True, but there’s another issue, which makes the optimizers hates the rogue- you can optimize several classes/archetypes in the rogues role and they can generate higher DPR.
They take that as “unplayable” since there’s another “better” option, even if it grants only slightly better DPR. I don’t.
But yes, a rogue build is not idiot-proof.
There’s another two issues with the Monk- his niche or role is that of a warrior/tank, but other warriors do better DPR. Thus, despite all his other benefits, the class becomes “unplayable” and ‘a trap” to them. In other words, to them “fun” is defined solely by a DPR competition- if a given option has slightly less DPR it becomes “badwrongfun” “unplayable” “a trap” or “it’s that way because SKR hates ….”. I admit the issue of the niche/role for a monk is problematic. That doesn’t mean the class can’t be fun.
Next, the monk-o-philes want the class to be able to do everything they have seen in martial arts movies- and at a early level.
Heck, when they finally got their Full BAB martial artist, now they’re whining as it’s “not a monk”.
So... Wasn't this thread about developer statements or something like that?
And remember kids: only the sith deal in absolutes.
Isn't that an absolute?
It would be superkeen if we could stop with the "people who have problems playing monks are dumb" crap.
But going "No, u dum!" is so much easier than actually addressing people's arguments. Plus they get an excuse to act smugly superior and self-righteous. All in all, much more satisfying than all the stupid "facts" and "logic" the other side uses.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's also flat out false that everyone that's unhappy with the monk is an optimizer*. Or a min-maxer. Or only cares about combat. Or isn't a roleplayer.
Or whatever label one wants to slap on people to dismiss their complaints.
Some of us just want to be able to roleplay a mystical martial artist that actually lives up to the flavor without being forced to dumpstat(or play a dwarf**) or overly narrow what a monk could be/over-specialize.
Some of use want to play nimble monks that aren't swollen beef monsters without feeling like we've crippled our ability to keep up with the party.
Some of us think the monk should be playable without requiring a damned PhD in system mastery.
Some of us would like to play a monk that actually has a positive CHA score and not feel like we're shooting ourselves in the foot.
And we aren't part of some "optimizer conspiracy" out to destroy roleplaying. Seriously.
I mean, I can make a socially competent, well-rounded, non-dumpstatted character that lives up to the flavor I'm looking for with the barbarian. Every time I've tried it with the monk, it crashes and burns.
*Not that there's anything wrong with that.
**I swear, if I see another CHA 5 dwarf trotted out as proof that monks are just fine...
It's also flat out false that everyone that's unhappy with the monk is an optimizer*. Or a min-maxer. Or only cares about combat. Or isn't a roleplayer.
Or whatever label one wants to slap on people to dismiss their complaints.
Srsly. I like to point people towards the campaign journal I kept up for my last real Monk when they pull that stuff.
Most fun character to RP I've made yet. Still lackluster mechanically, even after a rebuild.