|
Selachian posted:1e monks didn't have spellcasting abilities; they just gained a variety immunities, a hilariously feeble self-healing ability, and for some reason the ability to speak with animals and plants.
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
FMguru posted:Pretty much everything monks could do in early versions of D&D were taken from David Carradine's character in the Kung Fu TV series. Apparently, someone at Gygax's table wanted to play "the guy from Kung Fu" and Gygax said "sure" and whipped up some rules for him, so the class is just a random agglomeration of half-remembered things from a TV show. The best way to play D&D.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
I've variously heard that the primary inspirations for the monk were Remo Williams and Carl Douglas' "Kung Fu Fighting." The timing is definitely right for both.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Oh man...quote:Recently I was at Dragonflight's 36th year of conventioning in the Bellevue, WA area. I was there with PlaytestNW as an designer demoing my board game prototype, having a great time. Dragonflight is a very small con- I'm used to going to PAX every year- and I kept seeing someone that was catching my eye.   Yes, that's actually McCracken's business card.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
It always amuses the poo poo out of me when grown men are just completely living the dream of whatever they thought was cool when they were 13 years old.quote:Tailored, fitted suede jacket with subtle gothic designs in the pattern and details. A tasteful grey mohawk that would be the rival of any russian blue fancier. A complete lack of stubble on either his face or sides of his mohawk betrayed immaculate grooming.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:It always amuses the poo poo out of me when grown men are just completely living the dream of whatever they thought was cool when they were 13 years old. gently caress it, if most of us were able to pull it off, we totally would.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:Monks should just get more enlightened as they level up, eventually transcending the illusion of reality. 3.0 already did that (sort of).  D20 SRD posted:Perfect Self
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Oh man... But why isn't his quote "I created the World of Synnibar"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
I always saw monk psionics as some sort of ki thing, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
The Bee posted:I always saw monk psionics as some sort of ki thing, honestly. Is there really a difference?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
The Bee posted:I always saw monk psionics as some sort of ki thing, honestly. At one point in 4e they were going to have a "ki" power source, but then they realized how racist it was to have "IS ASIAN" as a power source and changed the monk to be psionic - thus why it sorta doesn't fit in with the other psionic classes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:At one point in 4e they were going to have a "ki" power source, but then they realized how racist it was to have "IS ASIAN" as a power source and changed the monk to be psionic - thus why it sorta doesn't fit in with the other psionic classes. Allegedly the Runepriest and Seeker were originally designed for the Ki power source as well, which might explain why they are so orphaned in terms of support and why the Seeker in particular isn't really very good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:IIRC the Monk was originally a hybrid between a Cleric since they could cast Divine Magic, and then a Thief so that they would have Thief skills, and then they just had a specific bonus to let their unarmed strikes hit as hard as weapons. The OD&D monk was nominally a Cleric sub-class, though they didn't really have much more in common with the Cleric than they did with the Fighter, mechanically or conceptually. One of the many attempts that 2e made to reintroduce the Monk concept was a specialty priest who traded some clerical spellcasting spheres for martial arts proficiencies, but that's the only time the Monk was an actual Cleric variant in more than just name.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
The Bee posted:I always saw monk psionics as some sort of ki thing, honestly. Ki is a concept of Martial Arts the fighter would use ki just as much as a monk would the only reason to separate the two is to make the fighter more mundane.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
It's also fundamental to traditional Chinese medicine, Geomancy (Feng Shui), etc. If you *really* want to go there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi Cyberpunkey Monkey fucked around with this message at 07:58 on Aug 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Pretty much everything monks could do in early versions of D&D were taken from David Carradine's character in the Kung Fu TV series. Apparently, someone at Gygax's table wanted to play "the guy from Kung Fu" and Gygax said "sure" and whipped up some rules for him, so the class is just a random agglomeration of half-remembered things from a TV show. The other thing about the AD&D Thief is that Gygax' approach to designing the class appears to have been to take a thief, and give it some random abilities and that's why its power level is awful. (The self-heal catches its hp back up with a thief of the same XP for example). The 3.0 monk was a bad case of Cargo-Cult design, looking at the abilities and not even noticing that it was balanced against the rogues. So whereas the rogue went from 8 thief skills to 8 + Int Modifier skill points/level, the Monk went from 6 Thief Skills to 4+Int modifier skill points/level.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
