Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 9175744" data-attributes="member: 7035894">Fair enough - my point is that you can make a fighter who is great at defence and still solid at offence, or a fighter who is great at offence and still solid at defence. Monks really suffer from being extremely flimsy as a frontline class, and their DPR continually falls off as they level up (not gonna debate that; see Treantmonk and others' detailed analyses).I feel like we've kind of been suckered into debating the obvious: monk has problems. And there's no real point in arguing about it, because WotC are working on a new approach to the class. It's more interesting to focus on what will happen with the class - it and moon druid remain the two class/subclass options that we will see significant change on.Edit: I also generally find it more useful to compare monks to rangers, as both are melee classes that depend more on mobility and unarmored defence. If you compare a barbarian to a monk at level 1, the damage output is very similar, but the barbarian's survivability is much higher. By level 5, the barbarian is pulling ahead on damage (WAY ahead for the updated berserker barbarian), especially if they take the great weapon fighting feat, while maintaining their advantage in survivability. If you take stunning strike away from the monk (spoiler alert: the most recent version of the monk nerfs stunning strike) what do you have?Conversely, if you compare to rogues to again see them falling behind on damage, comparable on survivability in melee, but rogues always have the option of hitting hard with ranged attacks so can pick and choose when to be in melee, and monks have much less out of combat utility.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Clint_L, post: 9175744, member: 7035894"] Fair enough - my point is that you can make a fighter who is great at defence and still solid at offence, or a fighter who is great at offence and still solid at defence. Monks really suffer from being extremely flimsy as a frontline class, and their DPR continually falls off as they level up (not gonna debate that; see Treantmonk and others' detailed analyses). I feel like we've kind of been suckered into debating the obvious: monk has problems. And there's no real point in arguing about it, because WotC are working on a new approach to the class. It's more interesting to focus on what will happen with the class - it and moon druid remain the two class/subclass options that we will see significant change on. Edit: I also generally find it more useful to compare monks to rangers, as both are melee classes that depend more on mobility and unarmored defence. If you compare a barbarian to a monk at level 1, the damage output is very similar, but the barbarian's survivability is much higher. By level 5, the barbarian is pulling ahead on damage (WAY ahead for the updated berserker barbarian), especially if they take the great weapon fighting feat, while maintaining their advantage in survivability. If you take stunning strike away from the monk (spoiler alert: the most recent version of the monk nerfs stunning strike) what do you have? Conversely, if you compare to rogues to again see them falling behind on damage, comparable on survivability in melee, but rogues always have the option of hitting hard with ranged attacks so can pick and choose when to be in melee, and monks have much less out of combat utility. [/QUOTE]

Verification