Monk progression: Is this an error or a valid rule?

Traveller · Post by **Traveller** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:51 pm

mmtbb wrote:
I have found that C&C classes are very close to their AD&D counterparts. They all follow the same pattern. In fact I have looked closely at each class, level by level, ability by ability. I have seen nothing out of the ordinary EXCEPT for this one case that baffles me.

My point is that you instantly assumed that the EP advancement was wrong. In your original post you believed that it must be a mistake. Now that you know that the EP progression isn't, it's simply baffling because on this one thing Castles & Crusades does not follow the expected paradigm of AD&D. Thus, you must unlearn what you have learned.

Now...there's nothing that says you cannot change the number of EP needed for advancement. But I'll leave that one and this thread up to you. I don't allow monks in my games.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

mmtbb · Post by **mmtbb** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:54 pm

magehammer wrote:
So, mmtbb,

Are you going to play the monk? As is? modified? Not at all?

Just curious as to how this all going to turn out.

The jury is still out.

However, I will say with certainty if I did end up pursuing C&C

I would not play the current monk "as is".

Thanks for your interest.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 10:21 pm

mmtbb wrote:
The jury is still out.

However, I will say with certainty if I did end up pursuing C&C

I would not play the current monk "as is".

Thanks for your interest.

I have only played Monks as NPC antagonists. In some ways they are very cool, but they need at least more AC. So I don't ever see myself playing one "as is" either.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

mmtbb · Post by **mmtbb** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 11:39 pm

Traveller wrote:
My point is that you instantly assumed that the EP advancement was wrong. In your original post you believed that it must be a mistake.

1) No, there was nothing "instant" about it. It took me a while to even ask this question. I had to look at all the other 12 C&C classes level by level to see if this was a common occurance. I didn't see it in any of the other classes so I posted the question.

Traveller wrote:
Now that you know that the EP progression isn't, it's simply baffling because on this one thing Castles & Crusades does not follow the expected paradigm of AD&D.

Like I just mentioed above, to me, this "one thing" doesn't seem to follow the paradigm of C&C, let alone AD&D. But again, this is just what the face value numbers look like.

Traveller wrote:
Thus, you must unlearn what you have learned.

I keep hearing this, but if I did I wouldn't be here on this forum. I wanted something familiar and easy. The reviews said that if the player was familiar with AD&D, learning C&C would be a breeze. If I truly have to unlearn what I've learned in AD&D then this game isn't the one for me.

Traveller wrote:
...I don't allow monks in my games.

It is actually nice to hear that, and does not surprise me. I have wondered this about many of the posts here. I think as a general rule, most players don't play a monk very long, if at all. For this reason, there are few that truly understand a high level monk from personal experience. It took me years and years to get to 15th level, and then 2 more years before my monk retired and then started the process over again...and again. If they offered a PhD in "Monking", I would have it
Seriously though, I appreciate your good intentions. I don't feel any malice in your post. Thanks.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 11:53 pm

mmtbb wrote:
I keep hearing this, but if I did I wouldn't be here on this forum. I wanted something familiar and easy. The reviews said that if the player was familiar with AD&D, learning C&C would be a breeze. If I truly have to unlearn what I've learned in AD&D then this game isn't the one for me.

.

*chuckles* I think what folks are getting at with the whole jedi philosophy is this. C&C has a certain broad flavor that is very much like OD&D/AD&D flexibility. However, its in the fine points, like the odd hitch in the xp progression noted, and in a few other odd bits that might not personally suit everyone, that folks will find differences.

Due to a number of reasons, making a clone of AD&D right down to the exact numbers is problematic at best, very unsuccessful at worst.

But what C&C is going for is the essence of the game, or a given style, if not the exact mechanics.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Post by **Breakdaddy** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 12:33 am

Monks have never appeared in my C&C game so I'm coming at it from that viewpoint. If it makes things weird for you in game then you should change it without reservation. If it's something you can overlook then that's good too. C&C is very AD&D in spirit, but there are notable differences in the mechanics that may make a 1st or 2nd ed AD&D player scratch his head. I houseruled the game down into the game I wanted to run/play and have been very happy with it since doing so. Before I did this, I found fiddly bits that weren't quite what I thought they should be, but nothing game breaking, more personal preference than anything else. Hope you pursue C&C, but if not, try one of the retroclones like Labyrinth Lord or BFRPG.

