quote:

---

Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
In other words, I think Bummey was trying to say...

The goal of the GM is not to kill the player characters. The absolute worst D&D experiences I had were the ones where the GM had this adversarial attitude about his relationship with the players and it was a "survive or die" situation. A GM's job is to be the storyteller, to manipulate events to tell a satisfying story all around.

---

<buzz> Oooh, I'm sorry, that was the wrong answer.

Bummey was TRYING to say:

Don't put your players up against 12 dragons, 200 hobgoblins and a rotting vegetable golem (Yeah, rotting vegetable golem, that was a god awful GM I played with once. I took my claymore, cut his fucking GM guide in half and left the session) on their first campaign. Do not allow them to "roll" 18 in all stats. Do not empower them beyond anything that any normal human being would consider "right." Do not, I repeat, DO NOT give them dragon pets when they haven't even passed level 2.

If a player rolls all stats under 10, don't let the fucker "re-roll" until he/she gets all 18s. Tell him/her to use the low stats to their advantage! If the avatar is dumb as a bucket of hair, then have a fucking great time playing an unintelligent doofus.

What I'm trying to say, is.... Don't get too caught up in "ownz0ring shiznit" and "r00ling the D&D Yooniverse" and just stick with "having fun" and developing an interesting story.

It's not about being god, it's about having fun with the story =\

I just repeated myself too many times than I care to count. But you get my point, right?

[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: Bummey the Fool ]

quote:

---

Bummey the Fool spewed forth this undeniable truth:
<buzz> Oooh, I'm sorry, that was the wrong answer.

Bummey was TRYING to say:

Don't put your players up against 12 dragons, 200 hobgoblins and a rotting vegetable golem (Yeah, rotting vegetable golem, that was a god awful GM I played with once. I took my claymore, cut his fucking GM guide in half and left the session) on their first campaign. Do not allow them to "roll" 18 in all stats. Do not empower them beyond anything that any normal human being would consider "right." Do not, I repeat, DO NOT give them dragon pets when they haven't even passed level 2.

If a player rolls all stats under 10, don't let the fucker "re-roll" until he/she gets all 18s. Tell him/her to use the low stats to their advantage! If the avatar is dumb as a bucket of hair, then have a fucking great time playing an unintelligent doofus.

What I'm trying to say, is.... Don't get too caught up in "ownz0ring shiznit" and "r00ling the D&D Yooniverse" and just stick with "having fun" and developing an interesting story.

It's not about being god, it's about having fun with the story =\

I just repeated myself too many times than I care to count. But you get my point, right?

---

I agree. I don't have my players roll stats, I give them a certain number of points to allocate, though.

I dislike letting the dice create godly characters or giving tons of bonus stuff just because it's "spiffy". If someone wants to make a sorcerer with high charisma, sure. I don't mind. But that means less in another stat.

I like giving my players freedom over their own characters, and what paths they choose in the game. I always hated playing sessions where there was one way to walk, and if you tried to go off it the DM forced you back.

If I just spent eight hours designing a dungeon, and the players step inside, trigger a trap, and decide they really don't have a reason to be there, I let them leave and then recycle the rest of the dungeon to be used later.

I mean, come on... UberMan +9999 can only go so far =(

quote:

---

Zaza stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
If I just spent eight hours designing a dungeon, and the players step inside, trigger a trap, and decide they really don't have a reason to be there, I let them leave and then recycle the rest of the dungeon to be used later.

---

Sahaugin.

quote:

---

Everyone wondered WTF when Bummey the Fool wrote:
If a player rolls all stats under 10, don't let the fucker "re-roll" until he/she gets all 18s. Tell him/her to use the low stats to their advantage! If the avatar is dumb as a bucket of hair, then have a fucking great time playing an unintelligent doofus.

---

I agree with Za. Give them a certain number of points to distribute. Another way to phrase that would be to tell them "your ability scores should add up to XX" or "your ability scores should average XX". Decide in advance how powerful you want them to be. Higher-powered campaigns do well with an average ability score of 14. The "point buy" system uses an average ability score of 12, with double cost to get exceptional scores (each point over 16 in one ability costs 1 points from something else).

More powerful characters can accomplish more, especially early on when the lives of the characters can fall prey to a lucky or unlucky roll. They tend to have more options and a higher survival rate. However, as characters progress, it will take more extreme challenges to keep the interest of your players if their characters have more advantages.

