Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gizzard" data-source="post: 832711" data-attributes="member: 527">This is going to vary depending (mainly) on campaign level.&nbsp; At low level you fight a lot of Orcs &amp; Kobolds - if they have much magic its in the form of a low-level Shaman who is not a huge danger to the party.&nbsp; At high levels, those spellcasters become much more dangerous and people start to appreciate the Monk's ability to go and harrass them.&nbsp; But this just breaks down along the lines I already tried to draw: low-level Monks are the most sucky character in the game, improving in the mid- and high-levels.Also, while there are all sorts of spellcasters, the Monk is best at tagging slightly unprepared spellcaster-classed humans.&nbsp; Trying to grapple an Ogre Magi is incredibly risky in the first place and it still wont prevent the spell abilities for instance.&nbsp; Against a buffed human Mage, the Monk has a harder time also - especially if the opponent has a manueverability enhancer like Fly.&nbsp; Even a friggen' Mirror Image slows you down.&nbsp; But at least at that point in his career the Monk has a purpose - the rest of the party understands that he's going to do his darndest to keep them from getting nuked by Wizards.&nbsp; But at low level he has no purpose.&nbsp; People continually ask why he isnt either a Fighter or a Rogue, since either is a lot more useful at low levels.&nbsp; &quot;Ok, so you're a fighter who can't fight anything too scary and you're also a rogue that can't disarm traps.&nbsp; Umm.&quot;-edit to add-&nbsp;No, that sounds just like a Monk.&nbsp; You have great defense and no offense.&nbsp; You can't save your friends from dying, but you arent enough of a threat that the opponents go after you.&nbsp; &nbsp; Hence you survive encouters others die in.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gizzard, post: 832711, member: 527"] This is going to vary depending (mainly) on campaign level. At low level you fight a lot of Orcs & Kobolds - if they have much magic its in the form of a low-level Shaman who is not a huge danger to the party. At high levels, those spellcasters become much more dangerous and people start to appreciate the Monk's ability to go and harrass them. But this just breaks down along the lines I already tried to draw: low-level Monks are the most sucky character in the game, improving in the mid- and high-levels. Also, while there are all sorts of spellcasters, the Monk is best at tagging slightly unprepared spellcaster-classed humans. Trying to grapple an Ogre Magi is incredibly risky in the first place and it still wont prevent the spell abilities for instance. Against a buffed human Mage, the Monk has a harder time also - especially if the opponent has a manueverability enhancer like Fly. Even a friggen' Mirror Image slows you down. But at least at that point in his career the Monk has a purpose - the rest of the party understands that he's going to do his darndest to keep them from getting nuked by Wizards. But at low level he has no purpose. People continually ask why he isnt either a Fighter or a Rogue, since either is a lot more useful at low levels. "Ok, so you're a fighter who can't fight anything too scary and you're also a rogue that can't disarm traps. Umm." -edit to add- No, that sounds just like a Monk. You have great defense and no offense. You can't save your friends from dying, but you arent enough of a threat that the opponents go after you. Hence you survive encouters others die in. [/QUOTE]

Verification