Fixating a bit too much on the dpr. The game can be about so much more than that but only if you let it.
Not everything has DR. Although it is very common for high level pathfinder.
I've been going over 3.5 monsters of late and I really noticed something: weaknesses, actual true weaknesses. Low acs, one of three saves being low, that sort of thing. The power gaming makes very strong high end monsters, which may really shut a monk down. Sure the monks pass the saves, but yes, if they miss, they won't be happy.
Fixating a bit too much on the dpr. The game can be about so much more than that but only if you let it.Monks have three options in combat:
- Hit things (DPR)
- Maneuvers, if they took the feats (they are good at these usually between 3rd to 7th level, after which the usefulness dies off and is all but gone by 10th)
- Stunning fist (requires you to hit and do damage)
So yes, hitting and scoring damage is important. Not necessarily doing DPR, but actually hitting...that's important.
Classes don't suck. It's messageboards that suck if you're going to set your gaming compass by them. As they're generally populated by the vocal or cranky set of the gaming population.
You'll find that the classes that "suck" according to the message boards are the one's that can't be played idiot fashion. Monks and Rogues share that quality. A fighter just has to go up and hit things, a wizard can cast his cookie cutter spells from anywhere, but the monk and rogue actually have to think on their feet constantly to bring their assets into play. Many players don't have or develop this ability, so for them, these classes. "suck".
And so they come to the boards here, let things like fighter DPR numbers go into their heads, and vent their frustrations out on crusades and threads on things on "how this and this sucks".
These two classes don't suck. But it does take more player effort to realize their potential. That's not a fault of the class, it's an aspect of the roles they play.
This is a good explanation of why dpr becomes so important to some.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So make a monk who wants to Full-Attack Flurry, and has ridiculous AC. Now you just need to draw aggro and get monsters standing next to you for your upcoming Flurry.
This is easy. Wear the most wizarding robes you can find, carry a stick with a crystal on top of it, and a wizard's hat. (The robes are suspiciously comfy and non-confining your movements, but the starts, moons and rhinestones should distract monsters.) Get an item that lets you cast useless cantrips all day, just to be seen casting spells.
Everyone will jump at the chance to corner the wizard in melee.
DR is solved with Brass Knuckles (technically Adamantine, Silver, Cold Iron) and enchanting said items. Or my homebrewed handwraps... which we actually were using wrong as I had them working similar to how a rope gauntlet worked and misinterpreted. The handwraps can't be any special materials but can be enchanted as a club.
Those 2 things work wonderful with a Monk. Does it make the Monk more reliant on WBL? Yes. Does it make sense? Yes. Handwraps and Knuckles actually date back to ancient fighting styles. In fact the modern design of the Brass Knuckles comes from a specific weapon used by Monks who traveled to Europe. In fact it is one of the sources of the whole Martial Artist, Kung-fu Master, and Ninja blade catching myths.
So make a monk who wants to Full-Attack Flurry, and has ridiculous AC. Now you just need to draw aggro and get monsters standing next to you for your upcoming Flurry.
This is easy. Wear the most wizarding robes you can find, carry a stick with a crystal on top of it, and a wizard's hat. (The robes are suspiciously comfy and non-confining your movements, but the starts, moons and rhinestones should distract monsters.) Get an item that lets you cast useless cantrips all day, just to be seen casting spells.
Everyone will jump at the chance to corner the wizard in melee.
This was actually something my Monk player done against a Mage Hunter NPC I made.
Here is one question I have: Why was Antagonize nerfed the way it was?
|
|
Originally antagonize could be used to force a wizard to charge into melee without any way to resist the easy skill check.
It's still a dubious mechanic, but at least now it allows people to attack using their primary method rather than archers throwing away their bows and wizards hugging enemy barbarians.
