Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jcfiala" data-source="post: 2832473" data-attributes="member: 6223">Well, then he should more carefully say so, because that's not what I was reading.&nbsp; The reason to take a Fighter over a Barbarian are obvious: Feats and Choices.&nbsp; Fighters can use nearly any method of fighting and be good at it (or excellent, if specialized). Barbarians are restricted to certain armors, and their fighting style is forced into the 'raging barbarian' type.I blame JRRT for the ranger class. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I don't mind removing abilities and ramping down the rapid strike to allow the Monk to have a better BAB - but what the OP wanted to know was what people liked and disliked about the Monk, and what a number of people dislike is the BAB progression and the massive unarmed damage at high levels.&nbsp; (Well, other than people who dislike the class overall for flavor.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jcfiala, post: 2832473, member: 6223"] Well, then he should more carefully say so, because that's not what I was reading. The reason to take a Fighter over a Barbarian are obvious: Feats and Choices. Fighters can use nearly any method of fighting and be good at it (or excellent, if specialized). Barbarians are restricted to certain armors, and their fighting style is forced into the 'raging barbarian' type. I blame JRRT for the ranger class. :) I don't mind removing abilities and ramping down the rapid strike to allow the Monk to have a better BAB - but what the OP wanted to know was what people liked and disliked about the Monk, and what a number of people dislike is the BAB progression and the massive unarmed damage at high levels. (Well, other than people who dislike the class overall for flavor.) [/QUOTE]

Verification