Don't give out magic equipment too early, especially when it comes to weapons & armor. Monks get ki +1 at level 10. If you're giving enchanted swords to your level 2 characters, it's probably a mistake. Your rewards should get progressively larger as your characters get more powerful. And you don't necessarily have to give them things they can use. Just because your party's fighter specializes in longswords doesn't mean the first magic weapon he finds will be a longsword.

my favourite character was in a non D&D system, but similar... He was a thief/spellcaster hybrid (not great at either, but decent) and he loved bows. However, he had almost no dex (look at 9-10 in D&D terms) through a rather nasty curse. So while he loved bows, he could not hit anything. However, the upside of my curse was that i got much better at magic, and i eventually learned how to make rather explosive arrows, and that improved my success rate a little, and i develloped a little levitation skill, so that when i tripped, i didn't hurt myself quite so badly, and so on and so forth. All my magical advnces were dedicated to amking me a less clumsy individual, and it was darn fun to play... I never had so much fun fumbling.

And my favourite campaign was one where the party was composed of a rather strange mix of low-mid level characters, and one super high level paladin. The paladin was a rather neutral character, and he kept us from killing eachother, because half the party was evil, and the other half was good, and they both wanted to exterminate the other half, but could not because this paladin was always in the way, and whenever the paladin left for a little while, he would return to find a corpse... We had some of the most interestinf times trying to get our partymembers killed in battle, or mobbed at a town, or poisoned in their sleep, it was a very, very fun pvp campaign that was not supposed to be one... (i don't even remember what it started out as)

they are the easiest way to keep your party against things in their own leauge.

also remember that most monsters don't want to die.

rules. stay consistant. if you are going to chance a rule, make it known before you do it. it is VERY agroviating to the players if the rules aren't consistant.

fun make sure the palyers are having fun. this is your job.

traps put them only when needed. they can make the game teidous and annoying if over done

fear of death when this is gone, a lot of the thrill leaves. the ociasional combat where the players go "holy crap, i can't belive we lived" is a good thing.

if you have to, write things down there is nothing wrong with taking notes

quote:

---

diadem had this to say about Robocop:
chalange ratings. they are your friend. read about them, use them.

they are the easiest way to keep your party against things in their own leauge.

also remember that most monsters don't want to die.

rules. stay consistant. if you are going to chance a rule, make it known before you do it. it is VERY agroviating to the players if the rules aren't consistant.

fun make sure the palyers are having fun. this is your job.

traps put them only when needed. they can make the game teidous and annoying if over done

fear of death when this is gone, a lot of the thrill leaves. the ociasional combat where the players go "holy crap, i can't belive we lived" is a good thing.

if you have to, write things down there is nothing wrong with taking notes

---

You should do a GMing guide to the beat of that "Sunscreen" song.

"I only looked at the seperate abilities, I didn't realise how well they worked together."

Displacer beast

*runs*

[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: Lyinar Ka`Bael ]

This being said, my suggestion is to NOT fully plan out a plot. Plan based on contingencies, not based upon "they must to X, then Y, then Z." Because players have the habit of unintentionally going off to point Q, which is totally unrelated to that giant battle or massive scheme you had planned, simply because it seems more interesting or constructive.

Don't punish them for going to Q. Just make sure there's something interesting at Q, something that's worth their trip, even if you have to make it up on the fly. Because that's what the world is there for - to be interesting, and exciting, and a fun diversion.

That being said, this guy has an AMAZING collection of just very good suggestions for DMs - as well as a lot of highly useful collections of story-hooks, plot ideas, and other random stuff that's just nice to be able to run through when your players have in fact started marching to point V.

Kill the monk. Monks are damn cheap bastards, 'cause they get assloads of natural AC, natural magic fists, 1d20 fist damage, six attacks/round with Flurry of Blows, catching arrows, Slow Fall (any distance), etc. Their only point of vulnerability is the first few levels. Do everything in your power as a DM, short of godmoding and insta-killing, to kill the monk. They weren't intended to be one-man armies, but that's how they turned out.

Jealous? Me? Of COURSE not!

Are monks that bad in 3rd ed?

quote:

---

Faelynn LeAndris Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Don't play with Australians.

Be prepared for the unexpected, and when you've done that pull things out of your ass. It's gonna happen, and happen often.

Quick thinking on your feet judgements are nessesary. If you can't think or bs fast, it will get touchy.

.
..
... Oh... and If you spend weeks developing a dungeon and making one really kickass sorceress mini/major boss character, and your cocky sorcerer player screws up in a good way and destroys hours and hours of work in a matter of seconds, killing off your baddies and doing all kinds of stupid heroic boasting about it later... Kill them, it will make you feel better.. I'm kidding, but be prepared for your players to tear apart long planned designs. So think fast to fix it. Arttemis, Pved, and KaL were notorius for it...