DR is solved with Brass Knuckles (technically Adamantine, Silver, Cold Iron) and enchanting said items. Or my homebrewed handwraps... which we actually were using wrong as I had them working similar to how a rope gauntlet worked and misinterpreted. The handwraps can't be any special materials but can be enchanted as a club.
Those 2 things work wonderful with a Monk. Does it make the Monk more reliant on WBL? Yes. Does it make sense? Yes. Handwraps and Knuckles actually date back to ancient fighting styles. In fact the modern design of the Brass Knuckles comes from a specific weapon used by Monks who traveled to Europe. In fact it is one of the sources of the whole Martial Artist, Kung-fu Master, and Ninja blade catching myths.
Only problem is Brass Knuckles got errata'd so they are light weapons and do a flat 1d3 damage. Same with gauntlets, cestus etc. The ONLY way a monk's unarmed strike can be legally enhanced is the Amulet of Mighty Fists.
where is that errata cause I sure as heck haven't seen it.
@Mekkis: Improved Feint and Maxed Bluff. Can really do wonders. As can many abilities out there. Crane Style really is good on the Rogue if you go for a balanced build.
Improved Feint allows you to (ideally) pull off a single sneak attack in melee. This means that you forgo your ability to get multiple sneak attacks a round.
The thing is, even with sneak attack, the rogue isn't getting any more advantage than he would get through rolling a fighter.
The reason I feel the rogue should be an NPC class is that what rogues excel at (attacking quickly, retreating around numerous traps, etc) is something that works well when you're behind the screen, but generally underwhelms in front of it.
But for quite a few levels you will only be able to make a single attack regardless. Plus throw on the Speed weapon quality.
Expert is the NPC version of the Rogue.
where is that errata cause I sure as heck haven't seen it.
You can view the 'corrected' version here, you will note that the damage is listed as 1d3 for medium creatures, and not 'unarmed strike damage'. Basically the devs said it was silly to replace the AoMF, and changed it. While I didn't like brass knuckles, I'd have used them for a monk...but you can't do your unarmed damage with them, so there is no point.
Just about every item produced 'for monks' has either been nerfed into uselessness, or modified so that monks cannot use it, or works out as working better for non-monks than for monks.
Where is that change at cause I sure as heck haven't seen it in any book errata. And the prd doesn't have it changed.
Here is the official word from SKR.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow... Thank Shelyn I always run my own setting.
Because that is ridiculous.
Now do you understand why certain members of the monk-loving fraternity feel the monk is underpowered? The AoMF is the only enhancement available, and it lags behind even a TWF that doesn't have the sense to enchant weapons asymmetrically. Add that on top of MAD and 3/4BAB and you have a serious handicap to striking your target.
Wow... Thank Shelyn I always run my own setting.
Because that is ridiculous.
We're in the same boat. There are a lot of rulings out there on the PF material: some are needed, well-thought-out and useful; just as many are not.
With that said, I think very highly of SKR's material and many of his rulings. This, however, is not one I'll be using in my game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Note: I don't think any of these classes suck, and I think a lot of time the hatred gets skewed and out of hand. But this is my understanding of the situation.
How does the rogue suck?
Frustration with the rogue stems from one of several things:
- Especially after the APG and Ultimate books came out, the rogue has very little that remains unique to it, because some archetypes give out trapfinding and sneak attack, or abilities close to those, to other classes.- Rogue combat builds require relying on sneak attack, which means either a flanking build (which means *gasp* you have to design a character around TEAMWORK *cries and flees in terror*) or a feint build, which often people who hate the rogue forget about or don't like the feat taxes.
- Many rogue talents, which are the one thing rogues have left unique to them, are too circumstantial to be useful.
- Rogues on the surface seem like they should encourage Dexterity based builds. But the problem is building a Dexterity based warrior requires a LOT of feats--Weapon Finesse, Agile Maneuvers, the Two Weapon Fighting Tree---which will take a rogue awhile to get, because they are, after all, rogues. A high level rogue combat build can be awesome but it takes a really long time to get there. While this IS a rogue problem, it is also a problem inherent to Pathfinder--rogue or not, Dexterity builds are harder to make rewarding than perhaps they ought to be.
