Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kinak" data-source="post: 6056619" data-attributes="member: 6694112">It's nice to know the 3rd answer and the 2nd answer is just about perfect (knock having a drawback that rogues don't is a great fit). But, of course, I'm going to spend all my time talking about the thing I don't agree with <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />The 1st answer about monks is just strange. Since "fighting styles" at this point are just suggested builds, the more complicated classes should need them more, not less.And, as much as I'm a simplicity fiend, fighting styles are made for the monk. Almost every classic "monk" story includes fighting styles, often more than one in conflict.They're also missing an opportunity to bring the monk out of the cold. Sure, the monk can be the mysterious traveller from the East, but they can also be ascetics from the North who wrestle bears or dwarves who've decided to forge themselves rather than steel. Fighting styles are a good excuse to put non-Eastern monks in front of players and GMs.Cheers!Kinak</blockquote>