anecdotes' (observations and experiments), which is also why science does not ever claim to "prove" anything. You can't prove things with anecdotes, and they're a fairly limited form of evidence, but that's far from making them a logical fallacy.

On the other hand, the argument that "this is what happened to me so this must be how it works" would be a logical fallacy, since it's applying a specific case to the general (looking it up, seems to be called the fallacy of Proof by Example)


That said...

I just want to point out that anecdotal evidence is actually not a logical fallacy.

Yes, but...

A logical fallacy is something like a strawman argument.

OK, not really. A straw man argument is invalid, but not exactly (formally) fallacious. The entirety of a straw man argument can be logically sound; the issue with the straw man is that its premises were inaccurate (because they were set up ahead of time to be easy to knock down).

More importantly...

While anecdotal evidence is often times subpar, as you yourself noted, it can be true, and therefore valid (in this case, that under certain circumstances, the monk doesn't feel useless).

Just because an argument depends upon a logical fallacy (and is therefore an invalid argument), does not automatically mean that its conclusion is false (and in fact, assuming that it is for this reason is itself the logical fallacy of Argument from Fallacy). By the same token, just because a given conclusion is true doesn't mean that a given argument lacks logical fallacies. So the statement that "it can be true, and therefore valid" is wrong; a statement can be true while still being logically invalid. It just means that the person making the argument is using the wrong argument.

Large groups of anecdotal evidence can actually be put together to create legitimate data.

Here is something I can agree with 100%. In certain circles, this is known as Science! (it works, bitches)

[Gnaeus]

Here is something I can agree with 100%. In certain circles, this is known as Science! (it works, bitches)

No. That is science. The practice of Science! involves building giant robots powered by steam, crystal powered rayguns which utilize the principles of etheric vibration, bringing the dead back to life in thunderstorms, and genetically engineering intelligent land squid. In other words, Science! is much cooler, if less predictable, than science.

[Veyr]

Allow me to present my counterargument.


(though I do like your definition of "Science!" as well)

[The Glyphstone]

Allow me to present my counterargument.


(though I do like your definition of "Science!" as well)

Yes, that is Science. With a period. His definition of SCIENCE! is also correct, with an exclamation point. Science and SCIENCE! are very different things.

[Z3ro]

That said...
OK, not really. A straw man argument is invalid, but not exactly (formally) fallacious. The entirety of a straw man argument can be logically sound; the issue with the straw man is that its premises were inaccurate (because they were set up ahead of time to be easy to knock down).

Well, if you want to get formal. I just picked strawman because I figured it'd be something everyone would recognize. But point taken.

By the same token, just because a given conclusion is true doesn't mean that a given argument lacks logical fallacies. So the statement that "it can be true, and therefore valid" is wrong; a statement can be true while still being logically invalid. It just means that the person making the argument is using the wrong argument.

I don't follow you on this. Can you give an example?

[Gnaeus]

They appear to be capitalizing all their strip headings, and no exclamation point. I think they are describing science.

[Veyr]

Yes, that is Science. With a period. His definition of SCIENCE! is also correct, with an exclamation point. Science and SCIENCE! are very different things.

They appear to be capitalizing all their strip headings, and no exclamation point. I think they are describing science.

Hrm. It seems you are correct.

I don't follow you on this. Can you give an example?

All I was saying was that "logical fallacy" and "truth" are independent things. You can use a logical fallacy in an argument for a true fact without making that fact untrue, and an argument without any (formal) logical fallacies can still have an untrue conclusion (if one or more of the premises is inaccurate).

So like, if I were to say that "Gravity pulls objects towards the earth with an acceleration of about 9.8 m/s/s," this is a true statement (assuming various things and give or take a bit). However, if you questioned it and my argument in its favor was "Well, we know it's true because Newton said so," this is a logical fallacy (Appeal to Authority). The acceleration due to gravity has nothing to do with Newton's saying so, it has to do with the various physical laws that Newton experimented upon and wrote about.

At the same time, if I used the argument that "All scientists are always right, and Stephen Hawking, a scientist, says that black holes destroy information, so therefore black holes must destroy information," this is a logically sound argument: given my premises, my conclusion must be true. The problem is that the first premises is not true (scientists are not always right), so my argument can be as logically sound as possible and my conclusion will still be questionable.

[Z3ro]

All I was saying was that "logical fallacy" and "truth" are independent things. You can use a logical fallacy in an argument for a true fact without making that fact untrue, and an argument without any (formal) logical fallacies can still have an untrue conclusion (if one or more of the premises is inaccurate).

