kierthos: (Default)
kierthos ([personal profile] kierthos) wrote2006-04-28 11:22 am

Why monks are not "largely useless"

In a recent post, my brother [livejournal.com profile] egearman said monks were largely useless. This is not true.

Take any other character class. Strip them down to a set of normal clothes, and drop them into a fight.

The fighter will bemoan his lack of armor and weapons. So will the paladin (but the paladin likely has better saves). The ranger is likewise up shit creek without a paddle, but a ranger can at least keep himself (and others) alive in the woods/desert/mountains without any other gear. The barbarian is also without armor and weapons, but at least can rage and try to pummel things to death with his bare hands or head butt them.

The cleric will whinge about no armor, and without their holy symbol or other components, most of their spells can't be cast.
The wizard and sorceror, likewise, without components, will be even more screwed, because they have even less hps then the cleric.
The bard will be without a musical instrument and unless it's that rare 5% chance bard that took Perform: Singing, won't be able to use any bard abilities.
The rogue will shrug, hide someplace safe, and run away once the rest of the party isn't looking.

But the monk. The monk doesn't use armor, and in a set of normal clothes is just as dangerous as he ever was. (which is highly dangerous.) No weapons? No armor? No problem.

Of course, this would explain why DDO doesn't have monks. (I've never read the Eberron sourcebook. For all I know, there are other reasons that there aren't monks, but I digress.) You see, in DDO, when you find/loot gear, you have the choice of using it or selling it. (Unless you're Warforged, because apparently there isn't a single suit of armor that fits you. But that's okay, they have a +8 AC bonus for being Warforged.) Monks would be selling everything and quickly be the richest characters in the game. And that is a tad unbalanced when all you need to walk up and whup on monsters is your bare hands.

Oh, and Eric... I've got one other thing to say about why Monks are teh win.

Rust Monsters.

[identity profile] the-corruption.livejournal.com 2006-04-28 03:42 pm (UTC)(link)
So, monks are cool under the following conditions:

If everyopne is stripped of all items.

Or against rust monsters.

OK, I'll give you that. But under the rest of the 99.99% of the time, I'll stick to my paladins. Besides, a SMART fighter-type stripped of all his stuff finds a nice tree and breaks himself off a good club.

Hey, love Monks all you want. But don't go the SAME route every brainless min/max D&D geek succumbs to. Love Monks because you have fun PLAYING Monks. Don't play Monks because he at any particular level has more advantages arithmatecally/statistically than any other single class. A REAL DM love crunching up players like that into little bits.

You have to remember, D&D is a lot like Vegas, the house (DM) always has the advantage. If the only thing that concerns you is advantage, be the DM, not a player.

[identity profile] egearman.livejournal.com 2006-04-28 03:43 pm (UTC)(link)
I would forget to bring my copy of On the Origin of the PCs in today. I could quote to you why, from Belkar's point of view, monks are useless. I do remember 'attack progression of a tree sloth' being used.

However, that's not the reason that Monks aren't in DDO. Monks aren't in DDO because the developers didn't have time to get the 'martial arts' attack appearance look right. In other words, since monks kick, punch, headbutt, etc., there was a lot more work to be done.

Druids also did not make it in, because they (the developers again) didn't have enough time to make the Wild Shape look good.

At least those were the excuses.

Oh, warforged only get the +8 if they are admentine body, which if you are never going to make your warforged a spellcaster, then that's the way to go.

As far as Rust Monsters go, yes, a monk is typically not going to 'stain his armor' on seeing them, mainly since the monk has no armor. But the rogue won't be so bad either, neither will the Wizard or the Sorcerer. I know I've told you the story of the seven clerics facing off against the rust monsters before.

[identity profile] egearman.livejournal.com 2006-04-28 03:44 pm (UTC)(link)
That assumes you play your paladin smart. I know you do, but we both, in our vast gaming histories, have run across some fiercely stupid paladins.

[identity profile] the-corruption.livejournal.com 2006-04-28 03:51 pm (UTC)(link)
Don't be a moron, you can't blame player classes on players! I've known DUMB-ASS thieves, does that make the Rogue a dumb-ass character class????

And YOU'RE the most guilty of bringing this min/max'ing argument up anyways! CUT IT OUT! You, of all people, should KNOW better. If you're playing D&D to kill monsters, you need to be playing a fucking video game. The POINT of table/dice/pencils and paper RPGs is social interations and overcoming overwhelming odds by clever reactions. If you're trying to get through a REAL DM's game solely based on your numbers, well...

In THAT case, the 450 gnome skeletons armed with rusty short swords are going to EAT your 3rd level character, if you catch my drift.

[identity profile] the-corruption.livejournal.com 2006-04-28 03:56 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't know why you're making this difficult, they didn't include cool stuff in DDO because they're morons, and basically communist.

The idea behind their character classes is to make sure EVERYONE is equal. No one has more advantages than anyone else, everyone is the SAME. This of course, is simple Marxism and is why no MM game will last more than 5 years. That and the whole /obsolete/ tech thing.

The ugly truth is people play MM games to methodically manipulate the standing rules so they can whip out their virtual "big dick" and smack people with it unmercifully. This is the simple reason why I do not play these things. That and they will let ANY waterhead with a computer in to play. I do not play games with the filthy masses.

[identity profile] mithras.livejournal.com 2006-04-29 02:53 am (UTC)(link)
I agree, D&D Online is unlikely to last 5 years. Hell, I won't even give it 2.

But not necessarily for the reasons you list.

1) The graphics suck. Honestly, they do. Compared to WoW, or even EQ2 (which sucks donkey balls in the graphics department), DDO's graphics stink.

2) Advancement is painfully slow. I realize that this is D&D. Where you can, in theory, use the same skill for months at a time, and never see advancement. Fine. But when compared to the other games out there, FFO, WoW, EQ & EQ2, where you can make 2nd level within an hour of creating a character, usually on the first quest you get (especially in WoW), DDO is stupidly slow. I played the same character (under the trial) for 8 hours, and hadn't made it to level 2.

3) The game, by it's nature, forces teams. Ok, again, this is D&D, that should be expected. But when a character can't complete even a newbie quest without a party of 4, then there are going to be issues.

4) The graphics are teh eyebleeding suck. Yes, I know I mentioned it before, but it's still there, hitting you in the face.

5) The interface sucks too. You need to either be that guy who knows all the rules of D&D to find anything on your character interface, or have the book constantly open. Nothing is intuitive. Oh, and venders will happily sell you items you can't use, without warning.


It blows. I would rather get a sixteen week series of anti-rabies injections in the stomach than play this game again.

Oh, and the reason they didn't put Monks in, is because Monks is the one class that _can_ solo through 5th level.