- Related to that, rogues should be good snipers, but being able to only sneak attack within 30 feet restricts that capability. Some archetypes and rogue talents and items do help though.
Note that most of these complaints are due to the rogue's role in combat. If you want a non-magic oriented skillmonkey, the rogue still is excellent--and if you want a combat rogue, you can still do fine, you just have to work at it. Most of the complaints I've seen about the rogue in non-combat roles don't really hold much water in my opinion--while there is some healthy competition with the bard, rogues have a ton of skill points and unique abilities via rogue talents that can make them shine with skills in their own way (Fast Stealth anyone?).
For fixing rogues, the only thing I might do is give them Weapon Finesse as a free feat, and write up some improved rogue talents.
How does the monk suck?
- Monks suffer from a lack of clear identity, in design and in interpretation. When you think, "I want to play an ascetic warrior who wears no armor and fights unarmed!" The uninitiated will naturally think of playing a monk, only to discover their actually "ascetic warrior" abilities are limited. They have no way of enhancing unarmed strikes save through an expensive magic item or hoping a party member prepares and casts Magic Weapon/Magic Fang on them, so ultimately it's better if they fight with weapons, regardless of how high their unarmed strike dice grow. Often because they are 3/4 BAB they do not make good warrior types, and unless you absolutely pump up Strength, they have trouble hitting. A lot of their strengths are hidden--such as good defensive abilities. Monks are more mystical, defensive jacks of all trades who occasionally get a punch in, and unless that's what you want to play, you're going to get disappointed rapidly with the class.
- With that there's a lot about the monk that contradicts itself. A monk should be extremely mobile, seeing as they are unhindered by gear and have cool abilities like abundant step and fast movement. But then, a major monk combat ability is flurry of blows, which requires them to stay still in combat.- Monks require high stats in many areas to be good at what they seem they should be good at. They need to max Strength to hit and deal damage, especially if you do want them to fight unarmed. They need high Wisdom for their AC bonus and Ki. They need high Dexterity because the Wisdom bonus to AC and monk bonus to AC will not be enough to keep their AC high enough. They need decent Con because they only have d8 hit dice yet are designed ostensibly for melee. They need at least an Int of 13 if they want more than 4 skill points or if they want, eventually, to get Greater Trip or Disarm, because while they get the "Improved" version of these as bonus feats, they don't get the Greater ones and need to fulfill the prereqs if they want them. Pretty much the only stat they can truly dump is Charisma, which means all monks are jerks, I guess.
- In short, they are not newbie friendly and require a lot of system mastery to play well.
To fix them--well, it's more a matter of making sure the player builds their concept and make sure the player picks the right class. If they want to do a somewhat skilled, sometimes-fighting mystic, the monk works. If they want to focus on the defensive skills and being a support character, the monk works. But if they want to be that ascetic warrior... better to take 1-3 levels of monk (for improved damage dice, feats, and class skills), and then go the rest of the way fighter or ranger (if three levels of monk, then you can take Monastic Legacy to keep increasing your unarmed damage dice too).
Depending on how you feel about the situation, you might also houserule the pre-errated version of brass knuckles as correct, or find other ways to help unarmed fighting style monks. The thread "flurry of changes to flurry of blows" and related ones have more information and discussion on the issue than you'll ever want.
Why does the paladin suck?
Now that's a new one. If anything, I've only heard paladins applauded as a strong class. In 3.x they were often laughed at, but the Pathfinder Paladin is strongly badass, with its mercies and smite evil and other abilities.
The other common class complaint I DO hear about is fighter.
