Manikus' Monks
 

Hey, Manikus....
You once said you turned Thieves into Monks, how exactly did you do this? And how did you handle their skills, if at all?

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

I don't recall ever turning thieves into monks...

Uatu and I have talked a fair amount about monks, among other classes that we would like to add to DC (most notably illusionists).

The only thing that I've ever changed thieves into is rogues, and that's just a simple name change in the class.txt file which you then import into DC.
You could add a monk class this way, but it wouldn't be very close to AD&D monks, as DC simply doesn't support a lot of what monks can do and only some of it can be faked.

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

...Oh.
You didn't say used cursed iitems to do it...?
Oh, well, I can figure -something- out....

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

I suppose something like that could give you some of the abilities. It would be very difficult to give them at the correct time. Plus, unless you're a programmer, you can't cap the XP levels.

All I've tried to do with cursed weapons is make super heroes. :D:D:D Maybe you're remembering my talking about creating mutants? ;)

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

Yeah, I have a few ideas on that myself....

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

Wait...cap the levels...?
You mean monks 1st-2nd ed (whatever) had a level cap?

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

In 1e, druids max out at level 23, monks at level 17 and assassins at level 15. None of these classes appear in 2e

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

....
In my 2e Player's Handbook, Druids are listed, they effectively maxed out at 16 (17-20 is like a Master, only one is allowed at any given time). Fairly overpowered IMHO, in regards to the other classes, excluding Bards. But Bards were uber back in the day. Then again mine is a later version. (It immediately states in big bold letters "This is -not- 3rd edition.") And I got it about the same time as I got the bulk of my D&D stuff, early to mid ninties.

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

In 2e, I don't remember exactly, but level 16 or so had room for only 1 at a time, but you could have any number of higher level druids (hierophant druids) at any time. (The Forgotten Realms sort of got around the 1 at a time thing by having 1 for the druids of each god, I think, although it may have depended on the author.)

Bards also had a maximum level in 1e (don't remember off the top of my head).

I think monks and assassins came back for the 2e version of Greyhawk (one of the later box sets, I think?).

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

Druids in 2e are not restricted in class advancement as they are just specialty priests - they can go anywhere a cleric can go, so to speak. :)

I didn't have the bard info at my fingertips, as I haven't put that into a spreadsheet yet...

As for monks, assassins, bards, et al in 2e they are not core classes, i.e. they are not in the Player's Handbook but appear in supplements/adventures. Some other classes that appear - ninjas (non-OA), anti-paladins, etc. I personally think of all of these as homebrew, as far as 2e is concerned.

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

Bards are in my 2e Player's Handbook. I remember seeing them for the for the first time, almost having a mild heart attack :D

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

You're right, they're there in their entry under Rogues. :D

In my defense, the very first line of their entry reads "The bard is an optional character class..." In my paper copy, the entry is in light grey, which meant that I skipped over it, though I see that in the last printing of the 2e PH, the light grey was dropped so it wouldn't appear to be optional.

It's not going to happen as a class of it's own in DC, though you can approximate it with a fighter/magic user/thief (this can be renamed to "bard"). :ninjas:

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

Yeah - those 2e ninjas are especially, um, funky, I guess... :)

1e changed rangers and bards considerably, with both versions fairly interesting (but often one more powerful than the other)...

1e rangers were powerful warriors with 2d8 hp at 1st level (hard to kill) who did wallops of damage to giants and humanoids, could cast both druid and magic-user spells (druid spells were more combative in those days), and were trackers.

2e rangers were sort of nature scouts who had affinity with animals and could cast plant/animal spells and track.

1e bards were very difficult classes to join, but eventually were fighter/thieves who had druid spells, magical charm abilities, and so on, but had a very strict hierarchy.

2e bards were very interesting - sort of pseudo-thieves (or tinkers) with good fighting and general magic-user ability (as they used the thief XP tables, they got to higher levels quickly).

Some people like to keep all versions in their 1e/2e campaigns, but I guess one could rename these to make them work with each other...

