Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9063209" data-attributes="member: 6801228">You'd think, but I just had a whole debate about how saying Monks should engage in melee and not ranged attacks is denying the full capabilities of the monk, who is capable of using ranged weapons and should always use those weapons to kite melee enemies. And, I think bringing up the rogue is an important point. The rogue... doesn't have to be melee. Even the most melee focused rogue is going to be able to seamlessly switch to ranged attacks. Additionally, while the rogue has fairly comparable AC to the monk, they have an easier time getting back out of melee, and they have uncanny dodge to decrease the damage they take if hit. Bards, Rogues, Clerics, and Druids can all be in melee, but they can also trivially switch into ranged combat, and often will because they have a hard time standing up on the front-lines. We don't want the monk to be encouraged to seek ranged combat, and a little bit more hp in the form of a d10 is a simple way to do that, making them on par with the Rangers, who are also capable skirmishers.But the fundamental fantasy of the Monk is that they are so good with their fists and bare body, that they CAN fight someone with superior equipment. That is the entire point. Otherwise all Monks should just be rogues or fighters or barbarians. And as it stands, 1 on 1 or 1 v many, the monk is encouraged to be a melee class that avoids melee. Which is a rough design space for them.</blockquote>

Verification