quote:
Stars Without Number is, of course, a sci-fi game, and like all sci-fi, it must hew closely to the historical record.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:The other thing about the AD&D Thief is that Gygax' approach to designing the class appears to have been to take a thief, and give it some random abilities and that's why its power level is awful. (The self-heal catches its hp back up with a thief of the same XP for example). Of course that in turn reveals how hilariously inept some of the 3.0 design was, as Thieves went from 8 thief skills and 3+int NWPs to having 8+int skill points/level. Except those thief skills got further divided up; Find/Remove Traps became two different skills; Use Scrolls went from an inherent ability to yet ANOTHER skill they had to learn; they lost the ability to climb sheer walls (as Climb was now a universal skill); Read Languages became ANOTHER skill they'd have to learn. Etc, etc. The counterbalance in theory is that rogues in AD&D only had, what, 60 points (I think?) to spread amongst their skills, so you'd end up with the same issue of some skills having higher points then others - and indeed in AD&D it was all on a percentile roll, so a level 1 rogue had a starkly less then 50% chance to succeed at ANYTHING. Of course, the return again is that with NWPs and thief skills there was a cap on how good you needed them to be, so you could simply stop leveling one skill and focus on another. This isn't to say the AD&D thief was better then the 3.0 rogue (good heavens no, the AD&D thief was a rancid pile of poo poo), but it is to say that 3.0 was really lazy and the developers rarely thought their design ideas all the way through. Or even half the way through. The monk is a great example of just blindly repeating AD&D after completely changing the system so none of AD&D's actual systems remain.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:The other thing about the AD&D Thief is that Gygax' approach to designing the class appears to have been to take a thief, and give it some random abilities and that's why its power level is awful. (The self-heal catches its hp back up with a thief of the same XP for example). The cargo cult thing is a huge problem in and of itself with how monk abilities interact with ability scores in 3.x too. Since they're melee fighters they need Str/Dex/Con by default to hit and take hits. And they're gonna be taking hits since flurry of blows is a full-round action and why would you get that ability and not try to use it? Then they also will need a good Wis score since they get an AC bonus from that too. Oh, and don't forget INT if you want to use the decent variety of skills you get; you'll probably want tumble buffed up at every level at least, plus stealth skills and perception stuff. You'd think that would leave you with Cha as a dump stat, but then why the heck would you get tongue of the sun and moon, which allows you to speak every language? Well I hope you've been putting skill points in your diplomacy/bluff skills for the past 18 levels and your Cha isn't atrocious because otherwise that sweet power the wizard has been able to do since level 5 is totally useless for you
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Get out your bingo cards, it's time for a D&D 4E review from a guy who doesn't even like D&D! Rejoice!
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Get out your bingo cards, it's time for a D&D 4E review from a guy who doesn't even like D&D! I was trying to remember what RPGSite shitpile grog dump I vaguely remember the name "Lindybeige" from, but then I remembered he just makes historical war essay videos and first showed up in this thread with a "Haha, suck it players" D&D video. His interest in war and battle seems like it would be a perfect fit for D&D4, but welp. FAKE EDIT: Haha, "four hour fight with five kobolds" gently caress off. "What even are hit points!?" ---> "Healing surges are bullshit because hit points represent physical damage!" loving tool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
On the one hand that guy makes a ton of videos griping about how poo poo in D&D isn't realistic, regardless of edition. On the other hand, poo poo in D&D not being realistic is, like, loving duh, dude. There's even one where he professes to like RuneQuest as a better representation of medieval combat or whatever, but then goes right on talking about D&D anyway as if there was some phantom force compelling people to play D&D all the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
This guy's voice sounds exactly like a british comedian impersonating someone richer than him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
I like lindybeige when he's talking about shields and armour and crap, never knew he had opinions about games
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
