Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Silver Griffon" data-source="post: 655045" data-attributes="member: 9425">Actually, the rogue is the always-on stealth-master and we shouldn't step on his toes either.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Seriously, you raise a valid point about expectations. But, I don't think the fighter has to be the hands-down best in melee. On the contrary, I think that what sets the fighter aside in 3e is the flexibility of all those bonus feats. Some fighters are not so good in melee but rock in ranged combat, for example. Others excel only from horesback. Still others focus on two-weapon fighting which basically just duplicates the monk's flurry of blows but with a better BAB (with enough feats and light weapon) and more damage. Currently, the monk is a fighter (but not as good) and a rogue (but not as good). Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. After all, there is something to be said for versatility. That's why people multiclass even though it slows down acquisition of high-level abilities. But, the monk currently doesn't &quot;shine&quot; anywhere. That's the real problem. If given more flexibility, the monk can be the best in melee (except for the fighter who puts all his feats in melee), OR the sneakiest guy (except for the rogue who concentrates on hide/move silently) OR as something in between like it is now, but always with a little extra &quot;flavor&quot;. 3e is about choices and options. Right now, a monk is a monk is a monk.Ag_Griffon</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Silver Griffon, post: 655045, member: 9425"] [B][COLOR=silver] Actually, the rogue is the always-on stealth-master and we shouldn't step on his toes either.;) Seriously, you raise a valid point about expectations. But, I don't think the fighter [i]has to be[/i] the hands-down best in melee. On the contrary, I think that what sets the fighter aside in 3e is the flexibility of all those bonus feats. Some fighters are not so good in melee but rock in ranged combat, for example. Others excel only from horesback. Still others focus on two-weapon fighting which basically just duplicates the monk's flurry of blows but with a better BAB (with enough feats and light weapon) and more damage. Currently, the monk is a fighter (but not as good) and a rogue (but not as good). Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. After all, there is something to be said for versatility. That's why people multiclass even though it slows down acquisition of high-level abilities. But, the monk currently doesn't "shine" anywhere. That's the [i]real[/i] problem. If given more flexibility, the monk can be the best in melee ([i]except[/i] for the fighter who puts all his feats in melee), OR the sneakiest guy ([i]except[/i] for the rogue who concentrates on hide/move silently) OR as something in between like it is now, but always with a little extra "flavor". 3e is about choices and options. Right now, a monk is a monk is a monk. [/COLOR][/B][COLOR=silver] Ag_Griffon[/COLOR] [/QUOTE]

Verification