So like, if I were to say that "Gravity pulls objects towards the earth with an acceleration of about 9.8 m/s/s," this is a true statement (assuming various things and give or take a bit). However, if you questioned it and my argument in its favor was "Well, we know it's true because Newton said so," this is a logical fallacy (Appeal to Authority). The acceleration due to gravity has nothing to do with Newton's saying so, it has to do with the various physical laws that Newton experimented upon and wrote about.

At the same time, if I used the argument that "All scientists are always right, and Stephen Hawking, a scientist, says that black holes destroy information, so therefore black holes must destroy information," this is a logically sound argument: given my premises, my conclusion must be true. The problem is that the first premises is not true (scientists are not always right), so my argument can be as logically sound as possible and my conclusion will still be questionable.

Okay, that clears things up. Though that part of my post was more directed at the second assertion, namely that "your monk might have been good, but that doesn't matter cause monks are bad".

[Malevolence]

Really? I can make encounters below CR1. A first level party with that composition can pretty easily handle 4 CR 1 encounters in a day. Throwing under CR encounters for a weak party, including lots of mooks and stuff that is vulnerable to straight damage, is not hard at all.

Then you are punished, both by less epic stories and by lower rewards. I mean throwing things that actually give level appropriate rewards and treasure, but don't slay the party on sight.

It can be done. It isn't trivial, if you want to avoid cakewalks or accidental TPKs.

You can pick just about anything level appropriate and know they'll be able to handle it. Avoiding it being easy is slightly harder, but still easy. Finding something that doesn't eat basket weavers for breakfast? Good luck with that.

Every member of that party can handle a same level fireball with little risk. A same level Wizard is an equal CR encounter, and if the DM thinks it is a problem, he can easily drop the wizard's level, or have him cast different spells, or have the party encounter him after he has cast some spells in another encounter. The fighter + monk can almost certainly beat a same level pure classed barbarian, if he isn't a charger (i.e. built at much higher optimization than they are). All 4 members of the party can certainly do so.

A level - 3 Barbarian two shots them, without Leap Attack or Shock Trooper. A Wizard needs around 3. So no, they lose, even to easy stuff.

There are a lot of people who play in low-op parties and have little difficulty. You seem to think that this is hard or impossible. I will admit it isn't to my taste, but there seem to be plenty of people who think that it is not only possible, but the easiest/best way to play. Please explain to me why their experiences are wrong. Please use actual facts, not a mix of baseless assertions and incorrect details.

Those are also the ones who advocate cheating, aka they can't even handle the game on easy. Call me unimpressed. And that question has already been answered many times.

Lots of people have fun playing softball. There isn't anything wrong with pitching softballs in a softball game.

The Fighter and the Monk can't hit the ball with anything other than their face. Getting hit in the face is not the intended response to a pitch.

[Gnaeus]

Then you are punished, both by less epic stories and by lower rewards.

Lower CR encounters can be just as rewarding.

To switch systems for a moment, there was a werewolf game, that I played in with a kinfolk. One night, the pack went off in the spirit world to fight some big threat to the city. I was left with some cubs at the pack's lair. So some little evil fire spirit comes up and threatens the cubs, and the cubs and I, after a long fight, beat it. I was badly hurt, but we won.

Now, the threat the werewolves were facing was much bigger and ultimately more dangerous than the little fire demon the cubs and I beat. I don't think any of them were seriously threatened, my character could have died.

But 10 years later, do any of those players remember what they fought that night? I doubt it. It was one more dead bane in a long line of dead banes. For my character, it was an epic struggle that he never forgot. For them, it was one more point of renown on their sheet. For me, it was a giant Frack You to all the furries who had ever called me a useless monkey. I promise that the cubs and I had more fun that night.

Whether a threat is epic or not has a lot more to do with the PC's, the emotional investment they have in the fight, and the DMing than it does with the magnitude of the numbers on the monsters sheet. Most of the players who have played from a young age can tell some story about how their PC stomped Demogorgon or some such nonsense. Certainly I could, If I was willing to. The stories that are well told mean more than the ones with the big numbers (Not that those two are in any way mutually exclusive. I'm not saying that low op is necessarily better. I love optimization myself. But saying that low optimization is a bar from epic stories is not true).

I mean throwing things that actually give level appropriate rewards and treasure, but don't slay the party on sight.