---

*whistles innocently*

What.. what'd we do?

quote:

---

Gobog attempted to be funny by writing:
You've all forgotten one point.

Kill the monk. Monks are damn cheap bastards, 'cause they get assloads of natural AC, natural magic fists, 1d20 fist damage, six attacks/round with Flurry of Blows, catching arrows, Slow Fall (any distance), etc. Their only point of vulnerability is the first few levels. Do everything in your power as a DM, short of godmoding and insta-killing, to kill the monk. They weren't intended to be one-man armies, but that's how they turned out.

Jealous? Me? Of COURSE not!

---

yeah.. and warriors can get +5 platemail of blinding speed, and +4 flaming,shocking,icyburst warhammers of disruption, not to mention +5 dancing shields.

You were complaining about monks i believe?
that d20 fist damage is only at lv16+ and their "magic fists" only go up to +3 for damage reduction purposes only.

A lv 20 monk with 20 dex and 20 wis would only have a AC of 24. So much for "assloads of AC"

Six attacks a round with flurry of blows? Ok sure. Its essentially ambidex/2-weapon fighting. A warrior with those same feats would also have 6 attacks a round.

Slow fall, any distance. ok sure. within arms reach of a wall. anything more? goobye monkey.

Catching arrows? only with the proper feats. and they can only deflect ONE arrow per round, unless epic.

Enough with the monk bashing. You're jealousy has no basis of reason.

quote:

---

Ka'Lourin D'thBlayde wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
yeah.. and warriors can get +5 platemail of blinding speed, and +4 flaming,shocking,icyburst warhammers of disruption, not to mention +5 dancing shields.

You were complaining about monks i believe?
that d20 fist damage is only at lv16+ and their "magic fists" only go up to +3 for damage reduction purposes only.

A lv 20 monk with 20 dex and 20 wis would only have a AC of 24. So much for "assloads of AC"

Six attacks a round with flurry of blows? Ok sure. Its essentially ambidex/2-weapon fighting. A warrior with those same feats would also have 6 attacks a round.

Slow fall, any distance. ok sure. within arms reach of a wall. anything more? goobye monkey.

Catching arrows? only with the proper feats. and they can only deflect ONE arrow per round, unless epic.

Enough with the monk bashing. You're jealousy has no basis of reason.

---

The Monk damage thing cracks me up. People say "OH HE CAN ROLL A 20 FOR DAMAGE!"

...he's also just as likely to roll a 1 for damage. And if he opts for a + weapon? No d20 damage. See how that works?

I'm with KaL. Monks are badass...but they're not broken.

quote:

---

Hireko FishSlayer thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
Are monks that bad in 3rd ed?

---

Only if your DM sucks.

quote:

---

When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael said:
I'm with KaL. Monks are badass...but they're not broken.

---

You make it sound like a monk changing patch is comming out

It just depends on your GM really. Deth got her good once. Sent her up against something reeeeeeeeeeeeally easy to hit...and that had tons of HPs

quote:

---

Nwist, Baby was listening to Cher while typing:
You make it sound like a monk changing patch is comming out

---

Revised 3e comes out later this year, actually.

And yeah to a degree it comes down to tailoring encounters to your party. A creature highly immune to magic is fodder if it's facing a party comprised mostly of tanks, for instance.

There were plenty of big suckers with high HP's for Lyinar's monk (yes a half dragon monk...I was mostly stress testing 3e with HS2...seeing how bad I could make things...Half Dragon monk, half fiendish rogue, werefox rogue, etc) to pound on. I don't by any means recommend forcing yourself to stress test 3e (I only did it out of curiousity...my next game is PHB races, PHB classes, no exceptions), but it's not hard to deal with things if they come up.

Although, for broken classes... four words: "Bard the hard way"

quote:

---

Hireko FishSlayer had this to say about John Romero:
Thanks for clearing that up guys, I'd be sad if 3e had broken the monk.

Although, for broken classes... four words: "Bard the hard way"

---

Bardic lore is nothing to sneeze at, wanker.

One of my favorite things about 3e is that it really gave a better nod to bards (in my opinion) than 2e did. Feats helped, but just in general I think Bards achieved more of what they were meant to be like.

quote:

---

Ka'Lourin D'thBlayde had this to say about the Spice Girls:
yeah.. and warriors can get +5 platemail of blinding speed, and +4 flaming,shocking,icyburst warhammers of disruption, not to mention +5 dancing shields.

---

If they're damn lucky, that is.

quote:

---

You were complaining about monks i believe?
that d20 fist damage is only at lv16+ and their "magic fists" only go up to +3 for damage reduction purposes only.

