PDA

View Full Version : Were first edition monks better?



Green-Shirt Q
2008-08-26, 03:41 PM
I had always thought that monks were cool, and the best class in the game. Untill I had gazed upon a thread that pointed out all the flaws of the monk and I had realized that my DMs had always built the adventures around me, so that to balence the monk.

So what I want to know is how long my DMs have been lying to me about my usefulness as a monk. I've never played the second edition but had played the first quite a bit. So, if anybody can remember those glorious days of simplicity, please tell me: have monks have ever been good?

Burley
2008-08-26, 03:52 PM
I had always thought that monks were cool, and the best class in the game. Untill I had gazed upon a thread that pointed out all the flaws of the monk and I had realized that my DMs had always built the adventures around me, so that to balence the monk.

So what I want to know is how long my DMs have been lying to me about my usefulness as a monk. I've never played the second edition but had played the first quite a bit. So, if anybody can remember those glorious days of simplicity, please tell me: have monks have ever been good?

I've never played in 1st edition, so, I can't actually answer your question. But, I need to ask: Simplicity? Isn't that the edition where individual weapons have bonuses and negatives against each other?

Spiryt
2008-08-26, 03:57 PM
I had always thought that monks were cool, and the best class in the game. Untill I had gazed upon a thread that pointed out all the flaws of the monk and I had realized that my DMs had always built the adventures around me, so that to balence the monk.

So what I want to know is how long my DMs have been lying to me about my usefulness as a monk. I've never played the second edition but had played the first quite a bit. So, if anybody can remember those glorious days of simplicity, please tell me: have monks have ever been good?

I know that they where cosmically overpowered in Baldurs Gate II on higher levels.

Dunno how much BG II is bounded with 2ed.

Matthew
2008-08-26, 03:59 PM
At low levels they suck quite hard (but probably not as bad as the D20 Monk). At high levels they are a lot better.

They are not magicians, though, high level spell casters are pretty powerful in AD&D (even if not as stupidly powerful as in D20).

tyckspoon
2008-08-26, 03:59 PM
I know that they where cosmically overpowered in Baldurs Gate II on higher levels.

Dunno how much BG II is bounded with 2ed.

Monks also prod large amounts of buttocks in Neverwinter Nights and NWN2, which are based on 3.0 and 3.5. Videogame adaptations often don't work quite the same way as the original.

Starbuck_II
2008-08-26, 04:37 PM
I know that they where cosmically overpowered in Baldurs Gate II on higher levels.

Dunno how much BG II is bounded with 2ed.

That has several reasons in 2E:
You gain immunity to non-magical weapons, MR (which is better than SR I thought personally), and their bab wasn't that far behind the Fighter (they were almost if not full BAB).

Plus, their AC was decent (since AC rarely went above -10, since that was supposed to be the limit).

Spiryt
2008-08-26, 04:46 PM
That has several reasons in 2E:
You gain immunity to non-magical weapons, MR (which is better than SR I thought personally), and their bab wasn't that far behind the Fighter (they were almost if not full BAB).

Plus, their AC was decent (since AC rarely went above -10, since that was supposed to be the limit).

Well, I gained AC of - 13 in BG II, and I could gain a little better one, but at least in BG II it doesn't really matter, both monsters and PC on high levels have so ridiculously low THAC0 that 90 - 95% of strikes were succesful anyway.

Green-Shirt Q
2008-08-26, 04:49 PM
I am specifically referring to the first Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. I doubt I have played any of the other things you guys are mentioning.

arguskos
2008-08-26, 04:49 PM
Well, I gained AC of - 13 in BG II, and I could gain a little better one, but at least in BG II it doesn't really matter, both monsters and PC on high levels have so ridiculously low THAC0 that 90 - 95% of strikes were succesful anyway.
-13? Wow. I routinely got -20 or lower. Anyway, Monks in BG2 weren't even that amazing (unarmed damage just wasn't good enough).

However, I seem to recall actual AD&D monks being teh hax if you could be one (damn stat dependencies!).