The DM is encouraged to adjust encounter CR and rewards for circumstances. Party composition seems to be well within that. If for my party, a CR -1 encounter is just as challenging as a CR encounter would be for "normal party" there is no reason I can't award exp and treasure at CR, not CR-1.

You can pick just about anything level appropriate and know they'll be able to handle it. Avoiding it being easy is slightly harder, but still easy. Finding something that doesn't eat basket weavers for breakfast? Good luck with that.

Prove it. You make the crummiest 10th level party you can, using PC classes, and I promise I can easily make an encounter that will not eat it for breakfast. Bear in mind that 4, 10th level commoners with far below WBL can crush 4 unoptimized kobolds. My encounter does not have to be a 10 CR encounter.

A level - 3 Barbarian two shots them, without Leap Attack or Shock Trooper.

So an equal level barbarian should have no problem then.

So, a level 4 human barbarian. Elite array, say strength 19 while raging. Greatsword. Does 2d6+6, average 13, +9 to hit, about AC 14. Level 4 Healer heals 2d8+6 with his cure moderate wounds. Average 14. The healer can heal as much damage as the Barbarian does, every round.

But wait, you say, the barbarian can power attack for full, now he does 2d6+15, average 22. But that is only if he hits. Full power attack, no shock trooper, give him a +1 weapon (included in damage above), and he is only +5 to hit. Monk probably can scrape together a 15-16 AC, so barbarian only hits half the time, average 11 damage per round, about what the healer heals with a cure light wounds. Monk with a 14 con has average of 8+13.5+4 hp, or 25.5. The monk + the healer can tank the same level barbarian, on average, without the aid of the other 2 party members. If the dice roll in his favor, and the monk drops, the healer heals the monk back up next round.

On the other hand, the monk, with a 12 strength, +3 BaB, and improved grapple, hits the barbarian with a touch attack (probably only needs about a 5 to hit) and wins grapple checks half the time. Once grappled, the barbarian is screwed, with a fighter and ninja beating on him, a healer healing any damage he has done so far. Barbarian has a 50% to break free any round, but that takes his standard action, he eats 2 more attacks from fighter + ninja, and the monk touch attacks him again on the following round.

So, Team Crummy, (Fighter, Ninja, Monk, Healer), can pretty clearly beat an unoptimized core Barbarian, same level. They can certainly own one at level -3. Heck, they should be able to beat 2 level 2s with little trouble. Fighter 4, with plate mail and shield, Dodge, Toughness, and Weapon Focus, can solo a level 2 barbarian for a couple rounds while his friends beat down the other guy.

A Wizard needs around 3. So no, they lose, even to easy stuff.

I don't know what that means. Are you saying that an unoptimized wizard can beat that party 3 levels above him? With the DM picking the wizard's spells?

Those are also the ones who advocate cheating, aka they can't even handle the game on easy. Call me unimpressed. And that question has already been answered many times.

Ahh. A complete lack of facts. So long as you continue your baseless accusations, with no evidence, we will understand that it is because you cannot prove them.

Find where it is shown that low-op parties cannot play fun games. If it has been answered many times, it should be easy for you. I'm throwing you a softball here, try not to hit it with your face.

The Fighter and the Monk can't hit the ball with anything other than their face. Getting hit in the face is not the intended response to a pitch.

Your sweeping over generalizations are Epic Fail. A level 4 monk can easily beat some challenges, like a CR 1 orc. When you say they can't beat any challenges, the only thing you prove is a reckless disregard for the truth.

[Gametime]

People really need to stop with the "in a low tier group, it's fine" argument. Even if the rest of the party sucks too, the enemies don't. And that is the actual standard you are being compared to. Which means being about equal to a Fighter is a bad thing, because you're not playing against the Fighter, you're playing with him against BBEG the Mook Eater.

I play in a group that is aggressively unoptimized. I'm talking ninja, CW samurai, monk/shadowdancer, healbot cleric, and bard/mindbender unoptimized. The DM gives us unoptimized encounters. We struggle sometimes, but are usually fine, and our only party wipe came at the end of a campaign when the BBEG exploded.

It's patently false that bad classes can't compete with the challenges presented. There are plenty of monsters in the books that just aren't all that dangerous.

Errata very specifically and clearly notes that the Monk's Belt magic item gives "Wis+1" to AC when worn by a non-Monk. The "works just like a Monk's AC bonus" is there to indicate:

Which errata is that? I can't find it in the DMG errata.

