Two questions regarding Class Kits
Kithrixx
Member Posts: 215
1: Will the new IWD:EE kits be implemented in BG:EE and BGII:EE?
2: Will there be a Monk kit that can actually disarm the traps that they are able to detect?
2: Will there be a Monk kit that can actually disarm the traps that they are able to detect?
0
Comments
Edit: I believe it's been said in some interview or other that there will be new kits
Their natural dexterity obviously permits this.
Obviously, there hide in shadows would be detrimentally effected... Or there special attacks... Not sure how you would like to handle the downside.
2. I would be very surprised if they added a trap disarming monk kit, but it wouldn't be without precedent. The AD&D monk had more in common with the thief class than the priest class. Monks had Open Locks, Find/Remove Traps, Move Silently, Hide in Shadows, Hear Noise, and Climb Walls abilities which they performed "at identical level of experience to that of a thief."
When AD&D 2nd Edition came along the Monk was no longer a main class, but added later as a priest variant in supplemental books. Interestingly, the 2nd Edition monk actually had access to priest spells and didn't have many of the abilities you see in BG games. It seems like the Monk as we see it in BGEE, BG2EE, and soon in IWDEE is a hybrid of concepts from AD&D and 3rd Edition. Why they chose to keep find traps in is anybody's guess, but it's not useless since it can free up a thief in your party to focus on disarming traps and other skills.
I imagine the reason the don't get "remove traps" is the same reason that non-rogues are barred from removing the most difficult traps in 3rd edition: it makes the thief/rogue class redundant. Why take a Thief when a Monk can deal with traps and kick-ass too?!
I personally would prefer that they lose stealth, considering I never use it. Either Stunning Blow or Quivering Palm could be cut and I wouldn't shed a tear (but only one of them, not both).
I reckon the only way to balance a trap disarming monk is to remove their APR advancement.
I'm not sure why disarm traps should be any more protected than any other thief ability. Open locks can be handled by wizards with a knock spell. Pockets can be picked by Bards, and by a certain wizard familiar. Detect Illusion is an ability which mimics several wizard spells. Hiding in Shadows and Moving Silently are abilities shared by other classes and by both wizard and cleric spells. Even trap setting can be accomplished to some degree by the use of wizard spells.
There are a couple of ways to protect the trap removal kingship of thieves, even if you allow for monks to do the same. Put a cap on trap disarming for the monk class to reflect their ability to disarm lesser dangers, but not the greatest of traps (similar to 3rd Edition) or make remove traps similar to stealth for rangers, an ability which increases at a set rate unmodifiable by players. If the rate of increase is low, thieves will always be better than monks of equivalent level. Only the highest level monks would be able to conquer the most difficult traps.
As I said before, I don't think Beamdog is going to add a trap disarming monk kit, but if they did I don't think it would ruin the value of the thief class.
Let me put it this way, if you are so keen on Thieves, why did you ask a question that implies you would like to replace one with a monk?
Thieves have always struggled to escape from their 1st edition legacy of being deliberately underpowered.
If I want a caster, I can pick up a Cleric, a Druid, a Mage, a Bard, or a Sorcerer.
If I want a healer, I can pick up a Cleric, a Druid, or a Paladin if I want to play it risky.
If I want a frontline fighter, I can pick up a Fighter, a Paladin, a Berserker, a Ranger, a Monk, or a Cleric with a lot of armor.
If I want a summoner, Druids, Rangers, Mages, Sorcerers.
If I want an archer, Fighters, Rangers, Thieves.
If I want a buffer, Druids, Bards, Clerics, Mages, Sorcerers.
And yet, if I want to disarm traps... I get a Thief. Or a Thief multiclass.
Don't get me wrong - I like Thieves. But I'm tired of them. I'm tired of being forced to take one every single time whereas with other roles I can get creative. I have two or more options for every single role I could ever think of EXCEPT for disabling traps. If the Monk can't disable them perfectly, that's fine! Not getting experience from them would be a fine balancing factor - I mean, Knock doesn't give experience for popping things open and Pick Lock does, I don't see why it can't be the same for a non-thief disabling a trap.
But anyways, my point is that many other classes and roles can already be replaced, some of them up to five times or more. The Thief is the only one that can't, and I'd like to see that change.
The ability to disarm traps, meanwhile, is rather different. Come across a powerful, resetting trap (half the stuff in Durlag's Tower comes to mind) and you're pretty well out of luck if you don't have a thief. Which isn't to say there's *no* way to work around them, but the very premise of the discussion hinges on the fact that we all agree it's a lot better to be able to disarm those really nasty traps.
Modern MMMOs/RPGs have tried to solve the problem by making Rogues the top melee damage dealing class and relegating Fighters to meat shields, but that isn't retro-gaming.
Monks are usually underperformers in 3.x, 3.0 being outrightly crummy without expansion materials. 1st ed Monks were pretty solid though, but they had roleplaying disadvantages that made Paladins cringe a bit iirc.
Now, as for thieves underperforming... I'd argue they perform at least as well as low-level monks. And at high levels, you're right, they need a lot of micromanagement to hold their own compared to the other classes. But, well, that's okay. They have a lot to offer in general. They have free use of a lot of really nice abilities, even if they don't have a lot of the typical direct combat stuff. I don't think allowing another class to remove traps would invalidate thieves. I think it would give people more options. I approve of more options.
I also adamantly disagree with the idea that you shouldn't take a system you're working with and try to make it better. And from the substantial changes the IE games made to the game mechanics, I don't think the original designers agreed with that either. But that's only relevant if you're arguing that that's why we shouldn't do it. If you think letting monks (or whatever class) remove traps would make the gameplay worse, then that's pretty good grounds to argue against it.
One really gets fed up with all the flaming and racial slurs of most other forums...
You do make a good thematic point, though. There are probably at least as many people who'd go for the trapmaster monk as for a thief, and that is sort of thematically weird. Especially in IWD, where you don't have to worry about whether there's an NPC of that class. How would you feel if, instead of a monk who could remove traps, someone proposed a ranger who could do the same? The idea of a ranger dealing with traps for the party seems honestly more plausible to me than a monk doing so (although a monk that just didn't set off traps, as suggested above, seems both awesome and thematically reasonable).
The main reason being, Samurai couldn't party with dishonorable classes but you NEEDED a utility class in the party, and Ninja were dishonorable, while monks were an honorable class.