-argus

Green-Shirt Q
2008-08-26, 04:53 PM
However, I seem to recall actual AD&D monks being teh hax if you could be one (damn stat dependencies!).

-argus

I am afraid I do not know what "teh hax" means. Could you explain it further?

arguskos
2008-08-26, 04:56 PM
My apologies. It's internet slang for, "really freaking amazing" or some-such.

Basically, I remember that, much like Paladins, it was incredibly difficult to become a Monk in AD&D, but if you could, you got a myriad of powerful abilities and bonuses, like high Magic Resistance, strong attacks, a very low AC, etc.

-argus

infinitypanda
2008-08-26, 04:58 PM
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teh+hax

Edit: Ninjad.

Green-Shirt Q
2008-08-26, 04:59 PM
Thank you. And no need to apologize. I simpily have no idea what everybody is saying these days due to the fact I do not get out much.

Since I remember I had some pretty great stats, my mind is at rest. Thanks again.

Spiryt
2008-08-26, 05:03 PM
-13? Wow. I routinely got -20 or lower. Anyway, Monks in BG2 weren't even that amazing (unarmed damage just wasn't good enough).



Well, - 6 armor + some stuff for - 8, plus dunno what 25 Dexteruty was worth? Let's assume - 8, plus with some good tower shield it indeed could be 20 or lower... Or are you thinking some Kensai or other subclasses?

But constant 25 Dex isn't that easy and shield figthing wasn't that good.

Anyway, monk I did easily beat the crap out of Sarevok, and there is no better fighter than this guy probably....

Akimbo
2008-08-26, 05:11 PM
Well, - 6 armor + some stuff for - 8, plus dunno what 25 Dexteruty was worth? Let's assume - 8, plus with some good tower shield it indeed could be 20 or lower...

But constant 25 Dex isn't that easy and shield figthing wasn't that good.

Anyway, monk I did easily beat the crap out of Sarevok, and there is no better fighter than this guy probably....

I think this is your problem, you are playing Baldur's gate I.

In two level ascends much higher and gear is much better. You could easily get armor with a base AC of -4-5, add in Dex 18 to get another -3 or -4, then you got ring of protection +3, a Ring of Gaxx, a shield that reduces it further by about 7-8. Cloak of protection? Did that stack? Cloak of the Sewers did,that was -1, Helm of Baluran was another -1. So many different things to lower AC, theoretically you could even have a defending weapon.

And that's not even going into Throne of Bhaal

Matthew
2008-08-26, 05:12 PM
Well, - 6 armor + some stuff for - 8, plus dunno what 25 Dexteruty was worth? Let's assume - 8, plus with some good tower shield it indeed could be 20 or lower...

But constant 25 Dex isn't that easy and shield figthing wasn't that good.

Anyway, monk I did easily beat the crap out of Sarevok, and there is no better fighter than this guy probably....

Nah, it's actually physically capped at -10. Some game masters released the cap, some didn't. I think Baldur's Gate did.

Spiryt
2008-08-26, 05:14 PM
I think this is your problem, you are playing Baldur's gate I.

In two level ascends much higher and gear is much better. You could easily get armor with a base AC of -4-5, add in Dex 18 to get another -3 or -4, then you got ring of protection +3, a Ring of Gaxx, a shield that reduces it further by about 7-8. Cloak of protection? Did that stack? Cloak of the Sewers did,that was -1, Helm of Baluran was another -1. So many different things to lower AC, theoretically you could even have a defending weapon.

And that's not even going into Throne of Bhaal

Ugh, we were talking about BG II here. Not to mention why playing BG I should be my problem it was great game as well. :smalltongue:

Cloak of protection and rings don't stack with magical armor in BG II.

Best defending weapons in BGII were adding - 2, I think. And indeed, with shield it's indeed possible, but I haven't used them with most characters.

Matthew
2008-08-26, 05:20 PM
Some of the BGII armours were bugged. Magical bonuses from Armour, Rings, and Cloaks conventionally do not stack in AD&D.