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

Was it 3e when bards got bardsong? That was kind of cool, at least in the computer version of AD&D (I've not played a 3E bard in p and p AD&D).

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

My wife plays one, one of her favorite classes. Though I -barely- got her playing D&D because the fiasco her last DM made of his campaign.
3e D&D p&p bards, well, to put it nicely, suck.
They really have sucky HD (I believe it is the Thief's, true, but they make up for it with sneak attacks and other abilities), their spellcasting has been taken away and their bardic abilities almost have no battle applications. So, in basic terms, their mages without the spellcasting. Really...bad.... They were handled badly.
I have the 2e Ninja's Handbook. It's good, but a bit...quirky. Ninjas, in IMHO, have no place outside of Kara-Tur.

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

I think ninjas have a place in super hero and master spy type stories, though not in AD&D fantasy. :)

In NiverWinter Nights, bards are good support characters as their bardsong helps the warrior classes quite a bit. Monks in 3e kick ass in hand to hand combat but bite it big against magic users and ranged attacks. Plus, I don't think they fit in well in the "Western" world - why would monks be the only ones with martial arts skills? Plus, I can't figure out how being an adventurer fits into the monk credo. Or in the druid's credo for that matter. :ninjas:

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

What is bardsong? It sounds like one of those silly 3e words to me (I suppose it is the bard's ability to sing to raise certain statistics?). The ability wasn't very useful in 2e as it required several rounds of singing before effect.

Monks were always kind of stupid - why would anyone be stronger without weapons than with? (Actually, I have heard of one person in history that was like this - he would start losing a battle with a weapon, and then just drop it - quickly disarming the other guy barehanded instead. Still, it was just ONE person...)

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

I've always wondered why the monks were the only non-European class. I wish they would have done Western monks, like Friar Tuck from Robin Hood. They could only brawl or use a staff, they would get some abilities as they progressed, but would not cast spells.

Hmm, maybe I should create a class - I could feature them in a DC Newsletter. ;)

Ooh! Ooh! I could feature some bizarro creatures as well... :D:D:D

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

Yes, bardsong raises Morale I think, along with providing some bonuses to saving throws, I believe.
It is important to note that D&D is not at its core a historical game, it is a game of myth and legends. The person you mentioned might have started a legend. At any rate, I don't recall (in 3e at least, I could be wrong, I don't have the 3e Player's Handbook handy, my wife buried it) it saying they're stronger unarmed (again, in 3e p&p at least, I could be wrong, my experience with 1e/2e monks is limited, and it shouldn't be, I played one, :D but my memory fails me on this subject), -just- that they can inflict lethal damage with their bare hands. They can use about every weapon you've ever seen in a kung fu movie. :D

One has to remember the spirit of the class, perhaps I am just seeing it differently, my campaign is a lot looser than most. I actually have a few "Superheroes" and other weirdness running around my campaign. To me, Monks are akin to Clerics; They meditate, worship and pray to their god(s), scribe, go about their duties, but they can pull out a can of kick butt when they need to. :) I think Monks adventure to go on a journey of self discovery, to test themselves against varied opponents. (Think about the possibilities of discovering things about yourself after defeating a dragon -barehanded-.) After all, the path the Monk takes is just another fork in the road....
On a secondary note, sometimes I think "Monk" is a bit of a misnomer, "Martial Artist" I think is a better title.

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

In 1e, monks did a set amount of barehand damage per level; this surpassed the amount of damage they did with weapons somewhere mid-level (plus, they had multiple attacks that way). At high levels, it was ridiculous! :D

Another thing is that monks were limited to a set of pseudo-Asian weapons like kama, bo sticks, etc., while in reality they used almost any weapon (swords, spears, hook swords, etc.).

I agree that "monk" should have been more generalized, but I can't think of a nice, general term as per "cleric" or "magic-user"! :D

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

As a DM, I don't allow monks. The class is broken. 3e is the same as 1e in that they do more damage without a weapon in hand(s).

