Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jim Hague" data-source="post: 2832441" data-attributes="member: 17550">Ah ah ah!&nbsp; No cherry-picking - that's not kosher debate.&nbsp; What Le is pointing out is that by your logic, there's no reason not to take the Barbarian as a class instead of Fighter - better Hit Die, special abilities the Fighter doesn't get, full BAB progression.&nbsp; Thus, the logic is flawed, because you're only looking at the 'why' from a single angle, and thus the argument augurs into the dirt right off the bat.The monk is what the monk is: an unarmed fighter with several special abilities, including an unarmed damage that outpaces the fighter's armed damage in a lot of cases.&nbsp; I personally like the monk, though I do think it could do with a bit of tweaking.&nbsp; The Oriental flavor is a bit jarring, but honestly, the monk is no more the odd man out that, say, the ranger.So, to answer the OP's original question.Like:*The light, mobile fighter concept.*That hella unarmed damage.*Special abilities - slow fall is a great one, as is the ki strike.*Flurry of blows.Dislike:*The overwhelming Oriental flavor that doesn't fit with the more 'generic' classes.*The lack of a full BAB (presumably traded for the damage and special abilities)*The Hit Die (again, presumably traded for the damage and special abilities.Why would anyone take Monk as a class - it's a pretty good light skirmish fighter with a fist full of special abilities, a bit more flavor than the more generic classes, and it gets hella damage later on.&nbsp; Or, if that doesn't satisfy you, try 'concept.'</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jim Hague, post: 2832441, member: 17550"] Ah ah ah! No cherry-picking - that's not kosher debate. What Le is pointing out is that by your logic, there's no reason not to take the Barbarian as a class instead of Fighter - better Hit Die, special abilities the Fighter doesn't get, full BAB progression. Thus, the logic is flawed, because you're only looking at the 'why' from a single angle, and thus the argument augurs into the dirt right off the bat. The monk is what the monk is: an unarmed fighter with several special abilities, including an unarmed damage that outpaces the fighter's armed damage in a lot of cases. I personally like the monk, though I do think it could do with a bit of tweaking. The Oriental flavor is a bit jarring, but honestly, the monk is no more the odd man out that, say, the ranger. So, to answer the OP's original question. Like: *The light, mobile fighter concept. *That hella unarmed damage. *Special abilities - [i]slow fall[/i] is a great one, as is the [i]ki strike[/i]. *Flurry of blows. Dislike: *The overwhelming Oriental flavor that doesn't fit with the more 'generic' classes. *The lack of a full BAB (presumably traded for the damage and special abilities) *The Hit Die (again, presumably traded for the damage and special abilities. Why would anyone take Monk as a class - it's a pretty good light skirmish fighter with a fist full of special abilities, a bit more flavor than the more generic classes, and it gets hella damage later on. Or, if that doesn't satisfy you, try 'concept.' [/QUOTE]

Verification