Are warriors & rogues required at high level?

[Victim]

The problem with monks is that people have seen Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and other wuxia movies, and then expect Monks to do those things. And monks can't do those things in play.

 

[Bauglir]

I ain't conceding nuthin' - your evidence is all circumstancial. Just pointing out that that particular topic has reached a stalemate and we might as well agree to disagree on it.

BTW a codpiece or Moustache of *** would actually cost double the base price, since they don't occupy any item slot at all.

(I really must insert a magical moustache into a game at some point.. maybe a moustache of disguise? (tweak activated))

 

[buzzard]

Monks are by their very nature the class that balances all others; as such they offer little in the way of innovation but are strong in every area. Hence the reason they are perceived as a fifth wheel rather than as a viable fifth party member.

In my experience of the two 3.0 home campaigns I have been in, Monks have been weak. They are not strong in any areas but saving throws and mobility. They are weak in a fight. They can get a good AC, but a fighter (cleric, etc.) type in heavy armor can match it. However all they do with their good AC is swing and miss. If they do make a tag (probably only on an early iterative attack), their damage is piddling. Remember if the monk has the high AC, then he's got lousy stats elsewhere. He's probably got a poor Strength. You make the monk sound spectacular because he can do all things. However he can only do all things relatively well under two conditions:
A) A very low magic world where fighters and other melee types can't get the equipment required for their level.
B) An extremely high magic world, where the monk can afford to work on all the disparate aspects of a rounded build.

In many cases our monk has only managed to maximize his effectiveness by aiding another for the front line fighters. He can't do much else. We don't fight enough spellcasters (which are the best targets for monks). Even when we do fight spellcasters, the archer specialist can hit them at ridiculous range and does worlds more damage than the monk.

We did have a druid for a while. He wasn't much better than the monk. The problem with your evaluations is that it has a odd way of weighting things, and no subjectivity of the face of many different abilities which vary strongly is power. Any system which rates Druids on top is skewed (IMHO of course).

I'd say in the face of playing a fair amount of Living Greyhawk (which gives exposure to a wide variety of character designs, and shows their utility in a fairly low magic world) that monks and druids don't really register on the power scale. Sorcerers and wizards do shine, as do clerics (but much of this is due to the way encounters are designed for the 4 hour slots). Fighters tend to be fairly successful (though in most cases they get some mixing and matching with prestige classes or other classes). Pure rogues are quite rare, and since our region has had plenty of undead as opponents they have suffered in combat effetiveness. Bards do exist, but they are understood to be support at best, especially since LG is pretty much only about combat.

buzzard

 

[Thanee]

Interesting. Someone in Bauglirs poll thread mentioned it was when Sorcerors/Wizards get shapechange - I'll reply to him in due course.

I believe that one wrote something about because they have access to shapechange, which can grant extra actions now, but actually I don't think that it's only shapechange!

You would therefore agree with me that Sorceror/Wizard spellcasting is superior to Clerics?

Absolutely.

I think its a fair appraisal to equate Twenty Levels of Integrated Sorceror spells to 35 feats. Though under such circumstances you would need to allow access to epic feats otherwise you will probably run out.

I might misunderstand what kind of level you are speaking of there... I assume spell levels, but you probably mean character levels...

And epic stuff does change a lot, for sure, I'm mainly talking about the range up to 20th level, which is much more important than epic levels. In the last levels, I can see pure Fighters taking fun feats, because they don't really know what to choose anymore... hardly something that makes them any better (just more fun, which is good, of course ).

Okay, the poll name says it all. Its for the worst 5th party member - not the weakest class.

Yep, but that's not a big difference, I suppose!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Victim mate!

The problem with monks is that people have seen Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and other wuxia movies, and then expect Monks to do those things. And monks can't do those things in play.

Perhaps its not until epic levels that Monks come into their own?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Bauglir mate!

I ain't conceding nuthin' - your evidence is all circumstancial. Just pointing out that that particular topic has reached a stalemate and we might as well agree to disagree on it.

LOL! What stalemate!? You are willfully ignoring the evidence mate!

You know I'm right - whether you are big enough to admit it is up to you...

BTW a codpiece or Moustache of *** would actually cost double the base price, since they don't occupy any item slot at all.

Okay, so I was getting carried away with the examples.

(I really must insert a magical moustache into a game at some point.. maybe a moustache of disguise? (tweak activated))

You could have different powers based on the type of moustache; or even a moustache familiar (a hairy caterpillar).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi buzzard!

In my experience of the two 3.0 home campaigns I have been in, Monks have been weak.

Okay I am starting to see a trend here; I think I'll have to review my rating of the monk class ~ its always possible I am missing something...?

They are not strong in any areas but saving throws and mobility.

and AC.

They are weak in a fight.

Well they are weaker than frontline Fighter Types, after that they are the next best.

They can get a good AC, but a fighter (cleric, etc.) type in heavy armor can match it.

Monk AC is at worst, equal best to any class.