Spiryt
2008-08-26, 05:25 PM
Some of the BGII armours were bugged. Magical bonuses from Armour, Rings, and Cloaks conventionally do not stack in AD&D.

Well, most of them doesn't stack. They certainly were some bugged ones, I've never tried, as I've never played BGII just to optimize to hell, especially considering that raising your AC at all cost wasn't really good choice in BGII.

Charity
2008-08-26, 05:26 PM
I was under the impression that rings stacked with everything.

and, displacement activity or break?

Edit.. Oh and 1e monks sucked pretty hard at low level Matt, possibly even on a par with the 3e variety.

LibraryOgre
2008-08-26, 05:29 PM
1st edition monks were crippled in a couple regards.

1) All required obscenely high stats, but gained no benefit from Strength or Dex.
2) Low HD. While they started with 2D4, they were still D4s; at 1st level, they had HP equal to a druid or cleric (not ranger; they had 2D8), but without the armor options.
3) Open-Handed fighting was a low-level trap. It could be useful sometimes, but that extra 1 attack every 4 rounds wasn't worth it.

They had some things going for them, however.

1) Fastest WP progression. While they didn't have the best list to choose from, they got them very fast.
2) +1/2 HP of damage per level when using weapons. A 2nd level monk added 1 point every time he did damage with a weapon. +2 at 4th level, +8 at 16th level.
3) Wide variety of skills. They weren't as good as a thief, but they had a good number of skills, making them decent scouts (when you ignore the HP problem).

Spiryt
2008-08-26, 05:31 PM
I was under the impression that rings stacked with everything.

and, displacement activity or break?

No, I clearly remember a text explaining that I can't use this cause I'm using other magical items.

Dunno how it was in English, but it showed up when I tried to wear + 1 or better ring, while wearing any +1 or better armor.

nagora
2008-08-26, 05:31 PM
I've never played in 1st edition, so, I can't actually answer your question. But, I need to ask: Simplicity? Isn't that the edition where individual weapons have bonuses and negatives against each other?
Optional rule. A fun optional rule, but optional all the same (and it's against armours, not other weapons).

Matthew
2008-08-26, 05:32 PM
I was under the impression that rings stacked with everything.

and, displacement activity or break?

In 1e it's unclear. In 2e it's clear. We're talking BG here. :smallwink:



Edit.. Oh and 1e monks sucked pretty hard at low level Matt, possibly even on a par with the 3e variety.

Indeedy, I said so, I believe.

Charity
2008-08-26, 05:37 PM
Aha... so you did... I think my brains going soft.
I haven't played BG in a long old while.
Hey didn't rings add to your saves as well?

Matthew
2008-08-26, 05:43 PM
Aha... so you did... I think my brains going soft.
I haven't played BG in a long old while.
Hey didn't rings add to your saves as well?

Yup, I think cloaks and armour do too, but I don't pay that much attention (my magic items tend to be tailored to the game). Maybe I will go look it up...

Starbuck_II
2008-08-26, 05:44 PM
No, I clearly remember a text explaining that I can't use this cause I'm using other magical items.

Dunno how it was in English, but it showed up when I tried to wear + 1 or better ring, while wearing any +1 or better armor.

In BG 2: Certains rings stacked: Ring of Earth Control (+1 AC, stone to Flesh 1/day, and 1/day Charm Golem with no save bonus so more like Dire Charm) Stacked with everything.

Protection Rings didn't stack with most Magic armors (there are few ones that funny enough worked) nor Cloaks of protection.

Some armors (I forgot which) apparently gave +2 AC but didn't register as magic because they worked.

Deepblue706
2008-08-26, 05:53 PM
Optional rule. A fun optional rule, but optional all the same (and it's against armours, not other weapons).

They really had a rule for that? Man, the more I hear about earlier editions of D&D, the more I think the newer ones suck.

Matthew
2008-08-26, 05:57 PM
Apparently, a Cloak of Protection will function with a Ring of Protection, but will not function if metal armour or magical armour is worn, nor if a shield is carried. Never knew that. Magical Armour and Shields improve armour class, but not saving throws.