Now, I love fighters, but a lot of people don't like how broad the concept are--they don't have tight fluff like the paladin. And frankly, yeah, all the focus is on them being able to, well, fight. They're good at that. But they don't have a lot of skill points or non-combat skills, meaning if you're playing in a campaign that isn't combat all the time, a poorly designed fighter twiddles their thumbs whenever there isn't fighting to be had. There's also a complaint there's not a lot unique to them--a lot of what they have are bonus feats and some bland bonuses to stuff, although archetypes shake that up quite a bit.
There's some discussion that they only marginally win or are equals in damage dealing to Barbs and Rangers when both those classes also have a lot of additional abilities and more class skills and skill points.
Generally I think they are fun to play but I like that they are not complex. I would like to house rule in that they have 4 skill points a level and get Perception and Heal as class skills (scouts, guards, field medics).
Personally I house rule most Rogue abilities limited to once/day to 1+INT Mod/day.
I allow the Monk their unarmed damage to reasonable weapons. E.g.: Rope Gauntlets, Cestus, Brass Knuckles, etc. I Also have a houseruled "weapon" called Handwraps. They work similar to the rope gauntlets, but don't interfere with most things. They are enchanted as a club, but can't be made out of any special materials.
To break from this thread basis a little. I Also add EWP(Aldori Dueling Sword/Blade) to the Aldori Swordlord. It actually makes more builds reasonable.
So make a monk who wants to Full-Attack Flurry, and has ridiculous AC. Now you just need to draw aggro and get monsters standing next to you for your upcoming Flurry.
This is easy. Wear the most wizarding robes you can find, carry a stick with a crystal on top of it, and a wizard's hat. (The robes are suspiciously comfy and non-confining your movements, but the starts, moons and rhinestones should distract monsters.) Get an item that lets you cast useless cantrips all day, just to be seen casting spells.
Everyone will jump at the chance to corner the wizard in melee.
Excellent idea asc, but perhaps the monsters will now know that you aren't vulnerable and avoid you. lol. This can get a bit silly after a while can't it? I do like the "I'm a wizard please beat upon me" idea for the monk.
You know, wizards in my games try hard not to look like wizards. Having one guy obviously trying to look like a wizard would actually be a bit silly in these circumstances. The only way to spot them is to look for the guy casting spells.
|
|
If the monsters metamagically know to beat up the real wizards and not the mizzard, then maybe you should be having a talk with the GM. If it's customary for wizards to be incognito, then should you be, but "just not good enough" - smell like spell components, get an item that lets you use Prestidigitation to keep dry in the rain, that sort of stuff.
If the monsters metamagically know to beat up the real wizards and not the mizzard, then maybe you should be having a talk with the GM. If it's customary for wizards to be incognito, then should you be, but "just not good enough" - smell like spell components, get an item that lets you use Prestidigitation to keep dry in the rain, that sort of stuff.
If the monsters are smart enough to know to target wizards, they are smart enough to know to target the guy that just burned their eyebrows off over the guy that's posing with a wand.
Sure, at that point the jig is up, but if you do it right, it might be one or two rounds before the monster realizes it's attacking the wrong "wizard".
In other words, it makes no great difference to the monk's normal 'show up, dodge around, miss a lot, get ignored' formula.
Edit: Not saying it cannot work now and then, but it'll be highly situational and hard to pull off. It's not a tactic you could rely on regularly.
Sure, at that point the jig is up, but if you do it right, it might be one or two rounds before the monster realizes it's attacking the wrong "wizard". Until the unassuming guy casts a fireball, I'd expect the one totally dry guy in a rainstorm to be the caster.
Combine that with some good bluff checks, and you've got yourself a pretty good idea going on there.
If the monsters metamagically know to beat up the real wizards and not the mizzard, then maybe you should be having a talk with the GM. If it's customary for wizards to be incognito, then should you be, but "just not good enough" - smell like spell components, get an item that lets you use Prestidigitation to keep dry in the rain, that sort of stuff.