A lv 20 monk with 20 dex and 20 wis would only have a AC of 24. So much for "assloads of AC"

---

Add in some magic items (that, at lv16+, they would undoubteldly have), like Bracers of Armour, Amulets of Natural Armour, etc. and a Monk can beat anything in terms of AC. Monks in NeverWinter Nights can get 51 AC... Yeah, they don't get that many HPs, but when you have over 50 AC AND 20 damage reduction, who the hell NEEDS HP?

quote:

---

Six attacks a round with flurry of blows? Ok sure. Its essentially ambidex/2-weapon fighting. A warrior with those same feats would also have 6 attacks a round.

---

The difference is, the monk doesn't have to take Ambidex/Two Weapon Fighting. If he's using his fists and Flurry of Blows, it's just like he has the feat. Fighters need to spend two feat points on it, which could be used for something better (such as Rapid Shot and Weapon Spec).

quote:

---

Slow fall, any distance. ok sure. within arms reach of a wall. anything more? goobye monkey.

Catching arrows? only with the proper feats. and they can only deflect ONE arrow per round, unless epic.

---

Catching one arrow is loads better than not being able to catch arrows at all. That, and they get the proper feat naturally.

quote:

---

Enough with the monk bashing. You're jealousy has no basis of reason.

---

Monks can beat Fighters in pretty much any field. They can tank better, fight better, do FAR more damage... THAT'S why I'm jealous.

quote:

---

Gobog had this to say about (_|_):
Monks can beat Fighters in pretty much any field. They can tank better, fight better, do FAR more damage... THAT'S why I'm jealous.

---

You must be comparing NWN Monks and Fighters, or something.

Because, hell, just for the sake of argument, here's my current campaign's Monk and Fighter:

Sherina, 8 Human Monk.
Str: 14, Dex: 18, Con: 14
Int: 10, Wis: 17, Cha: 10
70 HP
AC 19 with Dodge
Melee +10/+7 with Unarmed (1d10+2) or +9/+6 with Tristaff (1d8+3).

Not too bad. She beats the hell out of my equal leveled Rogue. The Fighter is just sick.

Mirace, 7 Human Fighter.
Str: 19, Con: 18, Dex: 14
Int: 13, Wis: 8, Cha: 10
87 HP
18 AC with Dodge
Melee +12/+7 with some magic Greataxe (1d12+7)

Now, this makes me wonder.. How can you compare the two? Mirace can Expertise up to 22 or 23 AC, and still keep a decent attack bonus (+7/+2, which is the same as my Rogue's), or he can Power Attack up to something like 1d12+11.

Meanwhile, Sherina can what.. Heal herself for 16 damage? That still leaves Mirace ahead by 1 HP and a fuck-ton of damage potential.

Well shit, my mistake, Mirace is only level 7. My bad.

[ 02-20-2003: Message edited by: DƒU ]

They get stacking hit dice from their fighter and thief levels. They can go 7-8 fighter for high master, do 5 levels of thief on side adventures, and then they get bard levels on top of that, with the ability to use their fighter and thief abilities fully having attained 1st level bard. Even if they don't use their bardic spells they're badass.

Thats nuts, and I'm not even considering bardic lore, which was a nice side ability, but my party had an artificer in it so no big deal.

154 hitpoints is not a reasonable number.

Edit: Having reread Parce and Deth's posts, I think we might be talking about different Bards. I'm talking about the 1st ed one that in the last 5 pages of the book because even Gygax realized it wasn't reasonable.

[ 02-20-2003: Message edited by: Hireko FishSlayer ]

quote:

---

Add in some magic items (that, at lv16+, they would undoubteldly have), like Bracers of Armour, Amulets of Natural Armour, etc. and a Monk can beat anything in terms of AC. Monks in NeverWinter Nights can get 51 AC... Yeah, they don't get that many HPs, but when you have over 50 AC AND 20 damage reduction, who the hell NEEDS HP?

---

Wow, you're right! Since monks are overpowered in NWN they MUST be overpowered in any D&D game. This is the pinnacle of reasoning.

Monks get a decent amount of AC from dex/wis but where did you miss the fact that they can't wear armor? Unless your DM is a moron and gives out 10 AC bracers or something, the monk is perfectly balanced.

How is this the fault of 3ed if you have a shitty DM, again?

quote:

---

The difference is, the monk doesn't have to take Ambidex/Two Weapon Fighting. If he's using his fists and Flurry of Blows, it's just like he has the feat. Fighters need to spend two feat points on it, which could be used for something better (such as Rapid Shot and Weapon Spec).