Pyroconstruct
2008-08-26, 06:08 PM
BG II has a pretty low difficulty curve and got much easier as you went through it. BG II monks aren't too bad in the sense that they can beat up monsters without much trouble, but that's more because the monsters are weak and keep getting weaker. They can't hold a candle to BG II spellcasters (mainly because most of their kickass abilities don't interact nicely with magic items, and simply because the ability to hit things only goes so far); BG II spellcasting isn't quite as broken as 3.0/3.5, but it is pretty darn broken.

A sorcerer can solo the entire thing with no party (so can wizards and some of the thief subclasses, although the thieves are very reliant on using magic scrolls), and it's not even very hard. For a challenge, a sorcerer can solo the entire game without touching a single item except plot items.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-26, 06:57 PM
I had always thought that monks were cool, and the best class in the game. Untill I had gazed upon a thread that pointed out all the flaws of the monk and I had realized that my DMs had always built the adventures around me, so that to balence the monk.

So what I want to know is how long my DMs have been lying to me about my usefulness as a monk. I've never played the second edition but had played the first quite a bit. So, if anybody can remember those glorious days of simplicity, please tell me: have monks have ever been good?

Monk dipping Evokers were good in 1E

shadow_archmagi
2008-08-26, 07:09 PM
BG II has a pretty low difficulty curve and got much easier as you went through it. BG II monks aren't too bad in the sense that they can beat up monsters without much trouble, but that's more because the monsters are weak and keep getting weaker. They can't hold a candle to BG II spellcasters (mainly because most of their kickass abilities don't interact nicely with magic items, and simply because the ability to hit things only goes so far); BG II spellcasting isn't quite as broken as 3.0/3.5, but it is pretty darn broken.

A sorcerer can solo the entire thing with no party (so can wizards and some of the thief subclasses, although the thieves are very reliant on using magic scrolls), and it's not even very hard. For a challenge, a sorcerer can solo the entire game without touching a single item except plot items.

Oh god, I know! I made a sorcerer my first try; spontaneous charisma casting always appealed to me.

Then I realized that I could fire noxious cloud while the druid fired entangling roots and the wizard fired web (or I fired web and forgot her entirely) and then I just added in blizzard and everything died. Boo was never in danger.

Matthew
2008-08-26, 07:38 PM
They really had a rule for that? Man, the more I hear about earlier editions of D&D, the more I think the newer ones suck.

Ha, ha. "Repent, and take up the falsely down trodden standard of AD&D."

wumpus
2008-08-26, 08:19 PM
Ha, ha. "Repent, and take up the falsely down trodden standard of AD&D."

I seemed to have the "rule vs. different armors (sic)" quote missing. Make no mistake, if the DM uses these: your monk is even more gimped. [note that actual 1e monk geezer musing content included at the bottom].

If you were using the AD&D combat computer (a wheel lookup table published in the Dragon circa 1984 or so) you could figure them out pretty fast, otherwise forget it. What makes it worthless is that it is by armor type, not actual AC. Should a DM wish to use these rules, he would have to go though the monster manual and pencil in whatever armor type he thought each monster should have. Also, the combat computer assumes that AC=armor type (only true for (demi)humans wearing mundane armor).

Finally, its hard to sway if 1e monks were any more gimped than 3(.5)E monks are. I'd say that the class balance was never a big issue with 1e, thus making the monk being gimped seem that much worse, seeing that the fighters and thieves never seemed to whine so much (1st level MUs, on the other hand...).

For a non-gimped 1e monk, try the Dragon article "he's got a lot to kick about", which I think made it into one of the "best of the Dragon" collections.

Ethdred
2008-08-27, 07:10 AM
Monk dipping Evokers were good in 1E

Eh? There were no evokers in 1E and monks couldn't multi-class. But otherwise you're right.

The other handicap monks had (to add to the others people have mentioned) was that they need lots of Xp per level (I think the most of any class) and they couldn't qualify for the +10% bonus - another waste of their good stats.