Standard spot check to tell where the pain is coming from. Yes, against the blaster's bluff.
|
|
Well, I'd assume you made a monk that can actually hit and take damage, not just dance around. Maybe not enough damage to drag aggro back to you without some deception, but that's the whole point of dressing up as a wizard.
If you can make the enemy think for even one or two rounds that you're the wizard, that gives the real wizard a lot more time to wreak havoc. Keeping up the charade for more than that is unlikely, but this should give you a head start. It means enemies attacking you and the wizard with the wrong sorts of weapons, most likely missing both of you.
Any class is as good as the person playing it
They all have good and bad points .in my experience most poeple seem to think a class is naff or bone if they can't get it to do several hundred points of damage every round
But that's just my opinionThen you play the Commoner in my game, okay? It's obvious you can make classes that are strictly inferior to other classes. With the exception of the NPC classes, the other classes are too complex to make a comparison trivial, but that doesn't automatically mean they're equal in any way.
And yeah, if I'm playing a characters whose primary schtick is damage dealing, and another character is doing several hundred points of damage every turn and I'm not, then why am I wasting the other players' time taking a turn in combat? We'll be done just as quick if I stay out of the battle, and you don't need to waste healing and XP on my character.
That's when I took a level in bard, and bought a wand of healing.
Alternately, I had a sorc that kept the licorice root handy and cast Haste when/if combat started.
Well, I'd assume you made a monk that can actually hit and take damage, not just dance around. Maybe not enough damage to drag aggro back to you without some deception, but that's the whole point of dressing up as a wizard.
Making a monk that can hit and do damage is the problem with the monk. It's not impossible, but it's not easy either.
If you can make the enemy think for even one or two rounds that you're the wizard, that gives the real wizard a lot more time to wreak havoc.
This is true in certain situations. However, it's not going to make a blind bit of difference in others. Once in a blue moon it'll be awesome. A lot of times, it'll achieve nothing you couldn't have done differently.
Keeping up the charade for more than that is unlikely, but this should give you a head start. It means enemies attacking you and the wizard with the wrong sorts of weapons, most likely missing both of you.
That really depends on the enemy, to be honest. I can think of other tactics that may well work better - like dashing though the enemy ranks and trying to target enemy commanders or missilers and tying them down.
A Monk's abilities are divided between movement (to get stuck in) and attack (to use once stuck in). A Monk's movement is simply to get them next to the enemy quicker, once in their opponents face they can unleash havoc. They aren't meant to bounce between 4 foes full attacking allow of them.
Take that along with the fact most encounters are usually against a single foe or multiple weaker ones. And you will realize a Monk is perfect.
Their problem is when they aren't being buffed or their enemies aren't being debuffed. It isn't the Monk that is the problem. It is they are being given the short end of the stick and the party doesn't have good teamwork.
No Azealas, the monk has a problem: He can't hit for toffee, that's the problem, and at high level it's worse as maneuvers don't work so well.
I played 3.5e for a few years, mostly in Living Greyhawk and Living Arcanis. I've played Pathfinder for a few months. I must not be terribly intelligent or bright, because I can't figure out how some classes are inherently better than others. Apparently there are only certain classes which, according to some people, are complete wastes of time, and if someone were to want to play one, then these people would just refuse to play with the offender.
I don't get it. How does the rogue suck? How does the monk suck? Why does the paladin suck? I tried looking in the archives and got overloaded. The posts I read didn't cite reasons.
Please, tell me exactly why, in your opinion, these classes are so bad they shouldn't be included in the game -- and how you would fix them. And please, don't limit it to just the paladin, rogue, and monk. If you think any class is subpar, please, give a shout out -- and be sure to tell us how you would fix this inequity.
Haters Be Hatin
Haters Be Hatin
'cos you know, no-one ever has genuine issues backed with facts and figures and logical arguments.
How in Shelyn's name can they not hit?
They hit exactly like a Rogue. In fact they can Max DEX, keep STR at 10 and take Finesse and hit for more damage than a similar Rogue after a few levels.