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 4:12 am

I haven't played a monk as a single classed character but I have as a multiclassed character using my multiclassing rules. A multi-classed monk/assassin was *awesome* as it was. I had no problem with the powers but I find that the armor issue for monks to be the main stumbling block to playing the class. Then again, the d12 hit dice helps a bit and this class is not the only class that potentially suffers from armor restrictions.

A couple of players I know had problems adapting to OTHER classes when they came from 3.x for example... and a couple of players had to learn the hard way that a Thief (Rogue) is not meant to be a 'front-line' character in C&C or older editions of the D&D game.

However, I'm not adverse to trying different things with the class to possibly 'improve' or give variation to the Monk class. I'm tempted to pull out my old Oriental Adventures AD&D book is see if I can get some ideas and inspiration from there. Perhaps that is one source that some people can draw from to 'tweak' the class.

Personally, I'm curious what other people have done or are thinking of doing with the class. I will continue to follow this thread closely...

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

mmtbb · Post by **mmtbb** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 4:58 am

moriarty777,

As a side note, I created a monk that is IMHO a nicely balanced monk. Not overpowering, strong in the places he needs to be strong, weak in the appropriete places as well. I remember posting one of the features of the class on a WoTC forum. Funny enough, it ended up in v3.5.

It would be the template for the monk class I would use if I played C&C. Maybe sometime I'll post it if anyone is interested.

BLOOD AXE · Post by **BLOOD AXE** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 4:33 pm

Sure, post it. Im sure everybody would like to see what you came up with.

The original Monk had d4 Hit points, & was pretty weak. The Monk got a boost in Dragon #53 & Best of Dragon #3 & has been evolving since. ompare that to the C&C Monk with d12 Hp.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:24 pm

mmtbb wrote:
moriarty777,

As a side note, I created a monk that is IMHO a nicely balanced monk. Not overpowering, strong in the places he needs to be strong, weak in the appropriete places as well. I remember posting one of the features of the class on a WoTC forum. Funny enough, it ended up in v3.5.

It would be the template for the monk class I would use if I played C&C. Maybe sometime I'll post it if anyone is interested.

Personally I think it should be mandatory that everyone share their house rules.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Go0gleplex · Post by **Go0gleplex** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:01 pm

Mine's on my webpage: Go0gleplex's Gaming

Open to the public 24/7...just remember to duck the plasma torps.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:07 pm

Go0gleplex wrote:
Mine's on my webpage: Go0gleplex's Gaming

Open to the public 24/7...just remember to duck the plasma torps.

My most current version is available on the first page of my Monday Night Game thread in the games forum.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:21 pm

Treebore wrote:
Personally I think it should be mandatory that everyone share their house rules.

Unless, like me, your planning on publishing them at some point. Don't see the sense in handing away work for free.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 9:02 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
Unless, like me, your planning on publishing them at some point. Don't see the sense in handing away work for free.

As awesome as my house rules are, I don't think anyone would be willing to pay money for them.

I have to admit I am surprised at how many have PMed me for my copy of them, even with just being able to copy and paste from my posts.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

magehammer · Post by **magehammer** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 9:08 pm

Mine are available at the link in my signature. It is in PDF format for easy downloading. Enjoy.

Maybe we can all start a thread where we discuss the pros and cons and reasonings behind everyone's house rules...

_________________
If you are looking for something to read:
http://bit.ly/QOfso

Visit magehammer's Keep on the Weblands at http://magehammer.googlepages.com

Joe · Post by **Joe** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:27 am

Not to be the one to point out the pink elephant sitting on the couch but...I'm so darn good at it!
It is only in the misguided arrogance of man that presumes to think perhaps nature somehow is a mistake. Because it does not add up in their own limited mind mathematically. C&C is not only a game, but a work of art. Did DaVinci make a mistake when the Mona Lisa looks plain?

So let's not forget the obvious. That the act of designing a game allows you to inject your own desired effects in the game for reasons only known to that designer.

"Because I wanted to" is a perfectly good answer in my book.

I tend to think people have had their notion of 3.5 with everything balanced against everything else to effect their preconceived notions.

Everything does not have to be EQUAL to be BALANCED.

Thearchetypal paladin is a perfect example. I don't think Gygax ever expected a holy warrior to be the equal of a common thief, especially at first level. The point is one is a thug, and the other is blessed by a deity. Obviously NOT equal. The paladin was supposed to stand out...especially at low levels.