drunkencarp posted:That one is history, not sexism. Firearms have equalized the situation somewhat but there are no two ways about it, physical strength matters and men have more of it on average. Besides that, you need fewer males to sustain a population through reproduction so they're more expendable. And that's before even getting into cultural mores which mostly have discouraged (to say the least) the use of women on the front lines. Stars Without Number is, of course, a sci-fi game, and like all sci-fi, it must hew closely to the historical record. [/quote] Facist, sexist scifi (  and for that matter fantasy) has been the norm for the genre for most of its history. Its hardly surprising that so many terrible people rage out when confronted with something that breaks the mold.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
drunkencarp posted:That one is history, not sexism. Firearms have equalized the situation somewhat but there are no two ways about it, physical strength matters and men have more of it on average. Besides that, you need fewer males to sustain a population through reproduction so they're more expendable. And that's before even getting into cultural mores which mostly have discouraged (to say the least) the use of women on the front lines. Stars Without Number is, of course, a sci-fi game, and like all sci-fi, it must hew closely to the historical record. [/quote] I agree with the first quote though. If that's a thing actually written in Starvation Cheap, that's kind of disappointing for Crawford. We all have our blind spots?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
starkebn posted:I like lindybeige when he's talking about shields and armour and crap, never knew he had opinions about games Yeah I've learned a good amount. Also his rants about other stuff are better avoided as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Watch a hobo dressed like a philosophy professor absolutely destroy the concept of dual wielding over 7 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:
The text in the current Starvation Cheap beta (emphasis added): Kevin Crawford posted:Women and Men In Uniform Also, the Starvation Cheap Kickstarter has about 24 hours left, if you're interested.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
When reading, I interpret that as saying kind of the opposite of what the earlier grog did. " There sure has been a lot of male soldiers, huh? Whatever. Don't worry about any kind of half-rear end 'historical realism' or anything, you can just have female mercenaries, no sensible person will give a poo poo. Only worry at all if you're dealing with culture (or races) explicitly written as unusual in some way."
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Tolan posted:The text in the current Starvation Cheap beta (emphasis added): Oh okay. That sounds perfectly correct and reasonable and not groggy at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The counterbalance in theory is that rogues in AD&D only had, what, 60 points (I think?) to spread amongst their skills, so you'd end up with the same issue of some skills having higher points then others - and indeed in AD&D it was all on a percentile roll, so a level 1 rogue had a starkly less then 50% chance to succeed at ANYTHING. AD&D Thieves get flat % chances, not points to distribute. That starts in 2nd ed. 1st level thieves are still crap (between 10% and 30% chance unmodified by race) at everything except climbing walls, where they have an 85% chance to succeed. A 12th level thief (same xp as a fighter 9) is gonna have >100% in a few thief skills, especially if they chose Halfling as their race.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
The idea of having a flat percentage chance to pull off any of the thief skills was cool as far as really empowering the thief in their own wheelhouse: it could be a door locked by Satan himself and he'd still be able to pick it absent the DM being a prohibitive dick or botching the DC estimation. It's just that the chance was way too low. I play with a houserule I borrowed from somewhere else I read where all thief skills are at 50% to begin with and they gain another 4% per level.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
In 2e, we used to just say "If anyone else can even try this (thing covered by a thief skill), the thief doesn't even need to roll". So what's listed in the % chance for the thief to do a thing that, for anyone else, is flat-out impossible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
I never quite understood why Open Lock DCs were so freakin' high in 3.x, even for simple/average locks. It's already a trained-only skill, so it's not like you need to niche-protect for trained characters. Why is it as hard for a rogue with trained Open Lock to pick a "good" lock -- you know, the ones that cost 80 gp, are freely available for sale and light enough for a character to carry around for downtime practice, and are likely to be encountered multiple times per dungeon -- as it is for a wizard with trained Knowledge (planes) to identify an obscure outsider known only from dusty tomes and last seen on the Prime Material Plane before living memory? Why is opening an "amazing" lock, which costs all of 150 gp and is probably the security standard for anyone wealthy enough for a mid-level and up thief to even care, a task of equivalent difficulty (DC 40) to some lower-end epic skill uses?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
