Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 834210" data-attributes="member: 151">Because the question of whether or not he hits is such a major factor in your calculation, and too many factors go into deciding whether or not it works, that you can't include it, IMHO.&nbsp; You're willing to give the monsters all their special abilities, but the monk has absolutely no equipment in your equation, including the 9500 gp worth he should reasonably have.&nbsp; A ring of magic fang is what, 2,000 gp, for example?&nbsp; &nbsp; Add to this the issue that the Monk, like the rogue and bard, is meant to be a tactical support fighter, and you have a more complex equation.&nbsp; You might argue that, on the same lines, the rogue's sneak attack isn't very useful, as so many creatures are immune or so difficult to hit, that it's of no practical benefit.&nbsp; Obviously, that's not the case.What I do think is that the monk class is more vulnerable to campaign-specific designs than other classes.&nbsp; The fact that I see quite a few people arguing strongly on both sides of the fence displays that fairly well, I think.&nbsp; The same would be true of someone playing a rogue in a game where you fought nothing but the undead and constructs.&nbsp; My personal experience with monks is that they are very viable, and can be quite enjoyable characters to play.&nbsp; I've DMed two 3e games with them, and while they've sometimes felt underpowered, when they come through, they come through big.&nbsp; If you add the material from supplements, especially OA, they become even better.&nbsp; And to those who say that the DM shouldn't occasionally set up a situation where the monk should excel...I'll agree to disagree with you.&nbsp; My DMing style obviously differs from yours.&nbsp; My view is that the DM is there to provide a way for the players to have fun, and to me that means making sure every dog has his day.&nbsp; That's a style choice of DM capitulation that some might not enjoy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WizarDru, post: 834210, member: 151"] Because the question of whether or not he hits is such a major factor in your calculation, and too many factors go into deciding whether or not it works, that you can't include it, IMHO. You're willing to give the monsters all their special abilities, but the monk has absolutely no equipment in your equation, including the 9500 gp worth he should reasonably have. A ring of magic fang is what, 2,000 gp, for example? Add to this the issue that the Monk, like the rogue and bard, is meant to be a tactical support fighter, and you have a more complex equation. You might argue that, on the same lines, the rogue's sneak attack isn't very useful, as so many creatures are immune or so difficult to hit, that it's of no practical benefit. Obviously, that's not the case. What I do think is that the monk class is more vulnerable to campaign-specific designs than other classes. The fact that I see quite a few people arguing strongly on both sides of the fence displays that fairly well, I think. The same would be true of someone playing a rogue in a game where you fought nothing but the undead and constructs. My personal experience with monks is that they are very viable, and can be quite enjoyable characters to play. I've DMed two 3e games with them, and while they've sometimes felt underpowered, when they come through, they come through big. If you add the material from supplements, especially OA, they become even better. And to those who say that the DM shouldn't occasionally set up a situation where the monk should excel...I'll agree to disagree with you. My DMing style obviously differs from yours. My view is that the DM is there to provide a way for the players to have fun, and to me that means making sure every dog has his day. That's a style choice of DM capitulation that some might not enjoy. [/QUOTE]

Verification