Quote from: cranebump;841015On a semi-related note: ran a 4E monk back in the day, and had a lot of fun renaming all the powers in such a way as to have the word "Ass" in all the titles, for example:

"Flurry of Ass"
"Ass Storms"
"Open the Gates of Ass"

And my favorite:

"Supreme Ass"

I've forgotten most of them. (it kept me sane playing that game...):-)

:rotfl:
That's almost worth cracking open a 4e webpage to check out other powers to rename. Wouldn't play it again right now, though. That'd be going too far for a joke.
:nono:

Quote from: Exploderwizard;840923When you try and measure all classes simply by the amount of damage that they can inflict per round and the amount of damage that they can take, yes there will be some classes weaker than others by those metrics.

Folks who play RPGs as if combat is the entire measure of the game really push my buttons.  Or maybe I'm pushing my buttons on them.

I'm clearly tolerance-challenged in this area, but I'm trying to be better.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;841138Folks who play RPGs as if combat is the entire measure of the game really push my buttons.  Or maybe I'm pushing my buttons on them.

I'm clearly tolerance-challenged in this area, but I'm trying to be better.

What other balance measure is there?  And I'm not trying to be funny, dismissive or sarcastic, here.  I'm clearly wondering what else you could use as a measuring stick.

Everything else is pretty easily handwaved or improvised, and frankly, for example, the various skills are their own, relatively ubiquitous, thing.  Everyone has several skills, most overlap, and have a universally wide use outside of combat.

And combat is a clear contest, whether against each other, or against NPC's, it's a measure of power and control.

So what else can we use?

Oh for fucks sake. We've been over this how many times?

For fairness of stupid lets assume both are using point buy, are human and have min maxed so 16,16,16, 9, 9, 9.

At 5th level the monk with unarmed does 1d6 damage x3 + DEX or STR. AC is 10 + DEX & WIS mod. Unarmored AC is 16.(Top end is a theoretical 20 AC which is achievable for a point buy Monk.)
At 5th level the fighter with a longsword  does 1d8 damage x2 +STR mod. Lets say the fighter has gotten some Chainmail by now. AC 16. no mods. +2 if he uses a shield so AC 18. If instead went for the Greatsword and that 2d6 damage then drop AC down to 16 as cant use shield then. (Top end with Plate + shield is 20. Or just 18 if going for those 2-handers.)

Not much difference overall. The monk is much more mobile and fairly versatile at the expense of a few HP. The fighter doesnt get 3rd attack till level 11. By which time the monk is now up to a d8 damage.

So again the classes balance out surprisingly well.

In actual play, the one time I saw one the Monk was pretty awesome at levels 2 to 5, relative to classes like Bard, Paladin, and Druid.  That particular Monk had pretty decent ability scores (via the 4d6 drop one in order method) but I doubt it would have been ineffective with the standard array.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;841169What other balance measure is there?  And I'm not trying to be funny, dismissive or sarcastic, here.  I'm clearly wondering what else you could use as a measuring stick.

First, I appreciate this. Thanks.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;841138Folks who play RPGs as if combat is the entire measure of the game really push my buttons.  Or maybe I'm pushing my buttons on them.

I'm not sure I know of a useful metric for "combat balance".  The usual suspects that get bandied about (DPS, who has the most HP/AC etc.) do seem somewhat useful to me in the domain of combat, and most certainly do not seem to provide a measure for the the balance of the game.  

Combat is a fun part of the game, but blackballing classes because they don't have "that one combat element they are supposed to be best at"  is, in my opinion, horribly reductive, and potentially harmful to the game at large.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;841169Everything else is pretty easily handwaved or improvised, and frankly, for example, the various skills are their own, relatively ubiquitous, thing.  Everyone has several skills, most overlap, and have a universally wide use outside of combat.

It's the intersection of the choices made at creations: Class, race, attribute assignment, background, and then interaction with others, that informs the whole game.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;841169And combat is a clear contest, whether against each other, or against NPC's, it's a measure of power and control.
So what else can we use?

Combat doesn't occur in a vacuum (well, except for when it actually occurs in an actual vacuum).  If someone has a measure they like for "combat balance", I have no beef with that.  It's when that measure is no longer described as combat balance, and is relabeled just "balance," and suddenly we find ourselves saying XYZ class is the "worst", and then some folks are scared off of it because it's a "trap", and then folks who might would have played that supposed "trap" class.

Do I have a quantitative measure that rates all race/class combos against all possible situations they might encounter in an RPG.  I do not, and I'm thankful that such a thing would be nigh impossible.

My measure is to play something for a while, and rate my enjoyment of it, the ups and downs, and how many awesome adventures were had.

So, I'm trying to keep my personal preference on my sleeve here, so everyone can see it.

A question for you.  Did you find my quick comparison of the monk & rogue armor class arc compelling enough to dissuade you from your prior opinion about the monk being disadvantaged because of a lack of armor options?  Or do you still feel the same way?

Proof monks are not weak.

Aren't monks generally a weak sort of class? I mean, they're popular with some players because of their style, and sometimes because of particular special abilities, but it seems to me that in early editions at least they were usually a lot less generally optimal than the other classes.

The issue with the monk is that they have to be played in an exact way, with very little leeway, need three stats for when it does get in melee, as opposed to one or two.

