Swordslinger's page

The only issue I see is that the monk is usually part of a team. Which if there had been 3 trolls vs monk, cleric, and a paladin, the party would provide greater support to each other, allowing them to overcome the trolls who just aren't cordinated enough to work well together.

There's something extra to be said about team players who buff up their companions, in which they actually look worse in a solo environment. The monk though is not one of these types. Aside from stunning fist, which can grant allies a bunch of free attacks, There really isn't much a monk does to augment the rest of his team. He's basically a fast moving fighter, only with no great ranged attack, and weaker stats than a real fighter.

A fighter can pretty much get the monk's biggest benefit by just buying a horse.

A game system is full of checks and balances. A Mage can hurt a whole lot of people really bad at the same time, but can't fight effectively and gets killed easier. Yes you can use incendiary grenades to bypass AC, DR, spell resistance and energy resistance, but if there has to be a way of balancing it out, even if you have to do so by enforcing common sense if there are no rules.

This philosophy leads to bad rules.

The idea shouldn't be to say "let common sense handle it". This is a playtest stage. If something is broken, lets help fix it, and not let it get to print in the first place.

Why not write a rule that fixes it? How about simply saying that precision based damage (like sneak attack) doesn't work with splash weapons?

Better to actually fix a broken rule than just make blanket meaningless statements about how common sense will fix everything.