At the same time, if I used the argument that "All scientists are always right, and Stephen Hawking, a scientist, says that black holes destroy information, so therefore black holes must destroy information," this is a logically sound argument: given my premises, my conclusion must be true. The problem is that the first premises is not true (scientists are not always right), so my argument can be as logically sound as possible and my conclusion will still be questionable.

At the risk of invading this thread with even more formal logic jargon... an argument cannot be sound and have a questionable conclusion. An argument can be valid and have a questionable conclusion. In formal logic, an argument is valid if and only if the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises (i.e. if it is impossible that the premises be true and the conclusion false). A valid argument could still have a false conclusion if the premises are not true, but if they are, the conclusion must be true too. An argument is sound if and only if the argument is valid and the premises are true, which means that the conclusion of a sound argument will always be true.

[Lans]

A tier 5 party is more than a match for damn near any equal CR encounter. The problem comes from the higher than equal CR encounters.

I think Level+4 is where the party is expected to be able to beat with knowledgeable.

[LordBlades]

But they don't have to. The entire party has to beat it. A fire giant is unlikely to be able to kill even the ninja in a single round. It has an AC that most level 10 characters will hit pretty easily, and only 145 HP. No combat reflexes. Averages only 25 damage per hit. Probably only about 50 damage per round against PCs with ACs in the 23-25 range, which isn't high even for unoptimized level 10 characters. Against 3 damage dealers and a dedicated healer, it isn't too hard a fight. And again, if the party proves particularly bad, it isn't hard to pretend that every monster has a +1 or +2 circumstance adjustment to its CR. If you put the party at level 11, the healer alone can heal more damage than the giant can deal.

I didn't say solo beat it, but stand up to it in melee.

Let's take a 10th level Monk with 25 PB (that's the PB designers say encounters ae balanced against)with a defensive build (13 str 16 dex(+2 levels), 14 con 14 wis 8 int 8 cha). now let's say said monk spends at least half of his 49000 gp WBL on defensive items (bracers of armor +3, gloves of dex +2; periapt of wis +2, item of con +2; amulet of nat armor +2, ring of prot +2 for a total of 33000 gold).

His AC is 10+2(class)+5(dex)+3(wis)+7(items)=27;
His HP is 10d8+30=avg. 79

Fire giant hits monk on rolls of 7/12/17 so a bit less than 2 attacks/round on average; let's say 2 for simplicity's sake(most 25 PB monks have less AC than mye xample; Average Fire Giant damage per attack is 25.5; So average DPR vs Monk is 51;

This means, without healing, the monk will be dead in 2 rounds. Now let's assume some merciful cleric decides the monk is worth his actions and pops a cure critical wounds every round; this lowers the DPR suffered by monk with 4d8+10(avg 28) to 23; So the monk survives 4 rounds vs. the fire giant.

Now, the question is: can 3 unoptimized chars (cleric is healing) down a fire giant in 4 rounds? Or rather 2.5 chars since if you build a monk this defensive it won't do much offensively

[The Glyphstone]

Because I'm bored...warning, lots of number crunching:

Spoiler

Show

If the Fire Giant managed to full attack him, then we'll assume the Monk got a hit in first. With high Dex, he probably took weapon Finesse, so it's only a swing at +14 if he charged. with the +2 Amulet of Mighty Fists he can afford with what's left of his WBL. That's vs. AC23, roughly a 50% chance of hitting. On the monk's 1d10+1 damage (Average 6.5), he's inflicted average 3 damage. Only 139 to go.

But now it's the party's turn. While the monk is soaking the giant's hits, the fighter and rogue are wailing on it. The fighter charges, shrugging through the AoO. He's sporting Str 18 after level bonuses, 20 after an item of +2 Str, and can afford a +3 sword without hurting his defenses severely. That's a total attack bonus of +18, +20 on the charge. He's low-optimized, though, so he has Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus (greatsword), along with WSpe and GWSpec for a total of +22. With a charge bonus, he has +24, and is flanking the giant for +26, so he'll Power Attack for 8. That gives him a 75% hit chance dealing 2d6+28 damaage (round off to 35),x.75, dealing 26 damage.

The Rogue goes now (realistically, he should have gone first, but he delayed to ensure flanking buddies). Dex 16 start, +2 level, +2 item, he's hitting at +16 with the flank and charge assuming WFin. 1d6 (shortsword) +5d6 SA, average 17.5 at a 60% hit chance, so another 10 damage.

