quote:
Mr. Parcelan spewed forth this undeniable truth:
I love the concept behind the Monk, and the way it was executed in all aspects, except for one thing: it should have been a prestige class.Armor of a fully-armored Fighter with as many attacks, Skills of a Rogue and spell-like abilities to put everyone else to shame? Way too overpowered for a beginning class.
Except that monk is the single most stat dependant class in the game. Don't have Str? You can't hit because you are on the +15 BAB. Don't have dex? You don't have any AC. Don't have Con? Guess that d8 hit die is going to kinda suck considering you are a melee class. And you still have to have Wis to keep that AC up.
All that and you arn't allowed to take advantage of many of the best kinds of magical items or you lose many of the bonuses of being a monk. Can monks be over powered in certain games? Yes. Are they perfectly balanced in alot of games? Yes.
Do I use too many rhetorical questions? Yes.
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Evil mastermind would be cool. Wrangle all the other madmen into some sort of cohesive unit.
Except you'd have a heck of a time dealing with the charas that don't want to rule under someone else. I know my Seville would never stand for that, and I'm sure there are other charas who wouldn't, either.
In my past experiance if everyone is a crazy killer or a manipulative mastermind then all they ever do is threaten each other or end up killing each other. Not fun rping. Good evil groups, even if they don't like or trust each other, establish a mutual tolerance for each other to accomplish a greater goal or ensure mutal benefits for everyone in the party.
Edit: This is response to the Deth and Kait discussion Vise the Stompy fucked around with this message on 04-17-2005 at 08:04 PM.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Vise the Stompy:
The problem with evil groups is trying to find a goal they can all work under as well as establish a good explanation for why they don't just destroy each other.In my past experiance if everyone is a crazy killer or a manipulative mastermind then all they ever do is threaten each other or end up killing each other. Not fun rping. Good evil groups, even if they don't like or trust each other, establish a mutual tolerance for each other to accomplish a greater goal or ensure mutal benefits for everyone in the party.
Edit: This is response to the Deth and Kait discussion
Dude, your evil campaign lasted 1 session in which we all got along and killed the other bad guys. THE PROBLEM WAS YOU HAVE NEVER HAD A CAMPAIGN LAST MORE THAN 1 SESSION BECAUSE YOU GOT BORED WITH IT!
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Naimah said:
Except that monk is the single most stat dependant class in the game. Don't have Str? You can't hit because you are on the +15 BAB. Don't have dex? You don't have any AC. Don't have Con? Guess that d8 hit die is going to kinda suck considering you are a melee class. And you still have to have Wis to keep that AC up.All that and you arn't allowed to take advantage of many of the best kinds of magical items or you lose many of the bonuses of being a monk. Can monks be over powered in certain games? Yes. Are they perfectly balanced in alot of games? Yes.
Do I use too many rhetorical questions? Yes.
Actually, a DEX monk can solve all of those problems if you use Weapon Finesse. You get Attack Bonus and Armour Class from it, and you end up getting so much AC you really don't need a whole lot of HP (although it does help). Don't forget that monks get +12 to ALL saves at level 20, and Improved Evasion, so they're very resistant to spells.
Want to use enchanted weapons? Use that high DEX score to go two-weapon fighting and dual-weild monk weapons, and Finnese in those instead. You get your normal number of attacks plus Flurry of Blows attacks on your mainhand, your normal number of offhand attacks, and one mainhand from Haste if you have the effect. Sure, your Two-Weapon Fighting and Flurry of Blows penalties stack, but with that amount of attacks per round, and still getting a very high attack bonus, you still end up doing fuckin' SHITLOADS of damage.
Yes, Monks are overpowered. At least in 3.0. I haven't seen the Monk in 3.5, though, so they may have changed that.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan wrote this stupid crap:
I love the concept behind the Monk, and the way it was executed in all aspects, except for one thing: it should have been a prestige class.Armor of a fully-armored Fighter with as many attacks, Skills of a Rogue and spell-like abilities to put everyone else to shame? Way too overpowered for a beginning class.
Have you ever actually played a Monk, or did you just look at it on paper?
