Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5377003" data-attributes="member: 87792">Actually, I'd say the wizard loses the least.&nbsp; He still has most of his offence.&nbsp;&nbsp;That's because they are a society of assassins.&nbsp; Rogues would do the job every bit as well, only need a dagger, and are generally cheaper to train and a better ROI.&nbsp;&nbsp;And that's why surprise attacks can be really nasty.&nbsp; But anyone attacking under those circumstances would be scary.&nbsp; Unless this was a situation where wearing armour was actively banned for the other side, there was no real extra advantage from being monks.&nbsp; Barbarians with two handed swords or rogues with daggers would have done just as well.&nbsp;&nbsp;So he's a flavour of rogue.&nbsp; Like the bard.&nbsp;I believe you're thinking of wizards <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; Monks need a hell of a lot of magic to keep up in practice in both 1e and 3e.&nbsp; It is much easier to enchant a fighter's weapon than a monk's fists.&nbsp; Or to get a decent AC with real armour than robes.&nbsp; &nbsp;Even in 3rd, to get to a decent AC, monks need two sets of stat boosters - dex and wis - whereas a fighter's dex bonus is capped if he's wearing plate, and you need a wis of 16 and +2 robes (level 5-9) to even match a mithral twilight chain shirt + mithral buckler or small shield so you can keep up with the wizard's AC when he's not self-buffing.&nbsp; And as level increases, the wizard enchants his buckler as well as his armour - you just have robes to enchant.&nbsp; And as has been discussed you either need a physical weapon or your fists are very expensive to enchant (and you glow like a christmas tree to Detect Magic).&nbsp;Now a setting where you explicitely have no equipment, mundane or magical and the monk rocks.&nbsp; Limited magical equipment and (in 3e) the monk actually lags further than before.&nbsp;&nbsp;Half-useless?&nbsp; You've stripped away all physical armour.&nbsp; We're way into edge case here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5377003, member: 87792"] Actually, I'd say the wizard loses the least. He still has most of his offence. That's because they are a society of assassins. Rogues would do the job every bit as well, only need a dagger, and are generally cheaper to train and a better ROI. And that's why surprise attacks can be [I]really[/I] nasty. But anyone attacking under those circumstances would be scary. Unless this was a situation where wearing armour was actively banned for the other side, there was no real extra advantage from being monks. Barbarians with two handed swords or rogues with daggers would have done just as well. So he's a flavour of rogue. Like the bard. I believe you're thinking of wizards :) Monks need a hell of a lot of magic to keep up in practice in both 1e and 3e. It is much easier to enchant a fighter's weapon than a monk's fists. Or to get a decent AC with real armour than robes. Even in 3rd, to get to a decent AC, monks need two sets of stat boosters - dex [I]and[/I] wis - whereas a fighter's dex bonus is capped if he's wearing plate, and you need a wis of 16 and +2 robes (level 5-9) to even match a mithral twilight chain shirt + mithral buckler or small shield so you can keep up with the wizard's AC when he's not self-buffing. And as level increases, the wizard enchants his buckler as well as his armour - you just have robes to enchant. And as has been discussed you either need a physical weapon or your fists are [I]very[/I] expensive to enchant (and you glow like a christmas tree to Detect Magic). Now a setting where you explicitely have [I]no[/I] equipment, mundane or magical and the monk rocks. Limited magical equipment and (in 3e) the monk actually lags further than before. Half-useless? You've stripped away all physical armour. We're way into edge case here. [/QUOTE]

Verification