And Natty Bodack, very few players start out with a 20, and secondly, the 16, 16, 16, 9, 9, 9 spread for stats is discouraged in D&D Adventures, it's typically assumed that players will be using the 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, which gives at best a +5 AC (assuming you get a Race or choice to get a +1 to +2 bonus and put the 15 into a Defense stat, like Dex or Wis.  A Dwarven Monk, for example, may not get that.)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;841928The issue with the monk is that they have to be played in an exact way, with very little leeway, need three stats for when it does get in melee, as opposed to one or two.

And Natty Bodack, very few players start out with a 20, and secondly, the 16, 16, 16, 9, 9, 9 spread for stats is discouraged in D&D Adventures, it's typically assumed that players will be using the 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, which gives at best a +5 AC (assuming you get a Race or choice to get a +1 to +2 bonus and put the 15 into a Defense stat, like Dex or Wis.  A Dwarven Monk, for example, may not get that.)

My example didn't have any 20s for a starting player, although looking back at it, it did assume a 16 for both the rogue and the monk, which isn't appropriate for RAW point buy or standard array.

I have no idea anymore what is appropriate for organized play, but I'll say my experience there in the past has been that RAW (as recognized by the RPGA or whoever) rules that day.  I never saw anyone "discouraging" anyone from a legal method of character creation, other than the occasional bit of passive aggressive charop bullying. OP ended up being not to my taste, so Ihaven't kept up with it. To educate myself on the current state of affairs, I referenced the Character Creation section of the D&D Adventurer's League Players Guide:

QuoteDetermine Ability Scores

You can generate your character's ability scores using
one of the following methods:
• Standard set (15, 14, 13, 12, 10,
• Customizing ability scores variant (Player's Handbook chapter 1)
After assigning ability scores, apply your racial benefits to derive your starting ability score at 1st level. You cannot roll your ability scores

If we want to compare dwarves in the mix, sure. I'm a fan of diversity in the dungeon-place.

So, assuming a standard array, we have the following 1st level characters:

Elf Rogue: Dex 17 (15 + 2) giving a +3 AC bonus, with Studded Leather (AC 12), for a total AC of 15.
Elf Monk: Dex 17 (15 + 2), Wis 15 (14+1), giving a +5 AC bonus, with no armor for a total of AC of 15.

Dwarf Rogue: Dex 15 (15 + 0) giving a +2 AC bonus with Studded Leather (AC 12), for a total AC of 14.
Dwarf Monk: Dex 15 (15 + 0), Wis 15 (14 +1) giving a +4 AC bonus, with no armor for a total AC of 14.

Over the course of their careers it seems that monks will have the opportunity to gain +10 to their stats, while rogues will have the opportunity to gain +12 to their stats.  +10 is enough to take any of our four starting characters based on the standard array to 20 in Dex and Wis, should they care to do so.  Along with the best magical additions to their AC available to each (discounting things like ring of protection that apply equally to either), we have the following:

Elf Rogue: Dex 20 (15 + 2 +3) giving a +5 AC bonus, with Studded Leather +3 (AC 15), for a total AC of 20.
Elf Monk: Dex 20 (15 + 2 +3), Wis 20 (14+1+5), giving a +10 AC bonus, with Bracers of Defense (AC +2) for a total of AC of 22.

Dwarf Rogue: Dex 20 (15 + 0 +5) giving a +5 AC bonus with Studded Leather +3 (AC 15), for a total AC of 20.
Dwarf Monk: Dex 20 (15 + 0 +5), Wis 20 (14 +1 +5) giving a +10 AC bonus, with with  Bracers of Defense (AC +2)  for a total AC of 22.

I see no evidence in any of these cases that the monk will be lacking in AC compared to the rogue, for an elf or a dwarf.  And not only is the "lack of scaling armor bonuses from magic armor" not hurting the monk in this comparison, at the top end the monk's AC is better than the rogue's.

And again, this isn't mean to be a comprehensive comparison of everything possible for a rogue's AC compared to a monk's AC, but I think it debunks the idea that "monks are weak" due in any part to a lack of access to magic armor.

The one 5e monk I have seen in play ran ahead of the party, was surrounded by goblins, skewered, and drug off into cavern depths.  Poor sap never even collected a single experience point.

As the quickest death in my 5e games, have to call the monk the weakest.

Quote from: Old One Eye;842006The one 5e monk I have seen in play ran ahead of the party, was surrounded by goblins, skewered, and drug off into cavern depths.  Poor sap never even collected a single experience point.

As the quickest death in my 5e games, have to call the monk the weakest.

XP is just a another chain keeping us from Valhalla, man.

No class neeeeeds a high CON, you just need to aim for at least a 10.

One thing that some monk players (and I) forget is that their monk weapons damage is the same as their unarmed damage once it exceeds the weapons damage.

So say the monk uses a dagger. 1d4. But once they hit level 5, that dagger now does a d6 damage, eventually the dagger is going to do a d10.

Y'know, now that I think about it, the 5E Monk's "Ass-bilities" are pretty good, as well:

Quivering Ass
Purity of Ass
Diamond Ass
Opportun-asst
Way of the Open Ass (this one scares me)
Ass of the Four Thunders (I want this...in real life...I feel it would impress people at parties)

But, to me, the ultimate goal has to be:

Perfect Ass

(Good God, it's even better than 4E!)

Quote from: Old One Eye;842006The one 5e monk I have seen in play ran ahead of the party, was surrounded by goblins, skewered, and drug off into cavern depths.  Poor sap never even collected a single experience point.

As the quickest death in my 5e games, have to call the monk the weakest.

I wouldn't attribute that to the monk being weak as much as the player acting idiotic.  I've seen fighters try that shit as well, and got properly murdered for it.