As far as 1e is concerned, there is quite a bit of historical tradition as the base for the classes - all are traditional Western European except the Monk. The Monk class is not traditional anything, but is pretty much based on Gygax et al watching kung-fu movies. I think it is quite likely that the first monks in 1e were their interpretations of Bruce Lee. :)

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

Well, like I said, maybe I'm just seeing it differently. Yeah, the first interpretions were of Bruce Lee. Are you talking about Quivering Palm? It's based off an actual martial arts technique, very difficult to learn, takes years, maybe decades, to learn. Plus the class only can perform it once a week, that or the damage never goes up, to me, that's pretty balanced, and believe me, I -know- unbalanced. But every DM is different, most DMs force the characters to be balanced by his plans for the story. I do the opposite, I balance the story based on who all is involved. I also fudge quite a bit, I don't use Initiative, and only require things like Fortitude saves when necessary, or funny. An example of the latter, my wife has an elven bard character, and as we all know, elves have sucky Fortitude. Because of that, I had her roll a Fort. save for the bard when the party walked into a bat cave (guano stinks, you know :D). He failed it, so he tossed his cookies. The characters are heroes, they're tougher than the average Joe Schmoe. Even at level 1.

Anyway, they're one of my favorite classes, I have to defend them. :D

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

Uatu is the one who can tell you about martial arts techniques. :) I'm just saying that they shouldn't have been in regular 1e but should have been saved for the Oriental Adventures book. :D
Is fortitude a 3e thing? As I've almost entirely played that edition in computer game format, I'm not too familiar with all the terms. :(
Oh, what I wouldn't give for a gaming group in town. All through my 20's I had one, but now I've moved across the country and back (to a different town 50 miles down the road) and find myself in this great wasteland called my 30's and don't know anyone to game with. All the guys I go to school with are in their early 20's and just want me to play WoW with them. Everyone else I know is not into RPGs. :( I know, woe be me. :D:D:D

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

I thought the monk class was very similar to the Kwai Chang Caine character in the very old Kung Fu TV series (and subsequent Kung Fu the Legend Continues series) that was originally intended for Bruce Lee, but ultimately played by David Carradine. (Gygax, I think, mentioned a completely unrelated book series, though, but I forget what it was called.)

I do think the monk class was better done in Oriental Adventures than in 1e (they were essentially the same, but with allowances for variation by martial art styles). Everyone having the same ultimate technique sort of would ruin the whole kung fu movie thing :D

I have seen some amazing stuff in real life, too...

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

Well, you do have a point. I was lucky enough to have an ambitious DM (in my formative years) who tinkered with classes like Monks (or at least put them in context). My monk started in Kara-Tur, then floated around Greyhawk and Dragonlance. He would have made it into Ravenloft too, but then I made my Paladin, who I played for -years-, and Funky Dynamite. Needless to say my DM could run some weird stuff and pull it off without a hitch.
Yeah, I think it's 3e, deals with poisons and system shocks I believe.
I'm lucky, I live with mine! :D

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

Yeah, I can see that. And yeah, I know all about Kung Fu (the tv series, that is). I think I know the books, but for the life of me, I can't think of the title.
Well, true. But the rule books defines what they do, not -how- they do it. I always assume that each monk was from a different temple and each was taught a different style. But again, that just be me.

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

That's a good way to think of monks, FD - they are from different temples so they have different styles. In DC, you could use ASLs to mark the different schools. Sure, you can't do a lot of the important stuff for at the right time...but hey, we can't have everything (yet).

As for Gygax and the books, I recall reading somewhere that one of his partners introduced monks in a game in which GG was a player and not DM, they had a hell of a good time so added it permanently. It was when Mr. Gygax was editing the Player's Handbook that he did some of what he did off of the books that he had read, but that they were still based on Bruce Lee. As for Kung Fu the tv series, it could easily have been the other way around as the PH actually came out before the tv series. :D:D:D

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

...ASL?

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

ASL is the term DC uses for variables that can be set during game play and tracked through GPDL.

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

Yeah, I was going to ask about GPDL. Do you use it through DC or what?