Now it's the Monk's turn to unleash his full attack. He has no Charge bonus now, but instead flanks for the same +2. Each of his first 2 hits does average 3 damage again, then his iterative for 2 damage.

Cleric heals the meatsoak.

Giant's Turn: Thwacks the monk. Monk has taken 2 of the 4 full attacks necessary to kill him. Giant has 95 HP left.

Fighter's turn again. Striking at +24 this time, so he only PAs for 6 to make my math easier. Still a 75% hit ratio for 30-ish damage (-25%/iterative), so he deals 22 with his first attack, 15 with the second. Total of 37.

Rogue attacks, at +14/+9 after flank. Average 10 damage first hit, 7 damage second hit, total of 17.

Monk flails pointlessly, dealing another 8 damage overall.

Cleric heals.

Giant goes thwack, Monk will die next turn. Giant has 33 Hp left.

Assuming average rolls, the Fighter kills the giant this turn. Total cost to the party: 2 4th level spell slots.

Conclusion: yes, three unoptimized melee characters can defeat a Fire Giant in less than 4 rounds. One being a monk did not contribute as much as a non-Monk would have, but then that wasn't really the question posed. Also, the Rogue has a nonmagical weapon for some reason in my analysis, so realistically the odds go even further in the party's favor.

[Gnaeus]

I didn't say solo beat it, but stand up to it in melee.

Let's take a 10th level Monk with 25 PB (that's the PB designers say encounters ae balanced against)with a defensive build (13 str 16 dex(+2 levels), 14 con 14 wis 8 int 8 cha). now let's say said monk spends at least half of his 49000 gp WBL on defensive items (bracers of armor +3, gloves of dex +2; periapt of wis +2, item of con +2; amulet of nat armor +2, ring of prot +2 for a total of 33000 gold).

His AC is 10+2(class)+5(dex)+3(wis)+7(items)=27;
His HP is 10d8+30=avg. 79

Fire giant hits monk on rolls of 7/12/17 so a bit less than 2 attacks/round on average; let's say 2 for simplicity's sake(most 25 PB monks have less AC than mye xample; Average Fire Giant damage per attack is 25.5; So average DPR vs Monk is 51;

This means, without healing, the monk will be dead in 2 rounds. Now let's assume some merciful cleric decides the monk is worth his actions and pops a cure critical wounds every round; this lowers the DPR suffered by monk with 4d8+10(avg 28) to 23; So the monk survives 4 rounds vs. the fire giant.

Now, the question is: can 3 unoptimized chars (cleric is healing) down a fire giant in 4 rounds? Or rather 2.5 chars since if you build a monk this defensive it won't do much offensively

Several objections:
1. Team Crummy, lacking a cleric, has a Healer. His Cure Critical heals 30. He has a unicorn companion who can also heal. He also has Close Wounds on his list. Certainly 5 rounds, maybe more depending on how much healing Healer & companion want to spend.
2. The Monk can heal himself for 20 damage per day. He could also tumble out of combat, and drink a potion, and come back in a round or 2 later.
3. Team Crummy's fighter, with his Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization and +1 weapon, should be able to do at least 10 points of damage per round. The ninja should be doing close to 20 damage per hit. The monk ought to be doing at least 8 damage per round, right? On rounds when he isn't healing, the unicorn should hit almost 50% of the time, for 12.5/hit, call him 5 more damage per round. That is 43 damage per round, should be enough to drop the giant before the monk goes down or has to use Wholeness of body.

Team crummy, with low op but relevant feats, should beat Fire Giant.

My 5 year old wants me to add the smiley with the sunglasses.

Edit: Glyphstone's low op party is slightly better than mine. They kill giant with less resources used.

[Malevolence]

Lower CR encounters can be just as rewarding.

But 10 years later, do any of those players remember what they fought that night? I doubt it. It was one more dead bane in a long line of dead banes. For my character, it was an epic struggle that he never forgot. For them, it was one more point of renown on their sheet. For me, it was a giant Frack You to all the furries who had ever called me a useless monkey. I promise that the cubs and I had more fun that night.

Because struggling desperately to kill a mook that wasn't even a threat to the babies of real characters proves that your character is useful, instead of what it actually does, namely proving the exact opposite? The "furries" are right to mock your character mercilessly. They, meanwhile are busy dealing with actual threats and epicness.