Even without an AoMF they still are excellent in their role. Which is the same combat roll as the bleeding Rogue!
'cos you know, no-one ever has genuine issues backed with facts and figures and logical arguments.
People can have all the facts and figures they want, but when those people go on a forum and "argue" about it for pages on end unnecessarily then "Haters be Hatin". If someone likes a class let them play, if you don't like a class then don't play it or be construtive and "fix" it. That simple.
How in Shelyn's name can they not hit?
They hit exactly like a Rogue. In fact they can Max DEX, keep STR at 10 and take Finesse and hit for more damage than a similar Rogue after a few levels.
Even without an AoMF they still are excellent in their role. Which is the same combat roll as the bleeding Rogue!
Please don't start.
Please don't start.How in Shelyn's name can they not hit?
They hit exactly like a Rogue. In fact they can Max DEX, keep STR at 10 and take Finesse and hit for more damage than a similar Rogue after a few levels.
Even without an AoMF they still are excellent in their role. Which is the same combat roll as the bleeding Rogue!
Relax that was the last thing I am saying.
People can have all the facts and figures they want, but when those people go on a forum and "argue" about it for pages on end unnecessarily then "Haters be Hatin". If someone likes a class let them play, if you don't like a class then don't play it or be construtive and "fix" it. That simple.
'cos you know, no-one ever has genuine issues backed with facts and figures and logical arguments.
I agree with this.
People can have all the facts and figures they want, but when those people go on a forum and "argue" about it for pages on end unnecessarily then "Haters be Hatin". If someone likes a class let them play, if you don't like a class then don't play it or be construtive and "fix" it. That simple.
'cos you know, no-one ever has genuine issues backed with facts and figures and logical arguments.
So liking a class and understanding that it has shortcomings that prevent it from actually functioning properly and wanting to do something about it is hating. Check. Guess I'm a hater, then.
Then again, it could be worse, I could be coming into these threads to troll and make snide comments that contribute nothing.
How in Shelyn's name can they not hit?
They hit exactly like a Rogue. In fact they can Max DEX, keep STR at 10 and take Finesse and hit for more damage than a similar Rogue after a few levels.
If a rogue was a combat class this, and didn't have sneak attack, would half an argument. A rogue can also max out dex, leave strength at 10, get full weapon enhancement on top.
The rogue does not have to worry about points in anything but dex and if he's going to rough it, con. The monk has to put points in wisdom and has no damage equalizer other than the rising damage dice of the unarmed strike (2d10 is not better than +10d6) so strength is still important. So is con, because he has d8 hit dice as well. So the rogue can max out dex better than the monk can afford to. So I would guess the rogue is a good +1 or +2 ahead here.
Then the rogue gets full enhancement on a weapon - normal cost, no +5 cap. This puts him another +1 or +2 ahead. The rogue can also afford the +1 equivalence for Agile better than the monk - if the monk takes it on his amulet of mighty fists, he loses another +1 to hit, and now he has the issue that he will never be able to get through DR/good/evil/chaotic. The rogue is doing that levels ahead anyway.
So a rapier wielding rogue is +4 ahead of the monk across most levels, unless the monk flurries which takes this down to maybe +2 ahead on average. He's got weapon with a way greater threat range, better static damage, and has sneak attack goodness to factor in as well.
Even without an AoMF they still are excellent in their role. Which is the same combat roll as the bleeding Rogue!
Hang on, let's look at that:
Role: Rogues excel at moving about unseen and catching foes unaware, and tend to avoid head-to-head combat. Their varied skills and abilities allow them to be highly versatile, with great variations in expertise existing between different rogues. Most, however, excel in overcoming hindrances of all types, from unlocking doors and disarming traps to outwitting magical hazards and conning dull-witted opponents.
