?

Log in

No account? Create an account
D&D 3E
...Your god fell down again, so stop telling him he has legs... 
15th-Apr-2003 10:14 pm
I am new. Apparently.


I have been playing D&D since I was four years old. I am almost 20 now. THat about explains my experience with D&D...

I also play Vampire and werewolf, as well as Shadowrun and whatnot...but they can't compare to good ol' D&D.

Anyways, as an introduction, I know people have probably brought this to attenion, cause, come on...it's obvious:

Do you think they gave the monk too many abilities? I mean, when you stack them against a barbarian of equal level, I'm sure the monk would fucking destrioy the barbarian...Maybe it's me...

But according to this chart I found online, I am not the only one who thought so...but yeah...

Also, I think they should have given the wizard a few extras (And I say this, not including "Tome and Blood" and other suppliments, cause obviously, they give wizards a lot of noteworthy abilities)

Also, has anyone bought the suppliment "Path Of The Sword"? I bought it, cause i thought there might be some nice stuff in it, but 80% of the feats are redundant and almost uselesss, cause they just explain something that you'd already know via common knowledge.

For example:

The feat RISING STRIKE states that if you use this feat at the same time as an adjacent opponent attacks you, you get the element of suprise, therefore giving you a +4 to attack...but that was already explained in the DM GUIDE...so why bother making it into a feat if it's something every class can accomplish..and not just monks, rangers, fighters, paladins and barbarians...

The same thing goes with the TAUNT</> ability stated in this book. I mean, if you have a the bluff skill (Or just a really high CHA modifier), couldn't you just bluff using that method instead of making it into an actual feat?

Tell me what you think...

Oh yeah...hello everyone.
Comments 
16th-Apr-2003 04:04 am (UTC) - The Monk
Nah. The Monk gets whooped by the Barbarian in a straight fight. But then again, D&D isn't set up for arena combat. The Monk does best as a mage-killer and scout, for his melee prowess is dwarfed by that of the fighter-type classes and the Cleric (and perhaps even the Druid, once the nature priests can wildshape into large animals).

Most of the Monk's special abilities are worthless in combat. Still Mind and Diamond Soul are anti-mage, Deflect Arrows is decent against archers, and Slow fall, Purity of Body, Wholeness of Body, Leap of the Clouds, Abundant step, Timeless Body, Tounge of the sun and moon, Empty body, and Perfect self are rarely vital in combat. Only Evasion, Improved Evasion, Unarmed strike, Stunning attack, Improved trip, Ki strike, and Quivering palm are really battle oriented, and even then, only Unarmed Strike and Improved Trip are of use in battle with fighter-types (who have high enough Fort saves to make Stunning attack and Quivering palm useless). Sure, a lot of the abilities are cool, and a Monk could make a decent secondary fighter, but I'd hate to rely on a Monk as my main front-line fighter.

Oh, and welcome to the community!
16th-Apr-2003 08:08 pm (UTC) - ...
You also forgot to add the fact that the monk can do up to 1d20 with their fists and would have a base attack bonus of +18/+15/+12/+9/+6...so against ANYBODY, the monk would win in hand-to-hand combat.

Okay, put a level 20 monk against a level 20 barbarian in an arena. Do you honestly believe that a barbarian could defeat a monk who has an advantage like that? Even with the rage ability and the damage reduction, the monk could clearly defeat the barbarian...not to mention, the barbarian would need a weapon with a +1 bonus to even do a suffecient amount of damage.

Of course, with situational modifiers, such as the area where they are fighting, the barbarian would destroy.

Oh yeah...how could a Cleric beat a monk in physical combat? Yes, the cleric is a damn good secondary fighter, but what makes him great is his spells. If played right, the cleric could demolish most opponents, save for the fighter and the Sohei (My friends and I constantly play-tested the characters when we first got our hands on the 3rd Edition...and actually tested how each character would stack up against each other level:level.) When I was talking about the monk being stacked and unbalanced, I was referring to his physical combat prowess, which is mostly what they have. All of the monk's abilities are supernatural, and not magical, whence the cleric would rely on magic to back up him up.

Yeah...that's it...lol
18th-Apr-2003 07:48 am (UTC) - Re: ...
Sure, if everyone were in an anti-magic zone of some sort, the Monk would rock. If everyone was fighting enemies immune to physical damage, the Monk would be useless. Those are not typical cases.

