Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="two" data-source="post: 2128405" data-attributes="member: 9002">because...Amal, it's rather rude to take my middle-of-the-road comments and extended them to ludicrous lengths as an argumentative ploy. Go back an read my posts.&nbsp; I go to great lengths to describe exactly what I'm objecting to.I never claimed Monks should be as good as fighters at, well, fighting.&nbsp; It would be nice, however, wouldn't it, if they could be as effective as clerics in melee, don't you think?&nbsp; (you know, clerics, that full caster progression class which also has a d8 and 3/4 BAB progression).&nbsp; Or, on occasion, as effective as rogues?&nbsp; Or somewhere in between?&nbsp; Not for example on the bottom of the heap, next to the melee bard?The initial poster had a run-of-the-mill monk build.&nbsp; He expected his monk to be, not the equivalent of a fighter in combat, but not useless.&nbsp; He was wrong.&nbsp; His monk is a 10th level melee joke.I've witnessed other people that, having seen movies or heard about Monkly cool abilities, attempt to play monks as melee combatants.&nbsp; They too, very often, are slapped down -- hard.I'm not asking the monk to equal the fighter.I'm not saying monks are usless to the party.I am saying that non-specialized monks are often bad -- not sub-par, mind you, but bad -- melee combatants.&nbsp; A 10th level cleric in melee.&nbsp; Fine.&nbsp; A 10th level rogue.&nbsp; Ok.&nbsp; A 10th level ranger.&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; All can do decent damage, vanilla, right out of the gate.&nbsp; No special feats or tweaks needed.&nbsp; A 10th level monk -- bad.&nbsp; Not sub-par, but bad.&nbsp; Bad AC, bad hitpoints, bad damage, bad &quot;to hits&quot; (because no + on their weapons, typically their hands).&nbsp; That's kinda lame in my view.Your example, Amal, is hilariously perfect, in that it shows a monk doing exactly what a monk SHOULD do.&nbsp; i.e. everything and anything except actually do damage in combat.&nbsp; I ACCEPT THAT THIS IS A GREAT THING AND CAN BE HELLA FUN.&nbsp; spring attack, leap in, trip, maybe do a tiny bit of damage with improved trip, spring out, help to flank.&nbsp; Super!&nbsp; Excellent!&nbsp; Wonderful!You have indeed shown how a monk can be useful!&nbsp; Invest in an expensive series of feats (spring attack) which further diminishes any chance of doing real damage, and help the party out with trips, flanks, and other things.Good.&nbsp; Great.&nbsp; You proved your point.Which I &quot;conceded&quot; long ago -- I never claimed a monk wasn't useful for a party.&nbsp; The Monk simply isn't gonna dish out much damage; never going to be able to take the hits (because you can't always spring away, after all, or sometimes you don't want to -- leaving the wizard unprotected); never going to make that critical hit that does 40 points of damage and finishes off the big baddie.&nbsp; Not &quot;it's rather unlikely&quot; but can't.&nbsp; Ain't gonna happen.&nbsp; it can happen to the Cleric.&nbsp; or the 10th level rogue.&nbsp; Or even a bow-using bard.&nbsp; But a vanilla monk?&nbsp; No.In other words, &quot;my hands are lethal weapons?&quot;&nbsp; Nah, not really Mr. Monk.&nbsp; Better bone up on your tripping, grappling, sundering, and &quot;aiding another&quot; skills.The trouble is, it's so durn hard to make an effective melee 3.5 monk with non-godlike stats.&nbsp; Melee is defined here as, well, doing damage to bad guys and absorbing hits or distracting the enemy.&nbsp;&nbsp; Not in a way that outshines a fighter.&nbsp; Or ranger, or Barbarian, or even a cleric.&nbsp; Just... does decently.&nbsp; A certain percentage of the time.It's tough! I agree you can &quot;make monks fun and competitive&quot;.&nbsp; I've always claimed this to be true, but it's soooo tricky and, if your stats are low -- god lord.&nbsp; Very, very, very tricky.&nbsp; Most difficult PC to build effectively, bar none.&nbsp; That's a shame.&nbsp; There should be more room for non-optimized builds.&nbsp; More wiggle room.I like monks.&nbsp; I really do.&nbsp; I just wish they were easier to build, and allowed a greater variety of game playing styles.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="two, post: 2128405, member: 9002"] [b]because...[/b] Amal, it's rather rude to take my middle-of-the-road comments and extended them to ludicrous lengths as an argumentative ploy. Go back an read my posts. I go to great lengths to describe exactly what I'm objecting to. I never claimed Monks should be as good as fighters at, well, fighting. It would be nice, however, wouldn't it, if they could be as effective as clerics in melee, don't you think? (you know, clerics, that full caster progression class which also has a d8 and 3/4 BAB progression). Or, on occasion, as effective as rogues? Or somewhere in between? Not for example on the bottom of the heap, next to the melee bard? The initial poster had a run-of-the-mill monk build. He expected his monk to be, not the equivalent of a fighter in combat, but not useless. He was wrong. His monk is a 10th level melee joke. I've witnessed other people that, having seen movies or heard about Monkly cool abilities, attempt to play monks as melee combatants. They too, very often, are slapped down -- hard. I'm not asking the monk to equal the fighter. I'm not saying monks are usless to the party. I am saying that non-specialized monks are often bad -- not sub-par, mind you, but bad -- melee combatants. A 10th level cleric in melee. Fine. A 10th level rogue. Ok. A 10th level ranger. Sure. All can do decent damage, vanilla, right out of the gate. No special feats or tweaks needed. A 10th level monk -- bad. Not sub-par, but bad. Bad AC, bad hitpoints, bad damage, bad "to hits" (because no + on their weapons, typically their hands). That's kinda lame in my view. Your example, Amal, is hilariously perfect, in that it shows a monk doing exactly what a monk SHOULD do. i.e. everything and anything except actually do damage in combat. I ACCEPT THAT THIS IS A GREAT THING AND CAN BE HELLA FUN. spring attack, leap in, trip, maybe do a tiny bit of damage with improved trip, spring out, help to flank. Super! Excellent! Wonderful! You have indeed shown how a monk can be useful! Invest in an expensive series of feats (spring attack) which further diminishes any chance of doing real damage, and help the party out with trips, flanks, and other things. Good. Great. You proved your point. Which I "conceded" long ago -- I never claimed a monk wasn't useful for a party. The Monk simply isn't gonna dish out much damage; never going to be able to take the hits (because you can't always spring away, after all, or sometimes you don't want to -- leaving the wizard unprotected); never going to make that critical hit that does 40 points of damage and finishes off the big baddie. Not "it's rather unlikely" but can't. Ain't gonna happen. it can happen to the Cleric. or the 10th level rogue. Or even a bow-using bard. But a vanilla monk? No. In other words, "my hands are lethal weapons?" Nah, not really Mr. Monk. Better bone up on your tripping, grappling, sundering, and "aiding another" skills. The trouble is, it's so durn hard to make an effective melee 3.5 monk with non-godlike stats. Melee is defined here as, well, doing damage to bad guys and absorbing hits or distracting the enemy. Not in a way that outshines a fighter. Or ranger, or Barbarian, or even a cleric. Just... does decently. A certain percentage of the time. It's tough! I agree you can "make monks fun and competitive". I've always claimed this to be true, but it's soooo tricky and, if your stats are low -- god lord. Very, very, very tricky. Most difficult PC to build effectively, bar none. That's a shame. There should be more room for non-optimized builds. More wiggle room. I like monks. I really do. I just wish they were easier to build, and allowed a greater variety of game playing styles. [/QUOTE]

Verification