---

It's a good thing you're failing to mention the fact that Fighters get way more feats than monks, who only get a few free pre-decided feats. And if something better can be picked than the innate feats of the monk, how is the monk (who gets fewer feats they can't decide) superior again?

Oh no, a level 20 monk has d20 fists. Guess what? A level 6 warrior usually has a +1 or 2 weapon. A level 6 warrior with a +1 greataxe does two attacks at d12+1 damage and x3 20 crit, has 7 feats they can choose themselves, and will have as much AC from say half-plate unless the monk has above 18 in both WIS and DEX.

In comparision, the monk will have the same amount of AC, less HP (d10 vs d8), does two attacks at d8 damage at 20 x2 crit and less base attack, and has 3 feats + Deflect Arrows, Slow Fall (30ft) and Purity of Body. Counting your whined about free feats, that is 4 feats.

quote:

---

Catching one arrow is loads better than not being able to catch arrows at all. That, and they get the proper feat naturally.

---

Except the fighter gets tons of more feats they can freely choose. Oops?

quote:

---

Monks can beat Fighters in pretty much any field. They can tank better, fight better, do FAR more damage... THAT'S why I'm jealous.

---

Monks have less HP. They usually have about the same in AC. They do less damage. They are light warriors with a bunch of utility and I suggest you try playing one in a game where the DM isn't called "NWN single player engine." before you start rambling.

Thank you.

[ 02-20-2003: Message edited by: Zaza ]

Um...

Monks suck! Yeah. ^_^

Just kidding... but really, compared to fighters? In a straight duel, at least, the fighter would wipe the monk clean.

quote:

---

Addy wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
As the mentioned monk in D's post, I feel obligated to post something like...

Um...

Monks suck! Yeah. ^_^

Just kidding... but really, compared to fighters? In a straight duel, at least, the fighter would wipe the monk clean.

---

Monks are a tad overpowered the very first levels, but it quickly evens out.

quote:

---

Addy enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
As the mentioned monk in D's post, I feel obligated to post something like...

---

Yeah, sorry about that.

Monks don't inherently catch arrows. They deflect ONE arrow out of the air per round. CATCHING arrows is another feat completely, and one monks have to take with their list of chooseable feats that warriors have more of.

Monks have an extremely limited weapon and armor list (if you have OA the weapon list is a little greater, but it's specialized weapons), and a monk who uses a Kama or a pair of sais or a siangham or whatever is trading off. d8+whatever bonuses the weapon has vs d20+monk's own bonuses (at 20th).

Fighters get way more feats. They're hyper-specializeable to the campaign and personal tastes. Want a Legolas-style archer? Bam. Got it by level 6 if I'm not mistaken. Want a mage-killer? Bam. Easily doable. Want a living siege engine? Bam. Work it. A monk is powerful, but a monk is a monk is a monk. They're not nearly as variable, feat-wise, as a fighter (though of course RP elements can make them see different...character sheet-wise, I imagine Lyinar's monk and Addy's monk aren't all that different, but RPwise they're probably different as night and day).

Plus, remember the limitations on Alignment and multi-classing. A fighter (or rogue, bard, sorcerer, cleric, barbarian, ranger, wizard, etc) can swap out of Fighter to multiclass without problems. They can go from Lawful Good to Neutral Good to Chaotic Good without issue (aside from some of their magic gear possibly not working). Monks can't.

And speaking of magic gear, if your GM is keeping you from realistic weapon upgrades at level 16+ (bordering on Epic levels), then there's a problem. But it's not a problem with monks.

sorry Ruvyen. You lose this time.

Monk (pulling numbers out of my ass):
21 WIS +5 AC
18 DEX +4 AC
Natural +10 AC
Bracers +5: +10 AC
Amulet +5: +5 AC
Rings +5: +10 AC (even THOUGH I'm fairly positive they don't even stack)
+4 Monk Bonus (at level 20)
48 AC.

Fighter:
13 DEX +1 AC
Natural +10 AC
Full Plate +5: +13 AC
Large Steel Shield +5: +7 AC
Bracers +5: +10 AC
Amulet +5: +5 AC
Rings +5: +10 AC
56 AC

Let's say this fighter has 18 CON and is level 18. Doing a quick roll, I got 185 total HP.

The monk, say, can have 15 CON as I'm feeling generous. We'll even make her level 20. Doing a quick roll here too...143 total HP, and less AC.

Monks are good characters with lots of perks, but they aren't fighters. At all. If I did something wrong here please don't kill me. I just threw this together quickly because Gobog makes no sense.