Personally I'm not entirely convinced that we shouldn't improve a class just because some small number of people would be too lazy to read over a spell list every couple of months.Mostly I was thinking of language such as this - which was also why I asked in my previous post that we avoid name-calling :)
Personally, I don't see it as name calling.
If you can't be bothered to spend the time to read through a list of class options for your class, you probably shouldn't be playing a game that's pretty much entirely based around reading lists for character creation no matter which class you choose.
Personally, I don't see it as name calling.If you can't be bothered to spend the time to read through a list of class options for your class, you probably shouldn't be playing a game that's pretty much entirely based around reading lists for character creation no matter which class you choose.
>___<
>___<
Personally, I don't see it as name calling.If you can't be bothered to spend the time to read through a list of class options for your class, you probably shouldn't be playing a game that's pretty much entirely based around reading lists for character creation no matter which class you choose.
<______>
<______>>___<
Personally, I don't see it as name calling.If you can't be bothered to spend the time to read through a list of class options for your class, you probably shouldn't be playing a game that's pretty much entirely based around reading lists for character creation no matter which class you choose.
O.o
O.o<______>>___<
Personally, I don't see it as name calling.If you can't be bothered to spend the time to read through a list of class options for your class, you probably shouldn't be playing a game that's pretty much entirely based around reading lists for character creation no matter which class you choose.
Really? Is this necessary?
Really? Is this necessary?O.o<______>>___<
Personally, I don't see it as name calling.If you can't be bothered to spend the time to read through a list of class options for your class, you probably shouldn't be playing a game that's pretty much entirely based around reading lists for character creation no matter which class you choose.
Is your comment commenting on it necessary? Is mine commenting on your comments? What about the potential comment that you could make to this comment?
O.o<______>>___<
Personally, I don't see it as name calling.If you can't be bothered to spend the time to read through a list of class options for your class, you probably shouldn't be playing a game that's pretty much entirely based around reading lists for character creation no matter which class you choose.
o.O
|
o.OO.o<_____>>___<Personally, I don't see it as name calling.
If you can't be bothered to spend the time to read through a list of class options for your class, you probably shouldn't be playing a game that's pretty much entirely based around reading lists for character creation no matter which class you choose.
Really, this is what you are going for, REALLY?!?!?
Well what else do you say to that?
It's a funny face.
Well what else do you say to that?
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻)
^_^;;;
@,@
^^^
(.)
"""----]=
{_}
<.>
▲
▲ ▲
Wow, this forum is NOT friendly to ASCII art. Oh well...
...And now for something completely different!
In your opinion, what class is in most need of fixes currently?
Cavalier
Commoner
Fighter
Gunslinger
Monk
Rogue
Other
Depends on what you think needs fixing.
If it's classes that are too powerful, I'd say Summoner. Classes that are weak? I'd say Monk, Rogue and possibly Cavalier.
I've heard a lot about Alchemists and Gunsligers capable of dominating a group, but I've never seen either in play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with adding magic to nonmagical classes is that it reduces the game's concept space.
I agree completely with this statement, except that I would have said "spellcasting" rather than "magic."
Some people want a character that they can play effectively after a beer or two. Or one that doesn't take much hard thinking to run after a hard day at work. Or both at the same time.
You can't do that with a caster. Even for a spontaneous caster too much of the decision making has to occur at the table. The monk doesn't need to be that mundane character, but slapping magic on everything cannot be a general solution because if it becomes a general solution the entire demographic of people who want a fun, simple to run character is no longer welcome in the game.
I think that a prepared caster can be made easily playable by writing three standard spell preparation lists in advance: one for travel, one for in town, and one for the dungeon or any situation when expecting intense combat.
A fighter makes plenty of decisions in combat; a bard makes plenty of decisions in town; and a ranger makes plenty of decisions on the road. The wizard, due to the versatility of spells, can operate well in all environments and makes decision in all of them. So, yes, the wizard is harder to play, in addition to the player having to memorize several spell effects.
Which brings us back to the monk.
If the monk's sole strong point is that he has good defenses against a wide variety of threats, then his decisions are minor. Which feels off, because I envision a monk as a generalist. He trains with endless discipline to improve his body and spirit. Shouldn't that improvement be well-rounded?
The monk's class abilities are all about defense and combat until Fast Movement at 3rd level, High Jump at 5th level, Abundant Step at 12th level, and Tongue of the Sun and Moon at 17th level. The first three of those are athletics. The Tongues one seems out of place because the first ability the monk gets for dealing with people occurs at 17th level! The class features care nothing for a core monk's reputation as a wise and serene person.
The monk could make up for it with skills, but he gets only 4 + int modifier skill points per level and Intelligence is a dump stat for him. The Alchemist, Barbarian, Cavalier, Druid, and Oracle learn skills as fast. And the Alchemist has high intelligence, too, so he really learns skills at the same rate as the Bard, Inquisitor, and Ranger.
The bard needs 6+int skills for performance, and the rogue needs 8+int skills for thievery, so I can understand why they are at the top of the skill progression. But doesn't the monk need skills for athletics? If he is the master of physical perfection, he should be able to tumble, climb, escape, hide, survive, and swim. That takes 6+int to maintain.
|
For the monk, I view them as a master of defense. Lots of people like to try and make damage dealers, and if you can't deal damage, you are a terrible class.
The monk really isn't much of an attack oriented class, but a defense oriented one. They get lots of AC bonus, Speed, and the like. Good saves all around even.
But defense doesn't win encounters.. usually. And they really aren't meant to tank, but to move constantly in combat, giving the enemy a hard time to deal with them, and provide to the party an annoying elusive target that imposes some sort of status effects at times.
I am not going to lie...I think we could reduce monks to an archetype, or even a feat tree.