Were first edition monks better?

[Green-Shirt Q]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teh+hax

Edit: Ninjad.

[Green-Shirt Q]

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]

-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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

Some of the BGII armours were bugged. Magical bonuses from Armour, Rings, and Cloaks conventionally do not stack in AD&D.

[Spiryt]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.