A Cleric at high levels should have his buffs active *all* the time. Persistent Divine Power, for example, puts him at at least at the level of a Fighter. Slap on a few more buffs, like Divine Favor, and he's unstoppable in melee (and ranged) combat. With GMW, he's always got a +5 weapon at hand. Don't forget all the low-priced magical items he'll have at hand as well. Give him a bow, and he'll slap GMW on both that and the arrows, and with the Elf Domain, he's the best archer in 3e. Shapechange is also very, very nice. Then there's the uber-spell Harm, which by itself makes the Cleric a melee monster. No save, one touch attack, and the Monk's down to 1d3 hp. Hopefully the Cleric has quickened spell or haste, which means that he'll take his extra full attack then (or just a single attack if he had to move) and kill the Monk in the first round. Or the dragon, for that matter.

1d20+Str damage at high levels (which is when the Monk gets 1d20 damage) is nothing. At that point, your barbarian is going to have superb strength and will be weilding a large, powerful magical weapon two-handed, and doing a heck of a lot more than that. Likewise, his HP are going to be a lot greater, and he's going to be Raging for even more power. A 20th level Monk has a BAB of +15/+12/+9/+6/+3 -- a 20th level Barbarian has a BAB of +20/+15/+10/+5. Right there, the Barbarian is far better off -- add in his massive strength, which would be at least 30 (Raging), compared to an average Monk's, what, 20? (a Monk needs high Wis and Dex before Str), for a bonus of +10 *and* the magical weapon enhancement for a total BAB of +35/+30/+25/+20 with at least 2d4 + 20 damage (average = 25, plus enhancement bonus) per hit compared to your Monk's +19/+16/+13/+10/+7 with 1d20 + 4 (average = 15, and a lower chance of hitting), and taking into account that the Barbarian likely at least 1.5-2X as many Hit Points as the Monk, and the fact that the Monk's abilities are useless against a Barbarian (high Str and Con), and you'll quickly realize the Monk is going down in single combat. It's nowhere near an even arena battle.
16th-Apr-2003 05:21 am (UTC)
Welcome to the community. :)

I've never particularly looked at the monk (I only normally look at the classes that I'm going to play or am playing at the time), but my friends find that it's a little unbalanced.

In general though we have found that some classes are more balanced at the lower levels and others at higher levels. I'm not sure if this is the conclusion we made but I think we found that monks and sorcerers are stronger at lower levels and wizards at higher levels - not sure if we came to conclusions about any of the other classes.

Didn't Monte Cook do a monk class on his website like he did with the ranger? Maybe this will be more balanced?
16th-Apr-2003 08:15 pm (UTC) - ...
Yeah, as someone who feverishly plays as a wizard, I definetely can say the wizard is the hardest class to play as in terms of how to friggin survive without getting hit by a goddamn kobold's short sword, lol. Once I gain access to 3rd level spells, I literally dominate everyone else in my party. Just gimme the mage armor spell, true strike, burning hands, fireball/lightning boltm, and melf's acid arrow... and everyone just dies before they can touch me, lol.

Of course...there's magic missile...lol
16th-Apr-2003 11:00 pm (UTC)
Here is my 0.5 cent.

The classes in D&D all excell at one thing or another, and these talents or abilities are amplified or dampend by the situations that they are in. For example, a rogue and a fighter are arrested and placed in the same cell. They begin to fight. Both same level and have wooden clubs from a broken cot. Now obviously with no room to manuver and hide the rogue is done for. However, say we change the setting. At night in a dense forest. The rogue has the fighter at his will if he uses his skills correctly. So no matter how broken a class seems, changing the environment can completely ruin these abilities.

Oh and as for the monk, just have him fight something you can't touch, say a fire elemental or an ooze.
17th-Apr-2003 10:22 am (UTC) - the whole monk thing rarely comes up
it's funny ive paid strict attention to why people pass up the monk, everytime all of my players pass up the monk. I started asking folks why they wouldnt want to play the monk and more or less i got the answer that it looks boring, or that it's features on a whole are lame.

My guess is that the monk is way too specific to cut and dry-

I always thought the wizard got a bad rap next to the sorcerer, personally I like the Wizard more... the spellbook is way underrated. I wouldn't say that anything in the game is solid, and not in need of a little tweaking...

Thanks for the heads up on the Path of the Sword
This page was loaded Aug 23rd 2017, 6:16 am GMT.