Multiple Ability Dependance and other tall tales

[Crothian]

In some ways, all characters are more-or-less dependent on Dex and Int. These two abilities provide for many skill benefits. Wisdom is never a bad thing, either.

I still follow the misguided belief that the Ranger, Bard, Paladin and Monk are dependent on multiple abilities. While you can make a character with low-end scores work, it's best to have at least a 13+ in two or three core abilities for these classes. Charisma seems to be the all-important score for these four classes. Passable Int, Wis and Con scores are also handy. Rangers have the additional need for Str (melee) or Dex (Archer.)

Once again the old AD&D wisdom applies- If you roll crappy ability scores, you're better off being a Fighter.

But even the standard array, which is wasy worse then anyone else uses gives two scores of 13+ so there should be zero problems getting that for these characters. MAD seems to assume that so many stats have to be high that average character people play (and not average character because people don't play them) can't play them.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

No, its a problem with the monk trying to do to much. Punch damage increases with level so the damage will be there plus they get the extra attacks. A good Wisdom and Dex are important for AC but a monk is mobbile so probably shouldn't be expecting to go toew to toe as much as the fighter. And why is the monk trying to compete with both the fighter and the rogue for what he does? I do agree if you try to make one character better then two diverse character you will be in trouble. So, don't try to make one monk be everything and then the problem is solved.

Too bad they can't hit anything. What is the point of doing damage if it hardly ever comes up? This is what I mean by the "monk lottery".

I think a lot of people who play monks really want to play martial artists or brawlers, and play as front-liners. However, DnD rules suck for such characters, as well as for light fighters. You'll need D20 Modern for that.

 

[Crothian]

Too bad they can't hit anything. What is the point of doing damage if it hardly ever comes up? This is what I mean by the "monk lottery".

I think a lot of people who play monks really want to play martial artists or brawlers, and play as front-liners. However, DnD rules suck for such characters, as well as for light fighters. You'll need D20 Modern for that.

They can hit stuffloosing +2 attack bonus only alters the odds of hiting a bit. But it seems like people who want to play monks don't want to play monks, they want to play fighters with unarmed combat ability.

 

[JustaPlayer]

They can hit stuffloosing +2 attack bonus only alters the odds of hiting a bit. But it seems like people who want to play monks don't want to play monks, they want to play fighters with unarmed combat ability.

10% is a big difference. And it only gets worse as you go up in levels. But say I'm willing to be ok with that. I still go in to fight. For a monks abilities to work in the first place, he needs to be wear no armor. A fighter, barbarian, cleric.... all can have ACs easily over 20. I have to rely on my Wis and Dex for AC. Even is I have 16s in those scores, my AC is only 16. So now, not only is it harder for me to hit them, it's easier for them to hit me.

Yes the Cleric can hand it to a Monk in a straight up fight if any of the Monks key abilities are lacking, and that doesn't even include spells.

 

[Crothian]

10% is a big difference. And it only gets worse as you go up in levels. But say I'm willing to be ok with that. I still go in to fight. For a monks abilities to work in the first place, he needs to be wear no armor. A fighter, barbarian, cleric.... all can have ACs easily over 20. I have to rely on my Wis and Dex for AC. Even is I have 16s in those scores, my AC is only 16. So now, not only is it harder for me to hit them, it's easier for them to hit me.

Yes the Cleric can hand it to a Monk in a straight up fight if any of the Monks key abilities are lacking, and that doesn't even include spells.

barbarians rarely have high ACs, and by the time clerics and fighters can get in the 20's (which means magical protecxtions) the monk also can have magical protections.

 

[Henry]

In term of Multiple ability dependence, I believe it exists, in the name of "needs at least a positive bonus to function well." As for "needs multiple 15s and 16s to do well," then I don't agree. Even a monk, that mogul of MAD, doesn't need a 15+ STR, WIS, DEX, and CON. He may need a high Dex, and a high strength, but WIS and CON are just gravy, they aren't absolutes.

Honestly, would a Monk with a 10 CON or 12 CON do so much worse than a Fighter with a 12 Con? Would a Monk with no WIS bonus be so much worse off than a Rogue with a 15 Dex? Despite popular belief, Monks aren't front-line fighters, they're designed for hit and run and long-term survival, and especially for Mage disruption. Of course, it's always better to have any character with higher stats, but a monk with 2 14's in STR and DEX, and a couple of 11's or 12's in WIS or CON, will still perform quite well in a party with equivalent stats. I've seen it done, though I haven't done it, because I don't think I've ever had a chance to play a monk in a game. The person who did it was a master of Tumble, and stuck to the secondary threats, such as spellcasters, as well was specializing in getting into special places the rest of the party couldn't.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Monk is the worst offender.