Whether a threat is epic or not has a lot more to do with the PC's, the emotional investment they have in the fight, and the DMing than it does with the magnitude of the numbers on the monsters sheet. Most of the players who have played from a young age can tell some story about how their PC stomped Demogorgon or some such nonsense. Certainly I could, If I was willing to. The stories that are well told mean more than the ones with the big numbers (Not that those two are in any way mutually exclusive. I'm not saying that low op is necessarily better. I love optimization myself. But saying that low optimization is a bar from epic stories is not true).

No, it has to do with what you are fighting. Which in turn is a factor of numbers. No one cares about the guy who beats a bunch of Orcs at level 5. Most people are impressed when the party who has no magic better than Slow takes out a Frost Giant.

The DM is encouraged to adjust encounter CR and rewards for circumstances. Party composition seems to be well within that. If for my party, a CR -1 encounter is just as challenging as a CR encounter would be for "normal party" there is no reason I can't award exp and treasure at CR, not CR-1.

Yes, reward them for making terrible characters. I'm sure that will help.

Prove it. You make the crummiest 10th level party you can, using PC classes, and I promise I can easily make an encounter that will not eat it for breakfast. Bear in mind that 4, 10th level commoners with far below WBL can crush 4 unoptimized kobolds. My encounter does not have to be a 10 CR encounter.

So you can create a paraplegic commoner, and treat it as if it were CR 10. This has no basis on any credible argument.

I don't know what that means. Are you saying that an unoptimized wizard can beat that party 3 levels above him? With the DM picking the wizard's spells?

As clearly stated, it means 3 Fireballs = dead gimp party.

And remember, if you are struggling at all to defeat routine encounters, that means boss battles slay you all outright.

[Bayar]

Prove it. You make the crummiest 10th level party you can, using PC classes, and I promise I can easily make an encounter that will not eat it for breakfast. Bear in mind that 4, 10th level commoners with far below WBL can crush 4 unoptimized kobolds. My encounter does not have to be a 10 CR encounter.

Are 4 unoptimised kobolds used as a 10 CR encounter ? Define unoptimised please. Is it: no class levels, only npc class levels, only low tier classes with bad feats, no weapons and no Improved unarmed strike feat ? Depending on your definition, the party will not have any problems squishing them, but it might be so low on the chalenge level as to be just a small time sink, something that is a nuisance and not actually a challenge.

So an equal level barbarian should have no problem then.

So, a level 4 human barbarian. Elite array, say strength 19 while raging. Greatsword. Does 2d6+6, average 13, +9 to hit, about AC 14. Level 4 Healer heals 2d8+6 with his cure moderate wounds. Average 14. The healer can heal as much damage as the Barbarian does, every round.

But wait, you say, the barbarian can power attack for full, now he does 2d6+15, average 22. But that is only if he hits. Full power attack, no shock trooper, give him a +1 weapon (included in damage above), and he is only +5 to hit. Monk probably can scrape together a 15-16 AC, so barbarian only hits half the time, average 11 damage per round, about what the healer heals with a cure light wounds. Monk with a 14 con has average of 8+13.5+4 hp, or 25.5. The monk + the healer can tank the same level barbarian, on average, without the aid of the other 2 party members. If the dice roll in his favor, and the monk drops, the healer heals the monk back up next round.

On the other hand, the monk, with a 12 strength, +3 BaB, and improved grapple, hits the barbarian with a touch attack (probably only needs about a 5 to hit) and wins grapple checks half the time. Once grappled, the barbarian is screwed, with a fighter and ninja beating on him, a healer healing any damage he has done so far. Barbarian has a 50% to break free any round, but that takes his standard action, he eats 2 more attacks from fighter + ninja, and the monk touch attacks him again on the following round.

So, Team Crummy, (Fighter, Ninja, Monk, Healer), can pretty clearly beat an unoptimized core Barbarian, same level. They can certainly own one at level -3. Heck, they should be able to beat 2 level 2s with little trouble. Fighter 4, with plate mail and shield, Dodge, Toughness, and Weapon Focus, can solo a level 2 barbarian for a couple rounds while his friends beat down the other guy.

I wonder why the barbarian is attacking the monk and not just go poke the healer with his sharp stick.

Your sweeping over generalizations are Epic Fail. A level 4 monk can easily beat some challenges, like a CR 1 orc. When you say they can't beat any challenges, the only thing you prove is a reckless disregard for the truth.