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

Yes. You can call it with the Logic Block event. Also, it's used by DC for all of the magic, so you've used it and didn't even know. :D

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

As someone who remembers the Gold Box games with real fondness, and who messed around with FRUA though never actually completed a dungeon back in the day when systems still supported it normally, I must say I am really excited to find your site and the associated ones for Dungeon Craft.

I can't really tinker with it myself at this point but when it's done and some quests/games/mods are up and running I certainly hope to play them!

Since the days when Gold Box games have lapsed I've resorted to playing stuff like the Baldur's Gate Bhaalspawn trilogy (BG, SOA, TOB) and while I do love those games, sometimes I want "the classics" back, so to speak.

One of the things I really enjoyed about the Gold Box games that the BG saga missed out on at least in part, is that you were allowed to create a full team of six; but then the game writers threw in one or two NPCs who could also join your team. That was lovely; sort of like having your cake and eating it too. From the screenshots over at Cocoaspud's site I can see the team-of-six concept is intact, but I'm wondering how many "extra NPC" slots there are, if any, or is that left up to the individual game modder?

Also, assuming that NPCs are included, do you have to have a paladin to control them or would they be PC controllable regardless, which is especially useful for those of us who sometimes like to play more nefarious types? Or, again, is that an individual modder decision?

Thanks for putting up with my quetsions and I hope you have a good holiday season.

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

Welcome to Dungeon Craft. :)

If you've been to the Official site, there is a link in the left menu to "Designs to Play". There are a few there, certainly enough to give you a taste of DC. :D

In Dungeon Craft, you can have up to 8 members in your party. The default for the designer is to have 6 PCs (allowing 2 NPCs), but this may be raised or lowered. I know there are several of us talking about using 4 PC limits in our designs, mostly so we can have up to 4 NPCs. Just like in FRUA and the other Gold Box games, to control NPCs a paladin is required in the party. This is still hard-coded at this time, though a designer can change aspects of a Paladin (including renaming them or allowing different alignments).

As for putting up with questions...:D it's not a problem at all. :D The more questions the better.

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

Oh....but I thought Dungeon Craft wasn't finished yet? And that those designs were just like, beta testing for people who had Frua or something? *scratch head*

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

Dungeon Craft is not completed yet, that is true, but it's usable. :) Not all magic is working yet and the combat AI is very limited, but everything else works discounting bugs of course.

The reason the project is not listed as being at 1.0 is b/c we've not yet duplicated everything in FRUA which is one of the main goals of our project.

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

Ahhh yeah that's what I thought. When it does reach version 1.0, I'll be there to play it. And in the meantime I'll be watching these threads as you guys talk about new walls and monster sprites and stuff. :thumbsup2:

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

Welcome to the Forums Arcalian! Good to see another Goldboxer! :) DC Rocks, and in time, it'll be even better with tons of Artwork--we have some kick ass Artists here (and coders)!!

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

Speaking of kick ass artists, nice to see you in the DC part of the forums, Ziroc. When can we expect some more awesome artwork from you? :D:D:D

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

Ziroc: Thank you! Yes, I remember pretty much all the GoldBox games. Never beat Radiance or Azure Bonds (Radiance is just plain hard to even GET anywhere in!) But did beat Silver Blades (too bad I missed the poll on that one), Pools of Darkness, the Krynn Trilogy (really loved the moons-affect-mage-powers concept), and the two Savage Frontier games. I tinkered around with FRUA (did I mention I loved creating NPCs for the party?) but never finished my first dungeon, not patient enough. I don't know how Manikus et al do it!

Manikus: I see from CocoaSpud's site that Direct X 7 is required. I also see there is a seperate download to see if you have all the stuff up to spec for DC. Can I safely assume that since my current computer was bought just before the changeover from XP to Vista that it's up to snuff in that department? I mean, I've got stuff like COH and the BG saga on this thing, I can only assume it can handle DC! :animated_scratchchin:

Re: Manikus' Monks
 

I would assume so, since DX7 shipped on Windows '95 machines. :D But, if you want to be sure, from the command line type "dxdiag" (without the quotes) to start the DirectX diagnostics tool. It should tell in the tab that appears by default when the program starts.