Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8049695" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I think that it really depends. There seems to be three primary &quot;camps&quot; of people that don't like Monks (to overgeneralize, there is some overlap):1. DPR / optimizers / theorycrafters.2. The &quot;meh, boring&quot; crowd.3. The &quot;I don't want Kung Fu Monk raisins in my Western Fantasy Oatmeal&quot; contingent.For (1), I happen to think that they are wrong, but the fix is easy. Just bump up the damage dice for martial arts. Or something. Heck, just give the monks a special ability that's called, um, Monk Funk that adds their proficiency to each damage die. It doesn't really matter- it's just math to make people happy.For (2), it's just not the class for them, which is fine. Really! There are a number of different monk subclasses, some will scratch different itches, but some people just won't like it. This is why we have more than one class to choose from! It's just preference- the things you don't like, that make monks different, are the things other people might like. It's not a design failure if you don't like a class, it's a design failure if no one does, or most people don't. For (3), that's just, you know, their opinion, man. It's been the same since OD&amp;D, when the Monk first showed up in the Blackmoor supplement. At this point, arguing against the monk in D&amp;D is as old as saying, &quot;Wait, so it's not Friar Tuck?&quot;The issue with making the Bard better is the same as you have making a super cockroach.You don't want a super cockroach, because you're trying to kill it, not make it better. Also? Super Cockroaches sound better than a bard trying to play a medieval recorder.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8049695, member: 7023840"] I think that it really depends. There seems to be three primary "camps" of people that don't like Monks (to overgeneralize, there is some overlap): 1. DPR / optimizers / theorycrafters. 2. The "meh, boring" crowd. 3. The "I don't want Kung Fu Monk raisins in my Western Fantasy Oatmeal" contingent. For (1), I happen to think that they are wrong, but the fix is easy. Just bump up the damage dice for martial arts. Or something. Heck, just give the monks a special ability that's called, um, Monk Funk that adds their proficiency to each damage die. It doesn't really matter- it's just math to make people happy. For (2), it's just not the class for them, which is [I]fine[/I]. Really! There are a number of different monk subclasses, some will scratch different itches, but some people just won't like it. [I]This is why we have more than one class to choose from! [/I]It's just preference- the things you don't like, that make monks different, are the things other people might like. It's not a design failure if [I]you don't like a class[/I], it's a design failure if no one does, or most people don't. For (3), that's just, you know, their opinion, man. It's been the same since OD&D, when the Monk first showed up in the [I]Blackmoor [/I]supplement. At this point, arguing against the monk in D&D is as old as saying, "Wait, so it's not Friar Tuck?" The issue with making the Bard better is the same as you have making a super cockroach. You don't want a super cockroach, because you're trying to kill it, not make it better. Also? Super Cockroaches sound better than a bard trying to play a medieval recorder. [/QUOTE]

Verification