dove@mit-bug.UUCP (Web Dove) (09/20/85)
There are references in the DM guide about the probability of a monk "stunning" an opponent. They say to see the definition of "stun" under "combat". I believe "stunning" is also referenced in the section on bare handed combat. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any such definition under combat. There are definitions of stunning under MU "power word stun" (unable to think or act coherently...) and under cleric "holy word" (changes to speed, ac,..). Was there ever a subsequent specification for the meaning of stun in combat in some other document? If not, is there an accepted standard?
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Racer X) (09/23/85)
While I'm interested in this topic (we just added a monk to the
campaign I'm GMing, and I've never played or GMed one before),
I also have a tangential question about Monks:
Why aren't monks allowed the Dexterity bonus to AC that other
classes enjoy, especially since Dex is a prime requisite? I
consider the progressive improvement of Monk AC with level to
be a "power" of the class, not a substitute for the Dex bonus.
I would think that, ESPECIALLY SINCE MONKS ARE NOT ALLOWED ARMOR,
and since it seems consistent with the other powers of the class,
that the Dex defensive adjustment would be *particularly* applicable
to Monks.
How do others play this? I'm inclined to use the AC bonus anyway.
I think if it was disallowed to keep the Monk from becoming too
powerful, EGG did it ("Depowered" the Monk) in a particularly
inconsistent way (which is CONsistent for EGG).
Scott J. Berrydove@mit-bug.UUCP (Web Dove) (09/27/85)
In article <641@hou2g.UUCP> scott@hou2g.UUCP (Racer X) writes: >How do others play this? I'm inclined to use the AC bonus anyway. >I think if it was disallowed to keep the Monk from becoming too >powerful, EGG did it ("Depowered" the Monk) in a particularly >inconsistent way (which is CONsistent for EGG). We play monks "stock" the only benefit from DEX is missile to-hit and reaction. There is no STR bonus either. Both of these restrictions are appropriate for higher level monks or they become too powerful. They are powerful due to saving, sneaking, slow immunity, poison immunity, speed, save for 1/2 or none. These powers are most helpful in situations when magic doesn't work (they are the only class that keeps their AC down). Don't treat monks as front line melee combatants. They are better as bow persons (due to the weapon bonus and DEX missile bonus) and they are useful for collecting information (at higher level they are better combatants than thieves though they can't stab backs).
oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev x258) (09/27/85)
> Why aren't monks allowed the Dexterity bonus to AC that other > classes enjoy, especially since Dex is a prime requisite? > .... > I would think that, ESPECIALLY SINCE MONKS ARE NOT ALLOWED ARMOR, > and since it seems consistent with the other powers of the class, > that the Dex defensive adjustment would be *particularly* applicable > to Monks. > > How do others play this? I'm inclined to use the AC bonus anyway. > > Scott J. Berry Monk character class always was a bit silly -- under-powered, handicapped by arbitrary restrictions, etc. The way our group has been handling it : DEX bonuses apply. Bracers of defence are "gifted" to characters that start at levels 4-5 (we almost never start at 1st level. Level 3 is often the most reasonable level to start on, especially when new people join in an on-going campaign). Monks gain "+" on their hands at the rate of 1 "+" per 3 levels. That allows a 6th level monk to fight vampires along side with 6th level fighters and not be handicapped by their combat tables ( same as thief , no?)
somner@lasspvax.UUCP (David Somner) (10/02/85)
In article <211@mit-bug.UUCP> dove@mit-bugs-bunny.UUCP (Web Dove) writes: >There are references in the DM guide about the probability of a monk >"stunning" an opponent. They say to see the definition of "stun" >under "combat". I believe "stunning" is also referenced in the section on >bare handed combat. > >Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any such definition under >combat. There are definitions of stunning under MU "power word stun" >(unable to think or act coherently...) and under cleric "holy word" >(changes to speed, ac,..). Was there ever a subsequent specification for the >meaning of stun in combat in some other document? If not, is there an >accepted standard? When we (meaning me and a group of my friends, who have been playing for several years) play D&D, we usually have a monk in the party. After glancing through the books (I keep a set in my office) I see that there really isn't a true definition for 'monk stun'. What has become an accepted standard in our D&D campaign, is the equivalent of a momentary Vulcan nerve-pinch type of effect. That is, the person attacked is literally unable to move (paralysed) for a random number of rounds determinant on what level the monk is, the monk's strength, agility, and (sometimes) mood. Picture this effect: A sharp blow near the base of the neck, causing both a shock to the person's system and pain. The neck (so I believe) stiffens slightly to this sort of attack, and dis-orientation results (at the very least). Sometimes the blow is great enough to knock the person out completely. The stun does not last more than about 3 rounds, after which the victim can again attack, but at a penalty for the next d4 rounds, usually -1 or -2, depending on how hard he was hit. Repeated 'stun' attacks while the person is still stunned is considered unethical and usually results in a broken neck, if not unconsciouness. If anyone else out there has ways of doing the monk's stun too, I would like to hear about it as well. It's one of the many things un-standardized in this world.... - Dave S.
jims@hcrvax.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) (10/03/85)
> That allows a 6th level monk to fight vampires along side with 6th level > fighters and not be handicapped by their combat tables ( same as thief , no?) No, same as a cleric (I believe). I seem to remember fighting as a thief, and then, during the preparations for a campaignm, seeing in the DMG that monks fight as clerics. The player's says that they fight as thieves, but I believe this is a typo. Can anyone confer this ? Xavier the wonder monk (I poor, but happy)
lawrence@encore.UUCP (Scott Lawrence) (10/04/85)
We have always treated "stun" as a simple inability to react to anything
for a couple of rounds ( usually 1d4 ) - that is, no initiative. We treat
it as a very hard, well placed blow - if you have ever been hit really
hard in the solar plexus, the nose, the temple, or any number of other
vulnerable places you know that it is practically impossible to see, hear,
or do anything for some period of time. The monk, by virtue of rigorous
training and intimate knowlege of anatomy is able to direct his blows to
these sensitive areas - perhaps doing little real damage, but temporarily
disabling the opponent.
--
Scott Lawrence
UUCP: {decvax,allegra,linus,ihnp4}!encore!lawrence