It was never "equal" but due to the experience tables, it was balanced with the other classes in the end.

I think an ability that allows you to just stop your opponents heart deserves a lot of exp to earn the ability, just like the pals special abilities justify a more difficult exp table.

The concept of equality and fairness is just an ideal dreamed up by men with no grasp of certain realities such as war for one example.

Yet the concept of balance is something we see in nature all the time. It may not be "fair" to the antelope to be eaten by the lion, but no one pretends either creature is equal. Yet in the big picture, the balance is...well perfect.

magehammer · Post by **magehammer** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:29 am

well said, Joe. Well said.

_________________
If you are looking for something to read:
http://bit.ly/QOfso

Visit magehammer's Keep on the Weblands at http://magehammer.googlepages.com

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:32 pm

Speaking a little bit about this with Davis Chenault at GenCon (more specifically picking his brain about character advancement in general) it is clear that there is particular design reason for this apparent XP anomoly. I dont want to say much, but it seems that this design choice will become more apparent when the CKG is finally released.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:45 pm

I agree with Joe (well said, btw ). I was just discussing this point with a worker at my FLGS not too long ago.

I like 3.5 - something I won't deny. But I think one of the biggest mistakes it made was to normalize the experience table. I know they wanted to make things easier, to standardize and balance the classes. But they didn't. With the fighter on one end of the spectrum and the druid (all spellcasters, really) on the other, and no way to easily balance them against one another, didn't work. I never had a problem with it personally but maybe I'm just ignorant - I never looked at balance between the classes themselves and rather looked at the party's stregth as a team. Sure, some classees aren't equal to others, but all function well withing a team - they all have a role to fill. So yes, I agree that things can be equal and not neccessarily balanced (and don't have to be). I think C&C did a pretty darn good job at balancing things, IMHO.

Omote wrote:
Speaking a little bit about this with Davis Chenault at GenCon (more specifically picking his brain about character advancement in general) it is clear that there is particular design reason for this apparent XP anomoly. I dont want to say much, but it seems that this design choice will become more apparent when the CKG is finally released.

Interesting. I think some of the oddities in the XP tables make sense to me, maybe for the wrong reasons, as things stand now. But to find out the "why" from the official source would be nice.

mmtbb · Post by **mmtbb** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:12 pm

Joe wrote:
It is only in the misguided arrogance of man that presumes to think perhaps nature somehow is a mistake. Because it does not add up in their own limited mind mathematically. C&C is not only a game, but a work of art. Did DaVinci make a mistake when the Mona Lisa looks plain?

Umm, ok master theologian . I am not trying to buy a "work of art." Like many, I am just a regular guy trying to find a system that makes common sense to ME. This small piece does not make sense to me, and a few others who posted.

Joe wrote:
"Because I wanted to" is a perfectly good answer in my book.

I'm sorry, not in mine. This being a commercial product, I hope this does not reflect the author's view either.

Joe wrote:
I think an ability that allows you to just stop your opponents heart deserves a lot of exp to earn the ability, just like the pals special abilities justify a more difficult exp table.

An assasin can do a better job at 1st level (death attack in much more usable and powerful). However, I am not going to rehash this. The quivering palm used in C&C is the same as the one used in 1st ed AD&D. "That" particular Quivering Palm was absolutely broken, thus the need for the articles we have mentioned in Dragon Magazine.

I think there are some things that C&C has done wonderfully. I am not blind to these. I believe I see the picture as far as I have been allowed. Anyway, nice oration Joe. I suppose it is good to see people have such passion for a game.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:32 pm

mmtbb wrote:
I'm sorry, not in mine. This being a commercial product, I hope this does not reflect the author's view either.

*chuckles* The flaw in the logic here being one simple thing. If we tried to design a game that sought to cater to every personal preference and ideal of logic out there, we might as well not even have bothered. I think every man jack on the TLG team would be chewing on a straight jacket in a padded cell by now by going down that path.

And yes, sometimes things got tossed in the game just cause it sounded good. And I can state with absolute authority that it was exactly the same with the early D&D editions.

"Not everything has to make sense" is a truism of the creative field. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Arioch · Post by **Arioch** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:01 pm

So change it. It doesn't matter why the trolls, designed it, if it is that huge a problem change it to what ever will make you happy. If you don't trust the designer that is you option.

