Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Benjamin Olson" data-source="post: 9058947" data-attributes="member: 6988941">Surely if some combination of weapons and armor did not generally exceed the performance of being unarmed an unarmored, people would never have bothered with the stuff.It seems to me like the basic &quot;problem&quot; here is that Fighter is just a much more conceptually broad and flexible class than Monk, which works within a much more limited theme. Under those circumstances they'd really have to put the thumb on the scale for Monks for a Monk, built towards pure mechanical optimization within the limited conceptual space of a Monk to not be exceeded a Fighter, similarly built around pure mechanical optimization within a much broader framework.Now whether D&amp;D should continue to have a singular, catch-all &quot;Fighter&quot; class covering so much of the &quot;didn't fit in any of the other, thematically narrower martial classes&quot; design space is another question.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Benjamin Olson, post: 9058947, member: 6988941"] Surely if some combination of weapons and armor did not [I]generally [/I]exceed the performance of being unarmed an unarmored, people would never have bothered with the stuff. It seems to me like the basic "problem" here is that Fighter is just a much more conceptually broad and flexible class than Monk, which works within a much more limited theme. Under those circumstances they'd really have to put the thumb on the scale for Monks for a Monk, built towards pure mechanical optimization within the limited conceptual space of a Monk to not be exceeded a Fighter, similarly built around pure mechanical optimization within a much broader framework. Now whether D&D should continue to have a singular, catch-all "Fighter" class covering so much of the "didn't fit in any of the other, thematically narrower martial classes" design space is another question. [/QUOTE]

Verification