A Monk with both an 18 dex and an 18 wisdom can be overshadowed in the AC department by a Fighter with a dex of 12 and a suit of full plate. That's not even counting a possible shield. As many attacks? Yes, Monks get many attacks, and at lower levels with the same penalties. In addition, their BAB is lower, so a Fighter will always have a better chance to hit. They may get the class skill selection a Rogue gets, but they get nowhere as many skill points. And come on, in order for the class to overshadow anything else, we're already talking about very high Ability Scores in all areas. I guess if you made a Monk with all 18s, he'd be overpowered. But really, what class wouldn't at that point. Plus th eMonk's spell-like abilities are highly circumstancial.
Having aplayed a Monk in a session for a good long while, I can clearly say that the class is anything but overpowered. Monks can't take any hits in combat, their abilities are only useful part of the time, it's difficult to actually hit anything with all but maybe your first or second iteritive attacks...
Don't even get me started on how, roleplaying-wise, Monks are restricted almost as badly as Paladins.
quote:
Ruvyen's fortune cookie read:
Actually, a DEX monk can solve all of those problems if you use Weapon Finesse. You get Attack Bonus and Armour Class from it, and you end up getting so much AC you really don't need a whole lot of HP (although it does help). Don't forget that monks get +12 to ALL saves at level 20, and Improved Evasion, so they're very resistant to spells.Want to use enchanted weapons? Use that high DEX score to go two-weapon fighting and dual-weild monk weapons, and Finnese in those instead. You get your normal number of attacks plus Flurry of Blows attacks on your mainhand, your normal number of offhand attacks, and one mainhand from Haste if you have the effect. Sure, your Two-Weapon Fighting and Flurry of Blows penalties stack, but with that amount of attacks per round, and still getting a very high attack bonus, you still end up doing fuckin' SHITLOADS of damage.
Yes, Monks are overpowered. At least in 3.0. I haven't seen the Monk in 3.5, though, so they may have changed that.
Everything but Rangers is overpowered in 3.0. Yes, I realize that Parce is going to be using 3.0, but that was his choice. A lot of the things you're talking about that overpower the Monk are equipment-based, and thus can be limited by the DM (OMG).
quote:
Then why did you try to fuck him like a bitch, Densetsu?
Everything but Rangers is overpowered in 3.0. Yes, I realize that Parce is going to be using 3.0, but that was his choice. A lot of the things you're talking about that overpower the Monk are equipment-based, and thus can be limited by the DM (OMG).
Once it reaches the level of "Everything but X" is overpowered, at what point do you just say X is underpowered?
And I disagree in saying the Ranger is alone in gimpitude; Wizards. Without a proper DM, your average Wizard is a more helpless Sorceror.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Mr. Parcelan wrote:
Oh, yeah, since I can't stand 3.0 Rangers, either, we're using 3.5 Rangers, just because they're better.
Huzzah!
quote:
Sean had this to say about Pirotess:
Once it reaches the level of "Everything but X" is overpowered, at what point do you just say X is underpowered?And I disagree in saying the Ranger is alone in gimpitude; Wizards. Without a proper DM, your average Wizard is a more helpless Sorceror.
I admit, I generalized a bit too much, and I agree with you on Wizards. They're the same way in 3.5 as well.
I was simply trying to illustrate that there are many things in 3.0 that were overpowered (TWF and Ambi, for one) that had been more balanced in 3.5, and it wasn't just Monks. At least in 3.5 you can't have a Fighter with 12 dex in full plate running around with 7 attacks after taking all the TWF feats.
Monks are not so overpowered on their own that they need to be the only class you leave out completely. That was my point.
quote:
FUCK. MOTHERFUCKING SHIT. DO YOU FUCKING KNOW HOW FUCKING STUPID YOU ARE? SHIT. FUCK. It's not your fault, Densetsu.
Monks are not so overpowered on their own that they need to be the only class you leave out completely. That was my point.
Some people are really prejudiced against Monks, Paladins, and to some extent Bards, for completely idiotic reasons. 
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Sean said:
Some people are really prejudiced against Monks, Paladins, and to some extent Bards, for completely idiotic reasons.
I know my normal group is prejudiced against Paladins, mainly for the reason that the group's alignment must basically conform to them. I like to create totally random characters (random race and class, etc) and came up with a Paladin for the last game we did. They let me play it and it was quite interesting. They still don't like them, though. They've got nothing against Monks or Bards, though.
quote:
Sean had this to say about Robocop:
Some people are really prejudiced against Monks, Paladins, and to some extent Bards, for completely idiotic reasons.
