Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Darklone" data-source="post: 1474269" data-attributes="member: 1372">I had two replacement characters (level 5) once covering the exitroute of the group who got themselves into big trouble for charging into an army headquarter (stupid idea).The two replacement chars each held up 12 soldiers (1 officer level 4, 1 bard/herald, 10 mooks level 2-3... typical for my world without magical NPC equipment). One was a dwarven fighter in full plate with waraxe and hammer. The other one was a monk ftr1 with glaive. Both survived 4 rounds and kept the enemies at bay till the group came rushing out again... glad they didn't have to bother with more than one or two soldiers who tried to close the gate again.Comparing a level 5 monk with a CR 5 monster will not really help. I do know that's the style of many DMs, give the group a CR = groups level monster and that's it. I prefer to send in hordes of mooks with a few selected NPCs. A balanced game should have both IMHO. And I think noone will insist that the monks stunning fist is useless against NPCs of the groups level. To that paladin monk comparison above. Sooo the paladin only has a 20% chance to fail the saving throw against stunning fist?? The class with the best Fort save? And the monk does not loose anything really important (most monks I've seen scarcely ran out of stunning fist attempts) for trying a stunning fist each round? So what's the problem with stunning fist?We had this discussion more than once... but I think some of the quitting ones here were right. People will never understand that a weak monk is not the result of class issues but of their gamestyle. Do it like our FR high power DM and throw CR (group level)+5 monsters at the group... and your monk will be useless. So if you're unable to play a monk as kickbuttcharacter like in the movies, kick your DM or look for a "balanced" game.</blockquote>

Verification