People saying you can play a monk without better ability scores than other characters ... wrong.
Then saying that you just "can't play it like a Fighter or Rogue" ... wrong.

What should a Monk DO? If you're saying they shouldn't do anything, then, what's the point of the class?

A Monk with poor STR ... you get the lottery effect, but the biggest problem is that half their bonus feats and special abilities are STR based. What possible use is it to have Improved Trip if you can't actually TRIP anybody once you're there? What use is it to have Improved Grapple if you can't win any grapple opposed rolls? If Trip and Grapple allowed monks to sub Dex in, then they could dump STR totally, but they can't so you can't. Stunning Fist and Quivering Palm require you to HIT, which unless you're going Finesse and avoiding the Improved line totally, means you're SOL there as well.

Monks need Dex for AC, because they don't wear armor. They can go Finesse and make Dex more important by subbing in this stat on the To-Hit, but standard you're not there.

Monks NEED Wis because it replaces their ability to wear armor. Bracers of Armor are artificially price-jumped. A Dex-based character of another class can grab the ever-present Chain Shirt and Mithril Chain Shirt for cheap, and enchant it for even more cheap, but the prohibition against ALL armors really shafts the Monk there. To get even the AC of a backline archer, then, the Monk has to have a 16 Wis (+3, +1 Monk) to START OFF ... but the monk doesn't have any ranged abilities, so he has to get in and mix it up.

The Monk is also a high skill-point class with skill-dependant abilities. He has Move Silently, Balance, and Tumble for doing rogue-like things. So he needs at least passable Int to keep ranks in those. To say that the ROGUE should be the only one using those skills is missing the point. The rogue isn't the only light class in the game, the rogue is the only trap-disarming class in the game. Monks and Rangers also get in on the silent action.

You can, of course, take all of those things away from the Monk, and really then, why's the guy playing him at the table anyway? The monk is there to mix it up in melee, sneak around, and use special close combat feats. Nobody expects him to disarm traps for the rogue, nobody expects him to do more damage than the barbarian, nobody expects him to tank like the fighter. But he has to do SOME of EACH of those or there's no point in playing the character. And if he can't effectively DO any of those things, then it's a bust class.

I sigh every time somebody wants to play a Monk. I even allow Monks access to some extra non-core feats to give them a leg up, but the fact remains that with point buy set any lower than 32, you can't keep up with the other classes even doing "your own thing".

--fje

 

[Urbannen]

MAD was how the designers of 3.0 translated the minimum ability scores of earlier edition character classes. If you'll remember, Paladins, Monks, and Rangers had the highest and most stringent minimum ability requirements in First and Second edition AD&D. In Third Edition these three classes benefit more from higher scores than other character classes. You don't have to have a 17 CHA to play a paladin anymore, but it certainly helps.

In older editions you could only play these classes if you got lucky on your rolls. It's possible to play a Monk with point buy, but you're better off choosing that class if you have a fortunate set of rolled stats. I mean, lower level monks really stink without good stats.

 

[JustaPlayer]

barbarians rarely have high ACs, and by the time clerics and fighters can get in the 20's (which means magical protecxtions) the monk also can have magical protections.

Full plate will get you to 20 right off the block. All you would need is the +1 for Dex.

I would still need two of the ability scores to be very high for the monk to even come close. Yes, as the monk advances he get's up to a +4 added in by the time he gets to 20th level, which means that with 2 16s he will be at 20 without other magical equipment(which other characters will undoubtably have as well) There is no way that the Monk can keep up in that area. Sure, you are going to be able to do great damage when you do hit, but it doesn't compensate for the statistical disadvantage in hitting. And I'm only talking about two good scores. Now I can go the other way and put one good ability in str but then my AC goes down more and I still have my arse handed to me.

As far as Barbarians getting in the 20s. I don't do it when playing the class, but as far as I know the is nothing restricting them from wearing heavy armor.

If Monks aren't suppose to be on the front lines what are they really good at? You can't sneek up on them and they get to evade spells and other things like that, but when it come for usefulness, there just isn't much if it isn't suppose to be fighting. No skills like a thief or bard, no spells like other classes.

 

[Crothian]

Monk is the worst offender.

People saying you can play a monk without better ability scores than other characters ... wrong.
Then saying that you just "can't play it like a Fighter or Rogue" ... wrong.

What should a Monk DO? If you're saying they shouldn't do anything, then, what's the point of the class?

Be a monk, don't try to out do the fighter or the rogue. The monk is a not either. They can support and help out those classes, sure but they can't replace them. But my main point was to one poster who said they had to be both.

And you can play the monk without better abilities then other classes, I've done and seen it done.