My reasons aren't idiotic, they are just purely fluff reasons... Except for Monks. Monks suck end of story, dont have em, don't like em, it's never gonna happen. Our monks are all castrated budists living in monestaries under a vow of silence so I dont have to listen to all thier whining.
As far as Paladins, I didn't get rid of em, I just changed em. Again, as I said, purely for fluff reasons. I made them to fit my vision of how I wanted my knights to be. The a-typical Paladins however still exist in my Desert City though, just everywhere else they are... Unique.
Bards just annoy the ever loving shit out of me and always have... And I'm sorry, if I'm in life or death combat... The first person Im gonna kill is the dumbass Bard who is sitting there singing at me while I'm dying. Bards are poets and musicians, who ever came up with the idea that they should be a combat, or adventurer playable class should be shot... Follow along to record the exploits, sure.. Be an active participant, ugh... All that said, we still use Bards. 
quote:
FUCK. MOTHERFUCKING SHIT. DO YOU FUCKING KNOW HOW FUCKING STUPID YOU ARE? SHIT. FUCK. It's not your fault, Densetsu.
They've got nothing against Monks or Bards, though.
It seems to be logistics for Monks and Bards. In worlds of spell-slingers and dragonslayers, somehow the idea of a honed body or a silver tongue defeating some loser in platemail is far fetched.
Realism has very very little place in D&D. Writing off core classes isn't the best place to start.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Sean was all like:
It seems to be logistics for Monks and Bards. In worlds of spell-slingers and dragonslayers, somehow the idea of a honed body or a silver tongue defeating some loser in platemail is far fetched.
Realism has very very little place in D&D. Writing off core classes isn't the best place to start.
I agree with you. Every class can work if you use it, DnD isn't about whether or not it makes sense, it's about story telling.
quote:
So quoth Sean:
It seems to be logistics for Monks and Bards. In worlds of spell-slingers and dragonslayers, somehow the idea of a honed body or a silver tongue defeating some loser in platemail is far fetched.
Monk's and Bard's really shouldn't be concidered Core Classes anyway. They are core classes beacause people wanted more than just the old Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Elf-Mage. If you want to get technical those are still the only core classes (Except the Elf-Mage thing) as every other class is just a specialized version of thier core class, or Hybrid (Without having to Multiclass).
Fighter - Ranger - Barbarian - Monk
Wizard - Sorcerer
Cleric - Druid - Paladin
Rogue - Bard
For one, the silver tongue comment ivariably applies to Rogues as well, and to much better effect when coupled with other abilities. Bards are less effective Rogues with some fancy abilities. As for me, its not so much that I have issues with magical singing adventurers about them that bugs me.. Its just how retarded and fuity it is. I've always seen it that way, as a personal opinion, and it's never changed. *shrugs*
And Ghandi who can ninja flip the fuck out, is also just as retarded in most cases. Plus it honestly makes more sense, as Parce said, to make it a Prestige thing for a martial focused fighter. It's also horribly munchkinized, and abused.
I know some people are violently opposed, and I seem to remember you might've been one of them.
I just always felt that if good gods have soldiers who devoted themselves to an ideal, that evil deities have to have to have people who champion their religion as well... I know Blackguards are in D&D, but they're only for converted Paladins, really.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris had this to say about Optimus Prime:
It's also horribly munchkinized, and abused.
As DM, you have the power to make this statement 100% false, without removing the class completely.
Densetsu fucked around with this message on 04-17-2005 at 11:39 PM.
[Edit: In response to Lash, I agree that, much like Monks, Paladins are far too restricted in how they must be portrayed. Unfortunately, this means there would need to be like 9 different Paladins for it to mean anything. At least 3 different ones.]
quote:
Densetsu's fortune cookie read:
As DM, you have the power to make this statement 100% false, without removing the class completely.
Indeed, never said otherwise...
Or I could just remove it and never have to deal with it, also as DM. 
Monk's really do not fit in my world at all anyway, no logical reason for them to exist. And I have no plans to change that... Ever. Faelynn LeAndris fucked around with this message on 04-17-2005 at 11:46 PM.
quote:
Densetsu had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
[Edit: In response to Lash, I agree that, much like Monks, Paladins are far too restricted in how they must be portrayed. Unfortunately, this means there would need to be like 9 different Paladins for it to mean anything. At least 3 different ones.]