That is not a challenge. A CR 1 orc is not a challenge for any level 4 character. Stating that a level 4 monk can beat a cr 1 orc is a challenging encounter is like stating that setting a beetle on fire is a challenging action when you are a human with a lighter and the beetle already had all of his legs cut off.

[Gnaeus]

Because struggling desperately to kill a mook that wasn't even a threat to the babies of real characters proves that your character is useful, instead of what it actually does, namely proving the exact opposite? The "furries" are right to mock your character mercilessly. They, meanwhile are busy dealing with actual threats and epicness.

You don't get it. I had fun. I "won" that game. Because I had fun, and I told a story that was important to my character.

No, it has to do with what you are fighting. Which in turn is a factor of numbers. No one cares about the guy who beats a bunch of Orcs at level 5. Most people are impressed when the party who has no magic better than Slow takes out a Frost Giant.

You still do not understand. I suspect that you are either young, or have not been gaming long. Here is an experiment for you. Go to a con. Find 10 random gamers. Tell them all the story of how your super-character killed a gargantuan dragon. See how many of them care.

Yes, reward them for making terrible characters. I'm sure that will help.

They don't need "help". If they are having fun, they are doing fine. They aren't in a race with the CharOp boards to see how many CR 10 monsters they can beat by level 8.

So you can create a paraplegic commoner, and treat it as if it were CR 10. This has no basis on any credible argument.

Sure it does, You say a DM can't challenge a low op party. Pretty clearly , I can.

As clearly stated, it means 3 Fireballs = dead gimp party.

Nae problemo. DM controlls wizard's spell list. He doesn't have 3 fireballs. Heck, he didn't start out pre-buffed, and he doesn't know D Door or have abrupt jaunt. He will be lucky if he gets one fireball off.

And remember, if you are struggling at all to defeat routine encounters, that means boss battles slay you all outright.

So the day consists of 3 CR-1 battles and a CR +1 boss. Easy enough. There is no rule that a boss has to be CR +4.

Ahh. A complete lack of facts. So long as you continue your baseless accusations, with no evidence, we will understand that it is because you cannot prove them.

Find where it is shown that low-op parties cannot play fun games. If it has been answered many times, it should be easy for you. I'm throwing you a softball here, try not to hit it with your face.

I'm still not seeing a link to that evidence, or where it has been shown that low op parties can't have fun games. The softball is in the air, traveling VERY SLOWLY. More assertions, still no facts!

Are 4 unoptimised kobolds used as a 10 CR encounter ? Define unoptimised please. Is it: no class levels, only npc class levels, only low tier classes with bad feats, no weapons and no Improved unarmed strike feat ? Depending on your definition, the party will not have any problems squishing them, but it might be so low on the chalenge level as to be just a small time sink, something that is a nuisance and not actually a challenge.

That is not a challenge. A CR 1 orc is not a challenge for any level 4 character. Stating that a level 4 monk can beat a cr 1 orc is a challenging encounter is like stating that setting a beetle on fire is a challenging action when you are a human with a lighter and the beetle already had all of his legs cut off.

The point is that statements like "A fighter or a monk can't beat anything" or "it is difficult to find encounters that won't crush a low op party" are false on their face. I can always make an easier encounter than a party on any optimization level. It is no different than the process of throwing really high CR monsters at high-op parties, just in reverse. Monsters don't have to be optimized, or even at CR. As long as they challenge the PCs, not a problem.

I wonder why the barbarian is attacking the monk and not just go poke the healer with his sharp stick.

Doesn't really go any differently. Healer can heal himself as well as the monk. Healer probably has as good or better Hp & AC than monk. And again, once the barbarian is stunned or grappled, he is pretty much just a punching bag for 3 characters.

[Malevolence]

You don't get it. I had fun. I "won" that game. Because I had fun, and I told a story that was important to my character.

"I'm the DM, I killed my group about four times this session. I had fun though, so it's all ok."

"I'm a player. I have stolen from the party sixty three times so far. I am really the BBEG, and am toying with everyone for my own amusement. But I am having fun, so it's all ok."

Nae problemo. DM controlls wizard's spell list. He doesn't have 3 fireballs. Heck, he didn't start out pre-buffed, and he doesn't know D Door or have abrupt jaunt. He will be lucky if he gets one fireball off.

There is no level below Fireball. Even Fireball already puts the lie to his supposedly high Int stat.

So the day consists of 3 CR-1 battles and a CR +1 boss. Easy enough. There is no rule that a boss has to be CR +4.

