|
While we're on Monks: I have now played two sessions as a monk and I'm having a blast with it. I'd love to get some roleplaying advice, as I'd love to get into it, but I don't want to be racist or offensive about it. Right now he has the Far Traveler background and is basically from Fantasy China, and I don't try an accent, I just give him the voice I think every "drunk hermit" character has in cheesy dubbed 70s kung-fu films. I don't give him broken English, but he has simple nicknames for all the party members. He calls the elf "Tall One," the gnome "Small Friend," etc. I'd love to learn more Chinese expressions and metaphors, because I love sayings like "all between heaven and earth" and idioms that come from Chinese poetry. But I don't know where I would start with reading because the only Chinese work I've really read is Journey to the West. Suggestions? FAT BATMAN fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Dec 13, 2016 |
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 05:58 |
|
|
I just googled "chinese idioms", and there seems to be plenty of stuff on various pages that would help you add some kung-fu movie flavor. Foreign-language idioms and metaphors are cool, I could probably read this stuff for hours if I didn't have other things to do. Also nicknaming other PCs has always seemed to me to be a good way to build up a character that other players will remember. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
You specifically want to use the idoms known as chengyu which are the four word phrase idioms that your expected to master to pass the gaokao exam. Get ready to start telling players to stop picking the bones from eggs or else they will be the mouse poop that ruins the congee.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
On names and how one refers to people: I have conflicting desires to refer to my characters by something other than their class and race, but also to avoid feeling really ridiculous addressing other players by the names they chose. It's hard to look at I person I know and call them "Lion-Bear" (the fighter) or "Korrax" (the sorcerer) or whatever pseudo-fantastic name they've given themselves. Especially since the setting is modernized and the only party member with a somewhat modern name is along the lines of "Greg Discopop." Then again, that's something of a signal that they want this campaign to be far less serious than I intended. I need to ask around about their expectations before I start it back up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Mr E posted:I'm playing a monk in a campaign I'm in and just hit 3. He's pretty much pocketed everything he can so far so I'm thinking taking Shadow monk and getting levels in Rogue sometime. I have no idea how well 5e handles multiclassing - is this worth trying out, and when would be a goode time to take Rogue levels? Monk is just about the only class that gains nothing out of multiclassing:
Monk is a decent enough straight-class, it'd just be nice if it could branch out in some ways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Zomborgon posted:On names and how one refers to people: Wait until they do something memorable (good or bad) and reference that. The rogue gets called Knives, which is a shortening of Four Knives, which we started calling him because of the incident where the baron's guards searched him and found "all three" of his knives. Doesn't need to be serious-toned and doesn't need to be a reference to one specific event. I'm sure there's someone in any group of PCs who you could happily nickname Captain Collateral. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Monks are a weird class that shouldve never existed. The game has a ton of rules about unarmed fighting, grappling, using improvised weapon,etc , then a random classed guy shows up from fantasy orient and has special powers because of some kung fu movies. Theyve always been ridiculous and always will be, plus they fall into the trap so many players have of wanting to play a guy who can beat people up and never get hurt or even touched.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
On the other hand, the rules actually have like, almost nothing regarding unarmed fighting or grappling (other than a couple feats), so it's cool to have a class built on it. Also, the idea of an unarmored warrior is really cool and good, and should be available. Also also, monks are actually not good at grappling, and you're generally better with barbarian or bards as the base for a grapple build, usually with some fighter tossed in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Don't grapple
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Theyve always been ridiculous and always will be, plus they fall into the trap so many players have of wanting to play a guy who can beat people up and never get hurt or even touched. But IMO, the Monk should be a Low HP/High AC character. Dodges better than most classes, but can't take a big hit. Conceptually, his shining moment of glory should be when he's surrounded by the BBEG's minions and keeps them all busy while the rest of the party takes on the BBEG. (And IMO conceptually the Fighter's shining moment should be taking on the BBEG and keeping him busy while the rest of the party stops his grand objective) I'm considering asking my DM (who has asked the party for 3 magic items they'd like to find; the less powerful they are, the earlier in the campaign you're likely to find them) for an item that grants +2 AC when you take the Dodge action. FAT BATMAN fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Monk damage is actually relatively pretty low. They mostly exist to spam stunning strike. So, you know, mostly just like 3.x? At one point you could mix shadow monk and rogue really well, but then that was x'd out, and I don't even think it was done maliciously. Once again, mostly just like 3.x (and late Essentials 4e), WotC doesn't actually understand how their own game works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
FAT BATMAN posted:But IMO, the Monk should be a Low HP/High AC character. I can't think of a single spell that targets AC. Defenses encompass far more than just AC and it's spells, not basic attacks, that will absolutely ruin your day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
