D&D 5E 5th edition monks

[hawkeyefan]

So what is the 'AVERAGE' supposed to be in terms of attributes? I've always been under the impression the average is a 10. Average INT is 10, Average STR is 10 and so forth.

So how much DUMBER is an INT 8 guy compared to an INT 10 one? On a scale from 8 to 20 (or 1 to 12, or, since that's what matters, -1 to +5), how BIG of a step down is that single step down?

Maybe we just overdramatize the impact of that 8? I mean, PCs are usually exceptional individuals so maybe 8 is actually average?

This is a good post.

I’d also ask...does an 8 Strength mean the same thing for every character who has it? Aren’t there multiple ways to interpret an 8 Strength? Or an 8 Intelligence or Charisma?

I’m pretty sure we could come up with a variety of concepts to explain each low stat.

 

[Charlaquin]

If y’all haven’t noticed, I’m not continuing this argument, because it’s abundantly clear I’d be wasting my time. If people could stop trying to bait me back into it, that’d be cool.

 

[Azzy]

And one of the ways they sometimes spell out Qi

Chi (or rather ch'i) is the Wade-Giles Romanization of Mandarin 气, qi (or, rather, qì) is the Pinyin Romanization of the same. Ki is the Japanese equivalent.

 

[Manchurian]

{...this is especially for those transitioning from 3, 3.5 to 5.}
Dex has always been an important stat. Apart from class-specific stats (e.g. cha for sorcerers) dex is the most over-used stat.
Now I have been playing and running 5th edition for a while and I detest how str has become a dump stat for monks.
i.e. they need str as much as a sorcerer needs it. This is silliness.
Your chance to hit with melee weapons is determined by str because the stronger you are the faster you can move your axe to hit.
Dex determines how accurate you can be to hit specific vitals points. At least that is how the game tries to SIMULATE combat. Fine.
So in 3/3.5 you can take the finesse feat. This obliged you to be careful with selecting feats and it allowed for high-str build monks.
And still damage is determined by str.
Some future source books (unofficial or not?) offered feats to further make dex play a part in damage with finesse weapons. This seems balanced and realistic.
A degree of realism is not a bad thing....

is 5th edition balanced? yeah it probably is. But I have huge beef with 5th edition for doing this.
I take the opportunity to bitch and moan about it all the time and I am in the process of house-ruling certain stuff regarding monks.
I have also made my own Monastic Traditions that offer AS AN OPTION increased combat prowess bast on str.

Any old-skool playaz here (or indeed newbies) that feel the same?

Make it a variant Monk order and you don't have to change Nothing.....They have several new orders and leave it open for other orders as well of any alignment.....Walaaa....Real Ancient ordered Monks Back in Affect

 

[Manchurian]

Make it a variant Monk order and you don't have to change Nothing.....They have several new orders and leave it open for other orders as well of any alignment.....Walaaa....Real Ancient ordered Monks Back in Affect

Use all the old stats....it is convertible

 

[Horwath]

So what is the 'AVERAGE' supposed to be in terms of attributes? I've always been under the impression the average is a 10. Average INT is 10, Average STR is 10 and so forth.

So how much DUMBER is an INT 8 guy compared to an INT 10 one? On a scale from 8 to 20 (or 1 to 12, or, since that's what matters, -1 to +5), how BIG of a step down is that single step down?

Maybe we just overdramatize the impact of that 8? I mean, PCs are usually exceptional individuals so maybe 8 is actually average?

I would say that 1 pt of intelligence is about 10 IQ points.

IQ 100 is average and 173 is IQ that is less thatn 1 in a 1000 people have.
And there was only a handful of people with IQ200 and above in history.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I always imagined monks as being based on David Carridene.

I would say that 1 pt of intelligence is about 10 IQ points.

IQ 100 is average and 173 is IQ that is less thatn 1 in a 1000 people have.
And there was only a handful of people with IQ200 and above in history.

That we know of. I always wonder how many of the most brilliant were and are born in circumstances which prevented the education needed, or whose upbringing included such traumas as to cripple their ability to function within society.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Horwath]

I always imagined monks as being based on David Carridene. To suggest that they


That we know of. I always wonder how many of the most brilliant were and are born in circumstances which prevented the education needed, or whose upbringing included such traumas as to cripple their ability to function within society.

Well, we can only work with the data we have.

But yeah, learning to read and write and multiplication table from very young age will bring the most out your natural talent. Brain needs to be trained a lot from a young age to have neurons create more and more connections with each other.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I would say that 1 pt of intelligence is about 10 IQ points.

IQ 100 is average and 173 is IQ that is less thatn 1 in a 1000 people have.
And there was only a handful of people with IQ200 and above in history.

I've always played that a +1 modifier represents one standard deviation above the norm. Since a "genius" is someone with an I.Q. of 145 or higher, this would exactly be an INT 16 or higher. While this translates into a narrower range (max I.Q. would be 175 with a +5 modifier), the number of individuals with an I.Q. higher than that really isn't very great and it gets to a point where being smarter doesn't really have much impact in practical knowledge use or theoretical capability. In general, any one with an ability score (in any ability) of 14 or higher is able to do or learn whatever they need given enough dedication and practice. An INT 8 with a -1 modifier would be an I.Q. 85. Such a person is still intelligent and just as capable, but might be forgetful, have trouble concentrating, or take longer to learn new things, etc.

When we think of strength, someone who is a professional athlete or works an extremely demanding physical job would like have STR 16 or higher, with the very strongest reaching STR 20. Your person who works out regularly and does occasional physical activities (hiking, biking, sports, etc.) would likely have a STR 12, maybe 14. Now, that doesn't mean they have to, of course. Someone with a STR 10 could just as likely do the same, but since ability scores represent such things... it sort of follows IMO.

Some people aren't comfortable quantifying people in such a way, but it works for understanding how ability scores might translate IRL as far as I am concerned. I explain it to new players that way and they get it.