So your solution to boss battles slaughter the party is to make everything a mook? Yes, I'm sure it doesn't require more effort to nerf up the entire world just so a party will not hurt themselves living in it than it would to just run things as they are, or even step it up.

[Gnaeus]

"I'm the DM, I killed my group about four times this session. I had fun though, so it's all ok."

"I'm a player. I have stolen from the party sixty three times so far. I am really the BBEG, and am toying with everyone for my own amusement. But I am having fun, so it's all ok."

You really don't see the difference between having fun by making everyone else suffer, and having fun based on roleplaying and enjoying your story? How sad.

There is no level below Fireball. Even Fireball already puts the lie to his supposedly high Int stat.

Sure there is. The wizard has Vampiric Touch, Dispel Magic, and Magic Circle v. Evil. Maybe he wasn't planning to fight a group of adventurers that day.

So your solution to boss battles slaughter the party is to make everything a mook? Yes, I'm sure it doesn't require more effort to nerf up the entire world just so a party will not hurt themselves living in it than it would to just run things as they are, or even step it up.

The only effort I have suggested so far is pretending that a low op party is one or two levels below their CR, picking NPCs with the crummy feats listed in the back of the DMG, and picking weak spells for casters. Those are (in order)
Easy
Easier than building strong NPCs,
As easy as picking strong spells.

I see no effort here.

Still no proof. Still no link to where it has been shown that low op parties can't have fun. I'm beginning to think you are making that up Malevolence. I mean it has been shown many times, right?

[LordBlades]

Because struggling desperately to kill a mook that wasn't even a threat to the babies of real characters proves that your character is useful, instead of what it actually does, namely proving the exact opposite? The "furries" are right to mock your character mercilessly. They, meanwhile are busy dealing with actual threats and epicness.

It's all relative, maybe that world has no optimized characters. Maybe in a certain world killing a regular Orc at level 5 is a big heroic feat.

Not saying that's a world I'd like to play in (I'm an optimizer), but I'm sure some people like that kind of games.

[Z3ro]

So your solution to the boss battles slaughter the party is to make everything a mook? Yes, I'm sure it doesn't require more effort to nerf up the entire world just so a party will not hurt themselves living in it than it would to just run things as they are, or even step it up.

I'm amused by your insistence that you can't have fun playing low-op.

My first ever D&D experience came at the beginning of 3.0. The group was almost exclusively new players, and we knew nothing about optimization. We were fourth level, and the boss fight of our session was an Ogre. Yes, one CR 2 ogre, unmodified. Almost killed half the party. I still remember that as one of the most epic, interesting encounters I've ever fought.

[marcielle]

Indeed, Mr. Zero. As one currently playing a pure monk, I will admit that they are mechanically inferior. However, I would just like to add that if that if one would pass one class over for another simply because it isn't as good as killing things, then I am afraid the majority of Mr. Gygax's game is lost on you. May I suggest( and mind you this is just a suggestion) that you try an 4th edition or an mmo? There lies FAR more room for your math and optimization.
One should play a druid, not beacuse he can stomp anything flat in 2 turns or less, but because one wants to be a champion for nature and spirituality.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Indeed, Mr. Zero. As one currently playing a pure monk, I will admit that they are mechanically inferior. However, I would just like to add that if that if one would pass one class over for another simply because it isn't as good as killing things, then I am afraid the majority of Mr. Gygax's game is lost on you. May I suggest( and mind you this is just a suggestion) that you try an 4th edition or an mmo? There lies FAR more room for your math and optimization.
One should play a druid, not beacuse he can stomp anything flat in 2 turns or less, but because one wants to be a champion for nature and spirituality.

I don't disagree with your general idea, but 3.5 has a far larger gap between optimised and non-optimised than 4e, but you are guaranteed that your class will be good enough in 4e (as far as I am aware), so I feel that "there lies FAR more room for your math and optimization" is a bit misleading.

Secondly, playing a druid because you want to change into animals and casts spells for whatever reason is also valid (most optimisation isn't so much "my numbers are bigger than yours" so much as "this character can do exactly what I want them to be able to", which can be anything from killing gods to being a good but not unbeatable swordsman).

Again, low optimisation games can certainly be fun. They're not my preferred style, but that doesn't mean that games where defeating a nest of Gricks is an achievement at level ten can't be fun. Malevolence, I suggest you have some more respect for other people's playstyles and preferences.