Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 1473050" data-attributes="member: 537">However, a rogue does them better. Yes, even the dim door thing (items). No, the fact that items can be yoinked is not particularly relevant. If items are a good enough way of balancing spellcasters with non-spellcasters, they're good enough to balance mundanes with monks.&nbsp;However, a bard (or a rogue!) does this better. Both classes have more skill points to burn, and a bard has social/mind control abilities out the wazoo.&nbsp;I think it's been quite comprehensively proved that a monk is not a combat powerhouse.&nbsp;How so?&nbsp;Must we?&nbsp;This really is irrelevant. In the typical D&amp;D party, you're constrained not just by your abilities, but also by those of your party members. Whatever class you may be, you cannot solo a dungeon. This is a fundamental part of the core design philosophy of D&amp;D, and has been since the beginning.&nbsp;So could any instakill spell. And besides, hoping for that one-in-twenty chance doesn't really amount to much of a strategy.&nbsp;The point is: _whatever a monk can do, someone else can do better_. That is almost the definition of a second-stringer. Yes, in any _particular_ party, the monk may be the best there is at one _particular_ schtick. That doesn't change the fact that the monk is still the second-best choice. If someone else were to join the party that took over that schtick, the monk would become irrelevant.&nbsp;Furthermore, as has been said many times, the monk is designed to emulate characters from a certain genre of fiction: kung fu movies. Characters in these movies, as a rule, kick butt. A monk, whatever schtick he may have, is almost guaranteed not to kick butt, relative to what the other party members are capable of. Therefore, although the class abilities may provide a fair simulation of the stunts the movie characters pull off, in truth it's a badly-designed class. It does not do what many monk players want it to do, unless the player (and the DM) put in a LOT of work to make the game more sympathetic to the class.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hong, post: 1473050, member: 537"] However, a rogue does them better. Yes, even the dim door thing (items). No, the fact that items can be yoinked is not particularly relevant. If items are a good enough way of balancing spellcasters with non-spellcasters, they're good enough to balance mundanes with monks. However, a bard (or a rogue!) does this better. Both classes have more skill points to burn, and a bard has social/mind control abilities out the wazoo. I think it's been quite comprehensively proved that a monk is not a combat powerhouse. How so? Must we? This really is irrelevant. In the typical D&D party, you're constrained not just by your abilities, but also by those of your party members. Whatever class you may be, you cannot solo a dungeon. This is a fundamental part of the core design philosophy of D&D, and has been since the beginning. So could any instakill spell. And besides, hoping for that one-in-twenty chance doesn't really amount to much of a strategy. The point is: _whatever a monk can do, someone else can do better_. That is almost the definition of a second-stringer. Yes, in any _particular_ party, the monk may be the best there is at one _particular_ schtick. That doesn't change the fact that the monk is still the second-best choice. If someone else were to join the party that took over that schtick, the monk would become irrelevant. Furthermore, as has been said many times, the monk is designed to emulate characters from a certain genre of fiction: kung fu movies. Characters in these movies, as a rule, kick butt. A monk, whatever schtick he may have, is almost guaranteed not to kick butt, relative to what the other party members are capable of. Therefore, although the class abilities may provide a fair simulation of the stunts the movie characters pull off, in truth it's a badly-designed class. It does not do what many monk players want it to do, unless the player (and the DM) put in a LOT of work to make the game more sympathetic to the class. [/QUOTE]

Verification