Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="evilbob" data-source="post: 654509" data-attributes="member: 9789">The argument for a powerful defense without much offense is the best so far.&nbsp; Then again, it's hard for me to see past the average level Monk having a natural 1d12 +2 weapon with as many attacks as a Fighter.This is interesting; what do you mean?&nbsp; (Again, lack of experience with a Monk here.)Also, in regards to DR:&nbsp; it seems that the new 3.5e rules may make further discussion on this irrelevant, since they'll be changing lots of stuff around...&nbsp; But for the moment, I still say this isn't much of a hindrance to a very powerful class.And as far as the nit-picking of previous statements...&nbsp; I still say all of those Monk abilities help keep the character alive better than other characters.&nbsp; Can't die from poison, can't die from disease, harder to die from falling, can speak to any creature in the universe, can become ethereal, etc, etc.&nbsp; This just adds more to the list of things that won't accidentally screw up your character.One a week, schmonce a week...&nbsp; The Monk still gets a &quot;I Kill You for Free&quot; card that cannot be stopped except by unusual means.&nbsp; : )&nbsp; Maybe they should rename that ability...Yeah, but when you have an ability that allows you to *do* something like that, it's gotta be broken.&nbsp; Also, if you Jump for a mile and can't see where you'll land - just Abundant Step to the nearest convient location when you get there!Offensive abilities are important, but I still think the Monk's other abilities more than make up for any shortcoming.Oh, and Icebear, I appreciate everyone's comments - what I'm looking for is -why- they feel the Monk is not actually overpowered, so I can understand how the paper differs from the game.&nbsp; I've been sorta jovially tossing aside arguments left and right, but I -am- paying attention here, and some excellent points have been raised.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="evilbob, post: 654509, member: 9789"] [B] The argument for a powerful defense without much offense is the best so far. Then again, it's hard for me to see past the average level Monk having a natural 1d12 +2 weapon with as many attacks as a Fighter. This is interesting; what do you mean? (Again, lack of experience with a Monk here.) Also, in regards to DR: it seems that the new 3.5e rules may make further discussion on this irrelevant, since they'll be changing lots of stuff around... But for the moment, I still say this isn't much of a hindrance to a very powerful class. And as far as the nit-picking of previous statements... I still say all of those Monk abilities help keep the character alive better than other characters. Can't die from poison, can't die from disease, harder to die from falling, can speak to any creature in the universe, can become ethereal, etc, etc. This just adds more to the list of things that won't accidentally screw up your character. One a week, schmonce a week... The Monk still gets a "I Kill You for Free" card that cannot be stopped except by unusual means. : ) Maybe they should rename that ability... Yeah, but when you have an ability that allows you to *do* something like that, it's gotta be broken. Also, if you Jump for a mile and can't see where you'll land - just Abundant Step to the nearest convient location when you get there! Offensive abilities are important, but I still think the Monk's other abilities more than make up for any shortcoming. Oh, and Icebear, I appreciate everyone's comments - what I'm looking for is -why- they feel the Monk is not actually overpowered, so I can understand how the paper differs from the game. I've been sorta jovially tossing aside arguments left and right, but I -am- paying attention here, and some excellent points have been raised.[/b] [/QUOTE]

Verification