TheLe
First Post
messy said:dislike: bab- should be same as fighter.
A number of people have said this, but I can't say I understand why. The monk is not really supposed to be as good as the fighter in combat.
`Le
messy said:dislike: bab- should be same as fighter.
Yes. The Monk is an Primary (as Fighter, Barbarian and Paladin) or Secondary (as Ranger and Cleric) Combatant. It's an Opportunistic Combatant (as Rogue). A Monk *can* win over a Fighter, if allowed to use his skills and speed to his advantage, possibly Disarming and Sundering the Fighter's weapons. The Monk will always lose if he just stands there and trade blows, arena-style.TheLe said:A number of people have said this, but I can't say I understand why. The monk is not really supposed to be as good as the fighter in combat.
`Le
TheLe said:A number of people have said this, but I can't say I understand why. The monk is not really supposed to be as good as the fighter in combat.
`Le
(Psi)SeveredHead said:Says who? From the arguments on the thread, quite a few people want monks to be primary fighters, rather than wimps.
TheLe said:So that's my question to you - how do you make the Monk a primary combatant without making the fighter class unattractive?
TheLe said:Exactly. I said that the monk is not supposed to be as good as the fighter in combat.
Alot of arguements are saying the they want a monk that is as good as the fighter in combat, which seems equivelent to saying that they want a Wizard who is as good as the fighter in combat.
But as far as I can tell, the Wizard and Monk were not designed that way.
Personally, I dunno. The Monk has a whole slew of special abilties, while the fighter has none. Giving a Monk the fighter's BAB will give people less reason to take the fighter at all. I have no problems with this, as long as your remove some of the Monks abilities to balance it out.
So that's my question to you - how do you make the Monk a primary combatant without making the fighter class unattractive?
~Le
jcfiala said:Did the fighter lose his 12 or so bonus feats somewhere? Has everyone stopped playing Fighters so they can get in on rangers and their yummy skill points and favored enemies?
TheLe said:The fundamental part of the Fighter is it's BAB and it's Bonus Feats. Not just one or the other, but both.
So if we're handing out the Fighter BAB to other classes like it was free candy... well, why not give it to the Bard or Sorcerer to beef them up to?
Where's the balance?
jcfiala said:Of the two things in this list whose main focus is hitting things, one gets a full BAB and the other doesn't. Monks don't *do* anything other than hit things, do they? Sure, if you really need to, remove some of the special abilities that come up once in a long while anyway... but what do Monks do if they're not going to be good at hitting things?