When I was young I (like many people I imagine) had never been exposed to kung-fu movies so when I read about Monks I assumed they were bad-rear end Franciscans who knew how to throw a hell of a punch. I don't know if that is more or less ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Well, I mean, monks have high Dex and Wis, so they do pretty well against spells that target those... Edit: don't monks get an ability that makes failed saves half damage, and successful saves no damage? Is that another class I'm thinking of? FAT BATMAN fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Also nicknaming other PCs has always seemed to me to be a good way to build up a character that other players will remember. In one campaign I was in, a player picked what was, to me, an overly flowery name that I just plain struggled to remember. So, my character called him a by a riff on his name that was different every time. Even when that character wasn't around. The other players and some NPC's even picked out their own favorite variants to call him by. I'm glad the player took it in stride and made it a point to introduce himself first with his own name before the rest of our characters tarnished it with someone he wants to look good/impressive in front of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:When I was young I (like many people I imagine) had never been exposed to kung-fu movies so when I read about Monks I assumed they were bad-rear end Franciscans who knew how to throw a hell of a punch. First time I encountered Monks was picking up the AD&D books at a garage sale in... 1991? 1992 maybe? I was 11 or 12. So I read this rulebook. Cool, there's druids and different kinds or warriors, and... monks? Like from a monastery? They're described "monastic ascetics". OK... monastic = monastery, obviously, but let's get the dictionary out here: "ascetic: severe self-discipline and abstention from all forms of indulgence, typically for religious reasons". So yeah, monastery monks like in medieval movies and king arthur and that. Makes sense those are in there I guess? They fight with their hands, ok, like a cleric but it's not "no sharp weapons" it's more like "try not to use weapons at all", sure. Oh, and they get thief abilities. The image in my head was absolutely of Friar Tuck punching the living gently caress out of people and taking their stuff. Despite bruce lee films and ninja turtles, monk = eastern martial artist wasn't ever a thought I had until much later in D&D where I saw a pic of some kung fu dude and checked it out and ohhhhhhhhhh, monks. e: Errata/clarification - Ask your DM if you can insert the words "in D&D" after the word "Monks" in the first line of this post. If I was writing this post, that's what I would have written, but check my twitter in case I change my mind again. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Dec 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
FAT BATMAN posted:Well, I mean, monks have high Dex and Wis, so they do pretty well against spells that target those... And they also get an ability later on that buffs their other saves as well I think. Or at least one of them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:First time I encountered Monks was picking up the AD&D books at a garage sale in... 1991? 1992 maybe? I was 11 or 12. I just think of Seann William Scott and Chow Yun-Fat when I think about monks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Monk with a dip into Warlock is probably pretty good because Hex adds +d6 to all of your four attacks per round (until you get hit and lose concentration). You can probably pick up some neat invocations too at level 2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
FAT BATMAN posted:Well, I mean, monks have high Dex and Wis, so they do pretty well against spells that target those... The feature you're thinking of is Evasion, and it's shared with Rogues (as well as being an option for Hunters at very high level). It only applies to Dex saves, and only on abilities that would make you take half damage on a successful save. That means no relative safety against things like Disintegrate which are all or nothing. They get proficiency in all saves come level 14, which is a pretty big deal in a game where ordinarily only a third of your saves scale. That same feature allows you to spend 1 ki point (a pittance at level 14) to reroll a failed save. Con will probably be their weakest save, but at level 10, they gain immunity to poison and disease which are the source of a ton of Con saves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Finally getting around to putting together my one-off (first time DMing) and am sperging a bit about balancing encounters. I've been using this guide which was linked to me earlier for putting together a couple fights but am working on my Boss Fight now and wanted to make it something out of the book. Do you guys think a Wraith (CR 5) makes sense as a boss for a party of 5 level 3 characters (plus one I'm playing as an NPC who is basically a healbot)? I'm worried it has too many damage resistances, since this party has been criminally underrewarded with magic items so far (I'm planning on giving them a bunch) and wraiths are resistant to basically everything. It's gotta be some sort of imposing undead ghost thing. I don't like the actual Ghost creature from the MM, because its main gimmick is possession which I don't feel like doing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
loquacius posted:Finally getting around to putting together my one-off (first time DMing) and am sperging a bit about balancing encounters. I've been using this guide which was linked to me earlier for putting together a couple fights but am working on my Boss Fight now and wanted to make it something out of the book. Do you guys think a Wraith (CR 5) makes sense as a boss for a party of 5 level 3 characters (plus one I'm playing as an NPC who is basically a healbot)? I'm worried it has too many damage resistances, since this party has been criminally underrewarded with magic items so far (I'm planning on giving them a bunch) and wraiths are resistant to basically everything. If you don't want to overload them with new items, make it a bit of a puzzle monster! In the case of spectral stuff in particular, it's reasonable enough to include some sort of magic ritual that can draw it into a more physical state that can be harmed more easily. Make a list of instructions on how such a ritual might go and put it in with the first nearby treasure stash that they uncover. Make sure that they can find all of the ritual components, either around the dungeon or scattered around the boss room as a previous attempt to use it. Do, of course, give them at least some magic weapons. At the very least, it will still help before the spell goes off, and they won't be completely lost without the ritual if they don't trust it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
For what it's worth I also wrote a guide on making boss monsters: https://songoftheblade.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/designing-boss-monsters/ But feel free to disregard if you really wanted it to be something out of the book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
