Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 8051916" data-attributes="member: 6802951">Wot?That is Warlock at-will damage, not wizard, unless I'm missing something.&nbsp;If it remember rightly, the monk works out as a short-rest spell-point half(?) caster?So I'm guessing its capability without Ki should be at the same point as the Paladin or Ranger with no spells.They are still an effective melee combatant with high mobility. They make their basic attacks, which compare well to the Warlock's Eldritch Blast spam and the Ranger's at-will attacks.&nbsp;There is a distinction between &quot;Fighters lack support and options out of combat, particularly at higher levels&quot; and &quot;Fighters SUCK!&quot;You can't build a monk to massively improve on its non-optimised performance, like you can with say, a Fighter. The polearm or hand crossbow specialist BM fighter is much better than the baseline fighter, but monks don't have those decision points when building a character. You can't build a monk that is as tanky as a defensive-focused fighter, and definitely not as high DPR as an offensively-focused one. Whether you want to be hard to hurt, do extra damage, or control enemies is a decision made on a round-by-round basis with expenditure of resources. Combined with its ability to move around the battlefield, there are more tactical decision points than a lot of other classes, there are just very few meaningful character build choices. No great synergies with subclass features and feats, or splashing&nbsp; multiclass levels etc.There just isn't much you can do at the character build level to minmax the monk.Resource budget, and how to use them, combined with what is likely the best class mobility in the game, make the monk a fun class for some people. For others, the limited resources are a straitjacket and the monk doesn't do as well as it could in a slugfest so they find it a not-fun class.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cap'n Kobold, post: 8051916, member: 6802951"] Wot? That is Warlock at-will damage, not wizard, unless I'm missing something. If it remember rightly, the monk works out as a short-rest spell-point half(?) caster? So I'm guessing its capability without Ki [I]should [/I]be at the same point as the Paladin or Ranger with no spells. They are still an effective melee combatant with high mobility. They make their basic attacks, which compare well to the Warlock's Eldritch Blast spam and the Ranger's at-will attacks. There is a distinction between [I]"Fighters lack support and options out of combat, particularly at higher levels"[/I] and [I]"Fighters [B]SUCK[/B]!"[/I] You can't build a monk to massively improve on its non-optimised performance, like you can with say, a Fighter. The polearm or hand crossbow specialist BM fighter is much better than the baseline fighter, but monks don't have those decision points when building a character. You can't build a monk that is as tanky as a defensive-focused fighter, and definitely not as high DPR as an offensively-focused one. Whether you want to be hard to hurt, do extra damage, or control enemies is a decision made on a round-by-round basis with expenditure of resources. Combined with its ability to move around the battlefield, there are more tactical decision points than a lot of other classes, there are just very few meaningful character build choices. No great synergies with subclass features and feats, or splashing multiclass levels etc. There just isn't much you can do at the character build level to minmax the monk. Resource budget, and how to use them, combined with what is likely the best class mobility in the game, make the monk a fun class for some people. For others, the limited resources are a straitjacket and the monk doesn't do as well as it could in a slugfest so they find it a not-fun class. [/QUOTE]

Verification