So in combat, rogues focus on going unseen (Stealth) and catching folks unaware (sneak attack). What is more this makes clear that the rogue is not a combat class! He's a face, skills-monkey and scout!
Role: Monks excel at overcoming even the most daunting perils, striking where it’s least expected, and taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities. Fleet of foot and skilled in combat, monks can navigate any battlefield with ease, aiding allies wherever they are needed most.
So the monk is meant to appear where least expected (use his movement), take advantage of enemy vulnerabilities (er, how, exactly?). He's meant to move around the battlefield to be where he is needed.
So clearly there are major differences: The monk is NOT meant to fight like a rogue, and the rogue is NOT meant to be a combat class.
Now lets look at this statement "Even without an AoMF they still are excellent in their role."
The monk is from the description a combat role. In combat you have two options - hit things and perform maneuvers. Maneuvers are not good against certain foes, and that leaves hitting things.
Without the amulet of mighty fists the monk is not only losing out on bonuses to hit and damage (which are already below par), he isn't going to be able to get through anything but a small sub-set of DR. So any monk without an AoMF is going to be shut down as an effective combatent by anything with a decent AC or basic DR. A rogue, however, still has sneak attack that can overcome any DR he can't bypass (and he is more likely to bypass).
Since these arguments started, I have seen them change in nature from the nay-sayers, and it has gone like this:
Monk lovers: "The monk as a combat class has problems, it cannot function in it's role without some kind of fix."
Nay-sayers: "No, it's an excellent class, it's amazing, and it can fight at least as well as a TWF fighter!"
Monk lovers: "No it can't {shows maths} it's way behind them."
Nay-sayers: "No, it's an excellent class, it's amazing, and it can fight at least as well as a TWF ranger not facing his favoured enemy!"
Monk lovers: "No, really, it can't {shows maths} it's way behind them."
Nay-sayers: "No, it's an excellent class, it's amazing, and it can fight at least as well as a rogue {a non-combat class}!"
Monk lovers: "Guess again..."
Umm I think you got the names mixed you on your dialogue there...
personally it seems to be a mix of both on both accounts, i kinda get the impression that on occasion monk lovers argue amongst themselves and the same goes for those who dislike them.
personally it seems to be a mix of both on both accounts, i kinda get the impression that on occasion monk lovers argue amongst themselves and the same goes for those who dislike them.
This does seem true...
personally it seems to be a mix of both on both accounts, i kinda get the impression that on occasion monk lovers argue amongst themselves and the same goes for those who dislike them.This does seem true...
Oh it is true, we sometimes disagree on the precise nature of a fix, but the fact is we agree that the monk needs a fix - Azaelas Fayth actually applies one in his games, giving monks an effective enhancement option.
Oh it is true, we sometimes disagree on the precise nature of a fix, but the fact is we agree that the monk needs a fix - Azaelas Fayth actually applies one in his games, giving monks an effective enhancement option.personally it seems to be a mix of both on both accounts, i kinda get the impression that on occasion monk lovers argue amongst themselves and the same goes for those who dislike them.This does seem true...
The thing is even without it a Monk can function. Heck so can a Fighter and such. Though it does require teamwork and tactics. Something I have noticed seem to lack in a lot of places.
P.S.: my fix is based on actual training in these weapons.
How has anything I've said been snide? I was trying to prevent another class war thread by saying that it's better to enjoy the game and improve when you fell it needs it. And as far as contribution goes all i've seen is, in short "Monks are bad". Nothing helpful with that. At least DeathQuaker gave some helpful advice. Classes don't always stay within their "Roles", we have enough feat and archetype choices to do ton of different things, at a passing grade, within the same class. That's why we have builds.
Also I've seen a monk, a halfling CORE monk with a magic stick, deal more damage than the party's fighter. This is why I'll never be "Hating" ANY class, even the ones I'll personaly never play, because when it comes down to it if your player and your DM knows what they're doing everything will work out fine and everyone will have fun.
-END