I like the idea of puzzle elements; the boss in question is a big angry ghost that rises out of the embalmed corpse of a long-dead aristocrat when his grandson (a useless fop) begs it for help. I'm thinking maybe if they manage to force it back inside its body, it's stuck there until its next turn, and if they manage to destroy the body (by dealing it some amount of damage) with the wraith inside, it's dead. Having trouble thinking of conditions for forcing the wraith back into its body, though. Kiting it on top of the body sounds too easy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Question for the thread: If you multiclass together 2 classes that prepare spells, do you effectively get access to all spells (as long as you have slots of the appropriate level) for both classes? It seems so at first glance, I'm just wondering if there is some exception buried in the rules that would negate this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Question for the thread: No. You only get access to spells from each class up what they would have at their class level. So a Sorcerer 2 / Paladin 18 would only have level one sorcerer spells. I forget where this exception is buried but it definitely exists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
PHB page 164, it's not really buried.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:PHB page 164, it's not really buried. I think the example there is kinda bad, because it talks about Known spells vs. Wizard spells (which are all spellbook fuckery) The specific idea I'm thinking of is like, can a Cleric1/Druid4 prepare Mass Healing Word (a 3rd level Cleric spell) since they have 3rd level slots? P.d0t fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Dec 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
The answer is no, but it might have come via twitter. There is: "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." But that doesn't say what level the hypothetical single-class member of each class should be treated as.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Mr. Tambo posted:The answer is no, but it might have come via twitter. Yeah, that's the thing; the MC section doesn't really specify anything about this, but the individual classes say this: (cleric for example) "[...]choose a number of cleric spells equal to your Wisdom modifier + your cleric level (minimum of one spell.) The spell must be of a level for which you have spell slots." The errata for Paladin smite specifies that you don't have to use Paladin slots (because such a thing basically doesn't exist in game-mechanic terms) and that you can use any slot. I think that's probably relevant in this case. Multiclassing has its own slot progression, but I think as long as you have the right level of slots, you should be able to prepare spells of that level for any/all spellcasting classes you have  e: if you don't have a lot of levels in a class, you'll be limited in the number of spells you can prepare for it, but not in the level, AFAICT
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
The example on page 164 seems very clear to me, and explicitly disallows your interpretation. As does the rules on the same page.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:The example on page 164 seems very clear to me, and explicitly disallows your interpretation. As does the rules on the same page. Ok so the example is saying a Wizard3/Ranger4 can prepare 2nd level wizard spells because a 3rd level wizard would have 2nd level slots, even though a Wizard3/Ranger4 would have 3rd level slots? I guess that's "clear" sorta. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Dec 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
The monk discussion has me wanting to try playing a monk/druid. Probably not mechanically optimal but could have some cool rp flavor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
I never understood why tongue of the sun and moon lets you speak all languages. Wouldn't it be more monk-y if it was like "through meditation you become one with nature, you can now communicate with plants and animals"
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Ok so the example is saying a Wizard3/Ranger4 can prepare 2nd level wizard spells because a 3rd level wizard would have 2nd level slots, even though a Wizard3/Ranger4 would have 3rd level slots? "Your capacity for spellcasting depends partly on your combined levels in all your spellcasting classes and partly on your individual levels in those classes." Individual levels in each class matter. Also, the very next sentence says these rules replace the spellcasting rules from the original class. "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." Spells you can prepare depend on individual class levels. When taken together with the previous paragraph, it's clear that this replaces the normal know/prepare rules. "If you are a ranger 4/wizard 3, for example, you know three 1st-level ranger spells based on your levels in the ranger class. As 3rd-level wizard, you know three wizard cantrips, and your spellbook contains ten wizard spells, two of which (the two you gained when you reached 3rd level as a wizard) can be 2nd-level spells." A fourth level ranger can cast 1st level ranger spells. A third level wizard can cast 2nd level wizard spells. They literally explain every single spell such a character has access to in the example quoted. There's no need to invent other spells. I mean, the naturalistic language bullshit sucks, but this is about as clear as 5e gets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Yeah I was just assuming that once you MC, the only slot progression that mattered was the MC one, because my reading is  That setup is pretty tedious. BONUS QUESTION: how does MC slot progression interact with Land Druid's "Natural Recovery"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:BONUS QUESTION: I see no reason it does not work exactly as written. You regain spell slots equal to half your druid level, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
It's funny to me that D&D's orientalism results in sword saints that don't use swords.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
My friend have you seen the Sohei
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 05:58 |
|
|
The thing to remember about D&D monks is that they exist because some dude really liked a novel series I've never heard of that involved MARTIAL ARTS, and Kung Fu was popular at the time, and so they decided to make David Carradine into a class, then shoved in whatever vaguely "oriental mystic" powers he could think of off the top of his head, and it was a miserable class that did not function in the slightest, but nobody cared because nobody actually liked the monk class, so it was left lovely on purpose. 3e and 5e ape AD&D as hard as they can because they are inherently deficient games made by cowards, which is what leads to the 5e monk being such a bizarre bundle of mishmash abilities that don't interact with each other, because that's what the AD&D monk was, because it was invented overnight, and then never touched or changed again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 15:28
|
|