But monks could be good fun, and if you survived to high level they had some pretty hoopy powers (which were made more hoopy by their rarity - most classes couldn't do as much as they can in 3E)

nagora
2008-08-27, 10:18 AM
I seemed to have the "rule vs. different armors (sic)" quote missing. Make no mistake, if the DM uses these: your monk is even more gimped. [note that actual 1e monk geezer musing content included at the bottom].
Depends on your opponents; fist gets +4 against unarmoured opponents. Great in many situations. Of course, monks are good with weapons too.


If you were using the AD&D combat computer (a wheel lookup table published in the Dragon circa 1984 or so) you could figure them out pretty fast, otherwise forget it. What makes it worthless is that it is by armor type, not actual AC. Should a DM wish to use these rules, he would have to go though the monster manual and pencil in whatever armor type he thought each monster should have. Also, the combat computer assumes that AC=armor type (only true for (demi)humans wearing mundane armor).
I've had a crack at simplifying this (http://www.tww.cx/downloads/newcombat.pdf).


Finally, its hard to sway if 1e monks were any more gimped than 3(.5)E monks are. I'd say that the class balance was never a big issue with 1e, thus making the monk being gimped seem that much worse, seeing that the fighters and thieves never seemed to whine so much (1st level MUs, on the other hand...).

For a non-gimped 1e monk, try the Dragon article "he's got a lot to kick about", which I think made it into one of the "best of the Dragon" collections.
1e monks are the weakest class at levels 1-5 - by far. After that they pick up and are quite fun.

Person_Man
2008-08-27, 10:38 AM
I started my D&D career with 1st ed. I think we had a Monk, a Magic User, a Cleric, a Tinker, and a Cavalier in our group. The Monk was just as good as anyone else.

Of course, I was 12 at the time. So none of us really had any idea of what power gaming was. We just enjoyed sitting in a basement with graph paper and dice pretending to be adventurers like the ones in the books we read. Combat was managed mostly by just describing what you wanted to do and then rolling some dice. There were a lot of house rules, which were often created unintentionally because no one fully understood the actual rules. If we were lucky, the mom of whoever's house we were at would order pizza for us.

Good times.

Also, I know I'm the only person to say this, but I miss the Tinker. That guy was always hilarious.

nagora
2008-08-27, 10:41 AM
Also, I know I'm the only person to say this, but I miss the Tinker. That guy was always hilarious.
Where was the Tinker from? (The class, not the character).

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-27, 10:43 AM
Eh? There were no evokers in 1E and monks couldn't multi-class. But otherwise you're right.


It's a little hazy started Monk for a level or two dip and then went Wizard and cast Evocation spells because they were good spells to cast. :smallsmile:

xelliea
2008-08-27, 10:45 AM
monks suck and i play with the 1st edition rules

shadow_archmagi
2008-08-27, 10:46 AM
Evocation spells were good spells to cast. :smallsmile:

My goodness, the old versions WERE different.

hamlet
2008-08-27, 10:53 AM
Where was the Tinker from? (The class, not the character).

I believe it was out of Dragon Magazine at one point, though I might be mistaken.

nagora
2008-08-27, 10:55 AM
My goodness, the old versions WERE different.
Magic missile, fireball, lightning bolt, ice storm, wall of fire...what's not to like!?

Person_Man
2008-08-27, 11:00 AM
Where was the Tinker from? (The class, not the character).

I honestly can't remember. Sorry. I owned precisely one book (the Player's Handbook) at the time, and played the Magic User. I think it might have been a Dragonlance thing, but I want to say that the PC was a Gnome, and not a Kender. Also, we shifted over to 2nd edition rules after a few months of playing 1st ed, so we might have screwed up and mixed supplements. Again, we weren't the best at keeping RAW strait.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-27, 11:01 AM
My goodness, the old versions WERE different.

I believe the classic example is Fireball and Trolls (Many of the monsters were weaker mechanically in comparison to later editions).

Starbuck_II
2008-08-27, 11:03 AM
Magic missile, fireball, lightning bolt, ice storm, wall of fire...what's not to like!?