Ken
_________________
Gygax is to Gaming what Kirby was to comics

Alas poor Elric I was a thousand times more evil than you

Slice N Dice: Game and Pizza Parlour

WWBYD What would Brigham Young do ?
http://www.geocities.com/J_Elric_Smith/Index.html

mmtbb · Post by **mmtbb** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:47 am

gideon_thorne wrote:
*chuckles* The flaw in the logic here being one simple thing. If we tried to design a game that sought to cater to every personal preference and ideal of logic out there, we might as well not even have bothered. I think every man jack on the TLG team would be chewing on a straight jacket in a padded cell by now by going down that path.

No flaw. I don't think it has to cater to everyone, just make a little more sense would be nice. Thats all. My comment simply means, I would hope that troll games is the kind of company that wouldn't use "Because I wanted to" when a possible customer asks a hard question. I am positive that winning even one player over to C&C brings many referrals. It is always nice to know that the creators actually care about the customer.

Anyway, I keep getting sucked back to this thread to respond. This is a dead horse thread. There is nothing new that has been posted here for a while. I already made up my mind as to what I would do if I bought into C&C. The only value I have taken from this thread is the post that stated that this question may be answered in the CKG. I'll either wait for the CKG or move to something else.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:59 am

mmtbb wrote:
No flaw. I don't think it has to cater to everyone, just make a little more sense would be nice. Thats all. My comment simply means, I would hope that troll games is the kind of company that wouldn't use "Because I wanted to" when a possible customer asks a hard question.

Well, the question was answered. The numbers fell the way they did because of the means and point costs that Davis used to create the classes.

There's not much can be done if that answer doesn't make sense. ^_^

It's not something that seems to cause a lot of contention. In fact, before this thread, its the first time I've seen, on any forum, in 4 years, the topic about the monks 12th level bump come up. So, either folks just ignored it, or it makes a lot of sense to a lot more people than evident.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

mmtbb · Post by **mmtbb** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:14 am

...OR nobody plays the monk to 12th level to even care, which is probably too accurate!

It actually did come up once before. I came across it when searching for an answer. Someone asked why there was a strange bump in the xps of a different class. The bump that thread was pointing to was a small one. This one is huge.

magehammer · Post by **magehammer** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:17 am

This thread is like a sore tooth. I can't help going back to it.

I don't know what it is.
_________________
If you are looking for something to read:
http://bit.ly/QOfso

Visit magehammer's Keep on the Weblands at http://magehammer.googlepages.com

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:27 am

You also have to remember that the precise discussions governing the creation of C&C are still under a legally binding non-disclosure agreement, it prevents some, who would otherwise be willing to help, from being able to do so unless, and until, the one person who has absolute knowledge about said topic decides to say something -- so, if anything, this thread accomplished one thing: Davis showed up again and posted.

When one does not like the answer, it does not mean the answer is wrong...

But, yes, this has come up... twice, I think. Most people don't seem to hang up about the XP progressions or other "minor" things in C&C, taking it in stride as "something to houserule." That may not be right, but it is what seems to happen.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:34 am

magehammer wrote:
This thread is like a sore tooth. I can't help going back to it.

I don't know what it is.

*chuckles* I don't know what it is either? Seems like an odd thing to make a fuss about honestly.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

mmtbb · Post by **mmtbb** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:52 am

serleran wrote:
so, if anything, this thread accomplished one thing: Davis showed up again and posted.

Exactly.

serleran wrote:
When one does not like the answer, it does not mean the answer is wrong.

It doesn't mean it, but it still could be

serleran wrote:
But, yes, this has come up... twice, I think.

Yes, I thought so. Thanks for clarifying

Traveller · Post by **Traveller** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:11 am

mmtbb wrote:
No flaw. I don't think it has to cater to everyone, just make a little more sense would be nice.

Why I keep reading this thread I don't know. Even worse is that I'm responding to it, again.

You're making little sense yourself. Explain to us just WHY the game HAS to make a little more sense in this one area. From the responses you are getting, you're the only one who believes that the game isn't making sense.

Arioch on page 4 has the right answer here. His answer illustrates another design decision by the Trolls regarding Castles & Crusades, a design decision that goes hand in hand with "Because it sounded good". That design decision? The ability to change the things you don't like without worrying that you'll break things.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.