Confusion in Monk's Belt

[brendan candries]

The problem isn't the belt, the problem is the Monk class.

Monk/Ninja/... classes should be: Wis to AC, to a max of class level (ala Duelist/Invisible Blade/Bladesinger/...).

Then the belt would give 6 AC at best.

A nerf for a lowbie monk, yeah, but good riddance to all 1 level monk dips and monk's belt abuse.

What is the typical starting wis of a PC monk? 14/16? that would be a loss of 1-2 AC for the first 1-2 levels. Not that bad.

 

[Quartz]

With respect, AC 27 is ludicrously low for a high level character, and even AC 36 is just fine for PCs in the high teens.

True, but I didn't add in other magic items like Rings of Protection, Cloak of Protection, Natural Armour, etc etc. (That's another +15 just there)

 

[hong]

[drama]Are you F'n high?![/drama]

13k for +1 to Ac and deal the same base damage as a Longsword?

Seriously, who'd pay for that?

Going from a ring of protection +4 to +5 is 18000 gp....

 

[Slaved]

(readily agreed to by the player of the druid who wanted to use it).

The druid readily agreed to getting a +1 to armor class with a bunch of restrictions for 13kgp when he could have just gotten leather barding for a lot less than 100gp and had +2 to armor class without the restrictions?

Seemed very silly to us that an item made for a Monk would be of more benefit to a non-Monk.

And, to a monk, 13k is a pretty good deal for what you get.

It is a good deal for a monk, but I am not sure how the nonmonks are benefiting more. The two just get different things out of it for the most part. The +1 to armor class, +1 stun, and some amount of extra damage is pretty nice for the monk. The 1+wisdom bonus to armor class with restrictions is nice for some, but definately not all, and that is basically all they get out of it unless they spend a feat on improved unarmed strike.

 

[robberbaron]

The druid readily agreed to getting a +1 to armor class with a bunch of restrictions for 13kgp when he could have just gotten leather barding for a lot less than 100gp and had +2 to armor class without the restrictions?

To what restrictions are you referring? I can only think of the belt slot being used up.
+1 AC with no encumbrance? Nice.

Oh, the druid already had magical leather and picked the belt off a dead PC's body, so the cost was irrelevant.

 

[Slaved]

To what restrictions are you referring?

Cannot use an armor or shield nor have any load above light.

Oh, the druid already had magical leather and picked the belt off a dead PC's body, so the cost was irrelevant.

Even so it is counting against the amount of recomended gear for the level set by the dungeon masters guide. It may not have cost gold but the virtually tally is still counting.

+3 leather armor is about 9kgp, still much less than the monks belt and if the monks belt only gave +1 then the leather armor would be better by 4 points of armor class. I know which I would choose!

 

[robberbaron]

Cannot use an armor or shield nor have any load above light.

Good catch! Despite reading the text several times I managed to miss that bit.

Even so it is counting against the amount of recomended gear for the level set by the dungeon masters guide. It may not have cost gold but the virtually tally is still counting.

Sure, if you expect the DM to only give treasure up to the DMG limits.
Can't see myself saying, "Yep, the dragon really did only have 250Gp of treasure, but you've got the right wealth for a character of your level".
Should I have given a poor reward for the next adventure because the party divvied up the gear from a fallen comrade? I don't think so, and I would expect my players to show righteous indignation if I did.

 

[Slaved]

Good catch! Despite reading the text several times I managed to miss that bit.

Glad to help.

Sure, if you expect the DM to only give treasure up to the DMG limits.

There are many ways to limit character wealth. If the dungeon master lets wealth run out of control in either direction then he will have to make large, sweeping changes to the challenges that he puts forward.

Too much wealth and you can have characters who are insanely powerful for their level, possibly to the point where anything that actually challenges them will also annihilate them without much of a chance for them to win.

Too little and it is possible that creatures of the appropriate challenge rating are simply impossible to face.

However the dungeon master wants to do it is not the issue, the issue is that it must be done or other problems start cropping up.

I find one of the easiest ways is to have most non-player characters use limited use items such as wands, potions, and scrolls. Plus having spent their wealth on items which help with their plans but do not help the player characters much such as an item that allows the big bad to walk through any traps in the dungeon without harm. This could make for an interesting fight as the big bad runs around trying to get the advantage on the player characters but after the fight the item is not of much use, unless they want to make a base there at which point I get a double win!

 

[robberbaron]

I wholly agree that being either too stingy or too generous with PC wealth can be very bad for the game but there has to be a measure of (I really hate to use the term but can't think of a better one to get my point over) 'realism'. For example, if the PCs come up against a party of oppositely aligned (not necessarily, but it helps with motivation) adventurers, I would have a hard time justifying giving them less kit than the PCs would have at that level.

The best way I have found to limit loot is to limit PC exposure to NPCs. Have their opponents be beasts, undead, etc., i.e., enemies who don't use items and are unlikely to have a hoard. Doesn't work for long 'cos the players would rebel (unless they are LG and doing what they are told for the good of the meek) but can certainly force a lull in loot gathering.

 

[brehobit]

I wholly agree that being either too stingy or too generous with PC wealth can be very bad for the game but there has to be a measure of (I really hate to use the term but can't think of a better one to get my point over) 'realism'. For example, if the PCs come up against a party of oppositely aligned (not necessarily, but it helps with motivation) adventurers, I would have a hard time justifying giving them less kit than the PCs would have at that level.

The best way I have found to limit loot is to limit PC exposure to NPCs. Have their opponents be beasts, undead, etc., i.e., enemies who don't use items and are unlikely to have a hoard. Doesn't work for long 'cos the players would rebel (unless they are LG and doing what they are told for the good of the meek) but can certainly force a lull in loot gathering.

Don't forget to have the unholy sword. One of those and (say) a good-outsider bane can be annoying to PCs but helpful to the NPCs. At higher levels, evil-aligned intelligent items can be a joy. A few other "evil nasty" items and you can kill 1/3rd of the wealth and not feel guilty. I mean my PCs have items like that (but for good). The Holy sword and goblin bane weapons might well make up 1/3 of the party's wealth.

Mark

Mark