Thomas Shey
Legend
The fact people overplay it doesn't mean there's nothing to it any more here than anywhere else that happens. This comes across as "It doesn't feel that way to me, so nothing anyone else sees in it matters."
D&D 3E/3.5 Edition Experience - Did/Do you Play 3rd Edtion D&D? How Was/Is it?
The fact people overplay it doesn't mean there's nothing to it any more here than anywhere else that happens. This comes across as "It doesn't feel that way to me, so nothing anyone else sees in it matters."
Fair Thomas. I should just ignore what I have no interest in.
To explain (and feel free to skip!), the word “balance” triggers me here at this point. Feels like it’s cover for turning every conversation to the topic of CharOp, “broken“ if something has too much or little DPS/too many/too few “cool” features, or what can be “broken“ if you intentionally try to “hack to win D&D”.
For me, RPG isn’t about any of those things - it’s about playing a role in a story. It feels like game designers have jumped through hoops trying to please “balance” gamers, but never can.
Also close to Edition War topics for me. I won’t get into that as it’s an even more played out topic.
To explain (and feel free to skip!), the word “balance” triggers me here at this point. Feels like it’s cover for turning every conversation to the topic of CharOp, “broken“ if something has too much or little DPS/too many/too few “cool” features, or what can be “broken“ if you intentionally try to “hack to win D&D”.
For me, RPG isn’t about any of those things - it’s about playing a role in a story. It feels like game designers have jumped through hoops trying to please “balance” gamers, but never can.
Also close to Edition War topics for me. I won’t get into that as it’s an even more played out topic.
Mecheon
Sacabambaspis
The problem is its one of those inheret problems of 3.5e, the fact you have to factor in that charop. It will always come up when you discuss 3E and 3.5E because its the system's lingering big problem. Same way you'd have to factor in "We need a grid" if you're playing 4E or all the various weird XP shenanigans of earlier editions. Even without going and dragging out the Punpun level optimisation, the fact that if you pick monk because you like the idea of it (to, per that, play a story), you are going to be useless (unless, ironically, you do optimise) and will be outdone by an equally un-optimised druid through not fault of your own, that's the system just being like that.
I've done the "Pick a monk when I dunno much about optimisation and be useless as a result" because I did the crime of wanting to punch a dude in the game, and it wasn't fun. No one likes their character being bad at combat and having nothing to do in the social scenes so they're just sitting back reading twitter on their phone, because another player just demolishes every single threat with some spell. But, well, this came of debating on warlocks and I'd gladly argue their lower power made them much better designed for parties than the powerhouse trio, AD&D be damned on this one
Scrivener of Doom
Adventurer
I loved it, despite the enormous workload as a DM. I was never a fan of Gygaxian design (the non sequitur principle), so building a game with actual logic appealed to my aspie nature.
Now I have 4E so I don't think I will be going back despite my shelves groaning under the weight of 3.xE material that I will never sell.
Now I have 4E so I don't think I will be going back despite my shelves groaning under the weight of 3.xE material that I will never sell.
I disagree. I’ve been playing or DMing 3x since 2001 and I never seen anybody do CharOp. More an “internet” problem than “inherent”.
I’m not a 4e fan, but I never had a problem with using a grid and minis. For 3e, we always did it too, and sometimes even for AD&D.
XP shenanigan? The XP table was different by class in AD&D, but no one ever complained about it.
In what sense is a Monk “useless”?
The guy who played a Monk from about 2000-2020 in my email campaign (AD&D into 3e and 3.5e) liked his character. His main contribution is that he had rolled a high Int and took Feats to expand his Knowledge skills, so he was a Monk in the Cadfael vein - an expert on many subjects. In a fight, he was decent enough with his halberd.
So, you don’t like role playing ”social scenes” with your character, and see combat as a competition for who can do the most damage?
We have very different ideas of what D&D is about, it seems.
Thomas Shey
Legend
You do get why that's awfully dismissive to people who may have seen it frequently, right? It implies its not real.
I’ve literally never seen CharOp in real life.
Therefore, I don’t think it causes 3x to be inherently broken. I love this version of my favorite game. If, as seems apparent, you don’t, that’s fine.
I got angry at your post, so I think I need to take a “time out”. Let’s let this one go, OK?
Last edited:
I know you're not big on balance or optimization or anything like it. But as someone who has enjoyed playing monks for years, I can tell you that if you did care about such things, the monk is very underpowered.
For 3.x, it is a fighting class with low HP and middling BAB. They're hard to multiclass, because you lose flurry progression, BAB, and unarmed weapon damage. They need many high stats to qualify for different feat trees (or to get high AC, or many other things). The list of problems they face goes on and on. Their real best skill is not dying.
I love monks. Lots of roleplaying opportunities. Lots of fun. Not a lot of power.
GrimCo
Adventurer
My good friend loves monks and he played mostly monks back in HS. It was ok, cause we played role play heavy, combat light games. And rest of us in group had penchant for picking classes with interesting fluff more than picking classes that are "good".
But, in combat heavy games, with people who did optimize their characters for combat efficiency ( not even full charop, just decent optimization), monks fall flat. They need good Str for dmg, Dex for AC (they can't wear armors), con for hp, wis for DC. For someone who needs to get up front and personal with enemys, he has rather low AC and HP and not much damage. Conceptually, monks were highly mobile hit and run fighters, but that didn't really translate into the game cause how action system work. You can't move, attack, move. And if you move more than 5 feet, you cant use full round action.
But, in combat heavy games, with people who did optimize their characters for combat efficiency ( not even full charop, just decent optimization), monks fall flat. They need good Str for dmg, Dex for AC (they can't wear armors), con for hp, wis for DC. For someone who needs to get up front and personal with enemys, he has rather low AC and HP and not much damage. Conceptually, monks were highly mobile hit and run fighters, but that didn't really translate into the game cause how action system work. You can't move, attack, move. And if you move more than 5 feet, you cant use full round action.
rabindranath72
Explorer
It doesn't imply that it isn't real, simply that it has not been observed at his table (nor mine, nor the tables of many DM I know). Some things may exist and not be observable (and therefore, not matter at all.)
By the same token, I am sure we should not assume that the existence of (unobserved by us) "inherent problems" means we have had "badwrongfun" for the last 23 or so years, shouldn't we? Because that would be very, very dismissive, implying our fun is not real.
As for the Monk, it doesnt' seem designed for straight-up confrontations. It has better hit points, saves, and mobility than a Rogue, so it can potentially last longer if forced into a fight; but that's not his role. It has a decent number of skill points, so it can act as a good infiltrator, scout, and spy; it can operate incognito (e.g. passing as a peasant) effectively without weapons nor armor. This role isn't new; it was designed this way since the AD&D 1e days.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