At epic levels Monk AC eventually starts to pull away from the rest.

However all they do with their good AC is swing and miss.

I think you need to make enchanted monk wrappings at least available if not actually as relatively common as other magic weapons.

If they do make a tag (probably only on an early iterative attack), their damage is piddling.

Again this can be solved through judicious use of magical monk wrappings.

Remember if the monk has the high AC, then he's got lousy stats elsewhere. He's probably got a poor Strength.

This is something S'mon also commented upon.

You make the monk sound spectacular because he can do all things. However he can only do all things relatively well under two conditions:
A) A very low magic world where fighters and other melee types can't get the equipment required for their level.
B) An extremely high magic world, where the monk can afford to work on all the disparate aspects of a rounded build.

The standard of course lying somewhere in between.

In many cases our monk has only managed to maximize his effectiveness by aiding another for the front line fighters. He can't do much else. We don't fight enough spellcasters (which are the best targets for monks). Even when we do fight spellcasters, the archer specialist can hit them at ridiculous range and does worlds more damage than the monk.

We did have a druid for a while. He wasn't much better than the monk. The problem with your evaluations is that it has a odd way of weighting things, and no subjectivity of the face of many different abilities which vary strongly is power. Any system which rates Druids on top is skewed (IMHO of course).

I think the system is still valid I simply haven't factored all the relevant elements that govern a particular class. So I am very appreciative of all the feedback from people here.

I'd say in the face of playing a fair amount of Living Greyhawk (which gives exposure to a wide variety of character designs, and shows their utility in a fairly low magic world) that monks and druids don't really register on the power scale. Sorcerers and wizards do shine, as do clerics (but much of this is due to the way encounters are designed for the 4 hour slots). Fighters tend to be fairly successful (though in most cases they get some mixing and matching with prestige classes or other classes). Pure rogues are quite rare, and since our region has had plenty of undead as opponents they have suffered in combat effetiveness. Bards do exist, but they are understood to be support at best, especially since LG is pretty much only about combat.

It seems apparent I am wrong in my evaluation of the Monk, though I stand by my outline of the Druid - at least in that it is one of the strongest classes; whether its THE strongest will depend on my review of the Cleric.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Thanee mate!

I believe that one wrote something about because they have access to shapechange, which can grant extra actions now, but actually I don't think that it's only shapechange!

The problem with Shapechange is that you can assume the form of any monster that has DOUBLE your caster level in HD.

I mean you could have a 34 HD Solar at 17th-level for goodness sake.

It should probably be amended to HD = Class Level.

Absolutely.

I might misunderstand what kind of level you are speaking of there... I assume spell levels, but you probably mean character levels...

I mean a Sorcerors Class Features (or to be more specific spells) only.

And epic stuff does change a lot, for sure, I'm mainly talking about the range up to 20th level, which is much more important than epic levels. In the last levels, I can see pure Fighters taking fun feats, because they don't really know what to choose anymore... hardly something that makes them any better (just more fun, which is good, of course ).

I can see this 'maybe' for three or four feat choices if the character has no interest in either missile weapons or two weapon fighting. Though that assumes you are only using the feats from the Players Handbook.

Yep, but that's not a big difference, I suppose!

 

[Bauglir]

My personal favourite silly shapechange has to be the Dream Larva (ELH)

40 HD (so doable at 20th level)
Anyone seeing the dream larva must make a fort save (DC 46 iirc) or die instantly.

On the monk topic I don't think that enchanted wrappings were part of the intended abilities of the class. It's no coincidence that all of the monk weapons deal 1d6 damage. Also note that the monk's average unarmed attack damage scales roughly with the damage an appropriately levelled monk weapon does.

i.e At around the level the typical characters might be wielding a +1 weapon the unarmed damage becomes d8 (4.5 average = 3.5+1).
(Beyond 12th level, unarmed attack damage begins to creep ahead of armed attack damage. I suspect this was a deliberate attempt to offset the loss of attack bonus somewhat)

 

[reapersaurus]

Upper Krust, as usual when i read your systems, they read as very well thought out, but they miss just enough in execution as to mar the results.

The conclusions that your systems come up with I invariably disagree with, yet your mechanics seem fairly sound. It's funny, it's kinda like "It SHOULD work, but it doesn;t."

My 2 opinions about oversights this time:
1) you rate wizard spellcasting levels as linear progression, but they are geometric, or at least weighted. It's also underrated, since you place D12 HD at about the same level...

2) Your estimate of skill points is WAY off, and that's why your rogue rating is way off.
You have an 8 skill point class worth about as much as a paladin's spellcasting ability. Pld/Rgr spellcasting is a joke, taken singly. 8 skill points is not, and it's very versatile, unlike some spellcasting lists. BTW: did I miss where you gave points for a class's skills selection? You may have missed that benefit, which further would up the rogue.

My intuitive ratings are fairly close to Thanee's, but I'd put a rogue up there higher, due to their dominance in social arenas.