To encourage you to cast knock instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The idea of having a flat percentage chance to pull off any of the thief skills was cool as far as really empowering the thief in their own wheelhouse: it could be a door locked by Satan himself and he'd still be able to pick it absent the DM being a prohibitive dick or botching the DC estimation. Then again who knows how Gary actually ran it at his table. I'm pretty sure that a lot of the stuff in the DMG he just made up as he was writing it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 08:51
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:On the one hand that guy makes a ton of videos griping about how poo poo in D&D isn't realistic, regardless of edition. There's a lot of people who hate D&D and yet still play it for a variety of reasons. Anything from "nobody runs the games I like and I want to play not DM" to "I'm a D&D fan even if I hate everything in it" or even "But of course I play D&D, it's D&D!" Antivehicular posted:I never quite understood why Open Lock DCs were so freakin' high in 3.x, even for simple/average locks. It's already a trained-only skill, so it's not like you need to niche-protect for trained characters. Why is it as hard for a rogue with trained Open Lock to pick a "good" lock -- you know, the ones that cost 80 gp, are freely available for sale and light enough for a character to carry around for downtime practice, and are likely to be encountered multiple times per dungeon -- as it is for a wizard with trained Knowledge (planes) to identify an obscure outsider known only from dusty tomes and last seen on the Prime Material Plane before living memory? Why is opening an "amazing" lock, which costs all of 150 gp and is probably the security standard for anyone wealthy enough for a mid-level and up thief to even care, a task of equivalent difficulty (DC 40) to some lower-end epic skill uses? The 3.x DCs were built around whatever the devs thought would be most "realistic." At no point in time throughout the entire development of 3.x did they really pay attention to how any of their mechanics actually worked together. It also suffers a lot from "Oh he's totally level 20." As in "Aragorn? Oh he's totally level 20. Conan? Oh he's totally level 20. Robin Hood? Oh he's totally level 20." Basically design for martial characters and martial exploits in 3.x (and of course now in 5e as well) starts with "pick a fictional character. H's totally level 20, so that's the cap." Magic spells on the other hand tend to be the opposite; "what's powerful and awesome enough to be the highest level spell?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 08:54
|
|
|
Sailor Viy posted:There are a bunch of modifiers in the 1e DMG for the quality of the lock, the tools used, etc. So no, it doesn't give the thief a flat chance for any lock. I just finished reading the PHB about an hour ago, and this strongly describes my impression of it. I like all the unenforced "musts." A bard MUST have a stringed instrument at all times. Or what, Gary?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:There's a lot of people who hate D&D and yet still play it for a variety of reasons. Anything from "nobody runs the games I like and I want to play not DM" to "I'm a D&D fan even if I hate everything in it" or even "But of course I play D&D, it's D&D!" I'm really trying nowadays to get out of the d20 hole just to broaden my horizons (despite the fact that I'm running 3 different D&D PbPs! Oh well) Games that do gritty combat out-of-the-box, games that don't use Vancian casting, games that are class-less and/or heavily skill based, games where "to-hit" and "damage reduction from armor" are different things out of the box. HeroQuest, Strike!, the GUMSHOE series, the whole panoply of Chaosium/roll-under-percentile games, the d6 system, that sort of thing. ProfessorCirno posted:The 3.x DCs were built around whatever the devs thought would be most "realistic." At no point in time throughout the entire development of 3.x did they really pay attention to how any of their mechanics actually worked together. It also suffers a lot from "Oh he's totally level 20." As in "Aragorn? Oh he's totally level 20. Conan? Oh he's totally level 20. Robin Hood? Oh he's totally level 20." So I'm doing this F&F review of HARP, which is a stripped-down version of Rolemaster, which in turn I've heard repeatedly mentioned as a progenitor of 3rd Edition D&D given how Monte Cook used to work on RM. And I'm beginning to see the similarities: even if RM uses percentile dice, the bumps and bonuses and penalties are mostly in multiples of 5, which means you can reduce it down to d20. Except 3rd Edition moved to a DM-arbitrated DC rather than "success on a 20 or better" that would be the equivalent of RM's "success on a 100 or better". I guess it comes from the whole rules-as-physics schtick of 3e, where you have to assign a specific DC to any given activity that might be performed in the world in a vacuum, rather than "okay Bob wants to benchpress the Ogre. Do I give him a +2 or a -2?" against a single target number. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 09:33 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 09:30
|
|