Wait, Ice Storm isn't changed that much. It still is damage per round. 4th level spell (only in 3.5 for Warmage was it 3rd).

Spiryt
2008-08-27, 11:04 AM
Tinker?

You mean a guy with kettles, jugs, wires, and all that stuff?

Wandering handy man ?

Tsotha-lanti
2008-08-27, 11:47 AM
They really had a rule for that? Man, the more I hear about earlier editions of D&D, the more I think the newer ones suck.

It's a little table in AD&D 2e with four columns: armor, blunt, piercing, slashing (or whatever the words were), each type of damage/weapon having a bonus or penalty against each type of armor. Just need to write it on a piece of paper you can have handy when actually playing.

It was a cool idea, but I never used it, not having cottoned on to the idea of collating all my tables on a handy reference sheet, not having DM screens available, and not having Excel and a printer back then. (That, and you have to deduce/decide what armor your orcs and goblins are wearing and which weapons they're using, again, which adds some extra to the required stat block.)


I honestly can't remember. Sorry. I owned precisely one book (the Player's Handbook) at the time, and played the Magic User. I think it might have been a Dragonlance thing, but I want to say that the PC was a Gnome, and not a Kender. Also, we shifted over to 2nd edition rules after a few months of playing 1st ed, so we might have screwed up and mixed supplements. Again, we weren't the best at keeping RAW strait.

So a Tinker Gnome, then? That's a Dragonlance gnome.

I'm curious, though, whether it was an actual class, because I could never figure out the classes in the Ultima games. Fighter, Paladin, Druid, Mage, Bard, Ranger, Shepherd... and Tinker? WTF?

Matthew
2008-08-27, 12:01 PM
It's a little table in AD&D 2e with four columns: armor, blunt, piercing, slashing (or whatever the words were), each type of damage/weapon having a bonus or penalty against each type of armor. Just need to write it on a piece of paper you can have handy when actually playing.

Heh, heh. No, that was the AD&D 2e version. We're talking about a much bigger weapon specific table from the AD&D 1e PHB.

hamlet
2008-08-27, 12:17 PM
Heh, heh. No, that was the AD&D 2e version. We're talking about a much bigger weapon specific table from the AD&D 1e PHB.

Which I've never really cared for simply because it ignored the process for getting to said armor class.

If he's quick enough, a character could have a natural AC of 7 (the equivalent of studded leather), but then why should a mace or military pick get a bonus or penalty to hit or damage because of this, especially when it would be the same if it were a matter of the character just wearing studded leather?

Of course, I dropped the 2e equivalent as well, simply because it added a layer of complexity that wasn't needed.

nagora
2008-08-27, 12:20 PM
Which I've never really cared for simply because it ignored the process for getting to said armor class.

If he's quick enough, a character could have a natural AC of 7 (the equivalent of studded leather), but then why should a mace or military pick get a bonus or penalty to hit or damage because of this
It didn't; you've read the rule wrong. A fist would get +4 against that opponent, a footman's pick -2.

Have a look at that PDF I posted further up the thread.

Matthew
2008-08-27, 12:27 PM
It didn't; you've read the rule wrong. A fist would get +4 against that opponent, a footman's pick -2.

Have a look at that PDF I posted further up the thread.

Yep, though the example combat suggests that shields are counted (as does an AC 9). There are also occasionally weird results, like being better off unarmoured than wearing leather armour versus two handed swords (I suppose you can argue you're quicker to dodge in no armour, but still...).

Tsotha-lanti
2008-08-27, 12:30 PM
Heh, heh. No, that was the AD&D 2e version. We're talking about a much bigger weapon specific table from the AD&D 1e PHB.

That game's sounding more and more like Rolemaster.

nagora
2008-08-27, 12:32 PM
Yep, though the example combat suggests that shields are counted (as does an AC 9).
Doesn't it? (Not "shouldn't it?", that's a different question!)

There are also occasionally weird results, like being better off unarmoured than wearing leather armour versus two handed swords (I suppose you can argue you're quicker to dodge in no armour, but still...).
Yes, I think there's definately a factor of relative mobility worked into that table.