Not hard to do, thats exactly what we use.
Each Diety has a unique Paladin type, Templar. Different abilities, doctrines, and outlook. It adds more depth that way, and makes them all Unique.
Rosa actually played a Templar once, with an entirely different ability set, gear preference, and outlook, than say Batty who also played a templar.
I will admit though, since I dont ever run evil games, ever, for any reason, my evil patheon doesn't have an equivalent since my groups have never had any reason to have faced one of that caliber yet, and players can't be one.
Of course Victoria went on to become an evil NPC, so Ill have to do it soon. Faelynn LeAndris fucked around with this message on 04-17-2005 at 11:45 PM.
Think of your every day poet, ya know? The one who sits on the linoleum bathroom floor, etching his last girlfriend's name into his wrist until he decides he actually -feels- something.
Yeah, that's the bard I want to adventure with. Have an ale with a Bright Eyes rip. That's how ya do it.
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Lashanna said:
Parce, how do you feel about Paladin-types of a less than Good alignment?I know some people are violently opposed, and I seem to remember you might've been one of them.
I just always felt that if good gods have soldiers who devoted themselves to an ideal, that evil deities have to have to have people who champion their religion as well... I know Blackguards are in D&D, but they're only for converted Paladins, really.
That makes sense, but the problem is making a class of such that exists and is balanced.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan had this to say about pies:
That makes sense, but the problem is making a class of such that exists and is balanced.
We have a Blackguard class in my D&D campaign that works quite well, balance-wise. Sean plays one.
And eh, I usually don't play evil, but playing evil gives me leave to play as monstrous races, which can be ridiculously fun. Hell, after being exposed to Planescape, I doubt many of my D&D character concepts from this point on are going to be humanoid (well, at least not without a catch. I still want to import a Shaper from Geneforge to Sigil just to see how many Powers I could piss off with one character).
quote:Unearthed Arcana. There's a lot of useless powergaming crap in that book, but there are a few items that could actually prove meaningful in the right circumstances.
When they turned on the Infinite Improbability Drive, Ferret stammered,
There was some book that supplied the allowment of the 3 other polar alignments under the justification that a normal paladin was the "Paladin of Righetousness" and supplied 3 other types, the Paladin if Freedom (Chaotic Good), The Paladin of Slaughter (Chaotic Evil) and the Paldin of Tyranny (Lawful Evil).
quote:
Mr. Parcelan wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
That makes sense, but the problem is making a class of such that exists and is balanced.
What I did with my game world is took the Paladin class and just changed their abilities a bit like Aura of Evil, Detect Good, Smite Good, Instead of LoH I gave them Pain Touch, which works exactly the same but it deals damage...etc..
It works out pretty well.
quote:
Zaza loves Parcelan like a fat kid loves cake
We have a Blackguard class in my D&D campaign that works quite well, balance-wise. Sean plays one.
I would be much appreciative to see it!
Something of an anti-Paladin would be okay (just a Paladin with abilities reversed), but it'd be better if they were classes of their own instead of just shadows of Paladins.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan don't surf!
I would be much appreciative to see it!
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Sean had this to say about Knight Rider:
It should be public.
Very cool. While it needs some tweaking for my specific campaign, I don't see any reason not to allow it.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Mr. Parcelan wrote:
Oh, yeah, since I can't stand 3.0 Rangers, either, we're using 3.5 Rangers, just because they're better.
Why don't we just play 3.5 everything?
quote:
A sleep deprived Alaan stammered:
Because he doesn't have the books.
-_- I don't have any books at all, my plan (should I choose to accept this mission) was just to go to Barnes and Noble for a few hours and make my character there...then buy a manga book or something to appease them.
Libraries should carry D&D books. They really should.
quote:
This one time, at Kait camp:
-_- I don't have any books at all, my plan (should I choose to accept this mission) was just to go to Barnes and Noble for a few hours and make my character there...then buy a manga book or something to appease them.Libraries should carry D&D books. They really should.
Psst..there are PDF files of the books on Zaza's FTP.
ftp.wintersroar.com
Ask somebody for the Login/Password.
