Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="sithramir" data-source="post: 6383627" data-attributes="member: 12183">I'm glad you broke it out above about the mechanics versus role playing. I really don' t see why 2 levels of Rogue are &quot;needed&quot; for role playing reasons. Period. That's what backgrounds are for and it's only mechanics now since you don't need to be &quot;rogue&quot; to use skills or tools, etc. Perhaps no levels of rogue are taken and she had to learn to fight with her hands, etc? Monk doesn't have to be &quot;trained by a grand master kung fu type&quot;. Role playing is the whole reason it's not needed. Mechanically it sounds like you'd prefer to use rogue which is great but not earth shatteringly weak.And I don't get how ONE stat boost and/or feat is &quot;nerfing&quot; anything. I'd take cunning action over a stat boost or feat. It's pretty awesome. Plus getting more skills to start with, etc? All of this seems to me that someone is trying to actually make the character stronger NOT weaker with the MC.If it's at level 20 they likely could have maxed important stats out still and probably missed out on a feat in reality? Well they've gained a few other abilities definitely worth a feat.I'll give you the gripe about stat requirements and needed 2 for monk and others. That seems foolish to me to make it harder than other classes. I'm more surprised you wouldn't be complaining about missing out on the pinnacle 20th level powers!The only issue I see with MC (and I think this edition did a much better job than 3.0) is that you can't hit pinnacle powers. But that was the point I believe to make sure the core classes weren't under powered when multi-classing or using prestige classes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="sithramir, post: 6383627, member: 12183"] I'm glad you broke it out above about the mechanics versus role playing. I really don' t see why 2 levels of Rogue are "needed" for role playing reasons. Period. That's what backgrounds are for and it's only mechanics now since you don't need to be "rogue" to use skills or tools, etc. Perhaps no levels of rogue are taken and she had to learn to fight with her hands, etc? Monk doesn't have to be "trained by a grand master kung fu type". Role playing is the whole reason it's not needed. Mechanically it sounds like you'd prefer to use rogue which is great but not earth shatteringly weak. And I don't get how ONE stat boost and/or feat is "nerfing" anything. I'd take cunning action over a stat boost or feat. It's pretty awesome. Plus getting more skills to start with, etc? All of this seems to me that someone is trying to actually make the character stronger NOT weaker with the MC. If it's at level 20 they likely could have maxed important stats out still and probably missed out on a feat in reality? Well they've gained a few other abilities definitely worth a feat. I'll give you the gripe about stat requirements and needed 2 for monk and others. That seems foolish to me to make it harder than other classes. I'm more surprised you wouldn't be complaining about missing out on the pinnacle 20th level powers! The only issue I see with MC (and I think this edition did a much better job than 3.0) is that you can't hit pinnacle powers. But that was the point I believe to make sure the core classes weren't under powered when multi-classing or using prestige classes. [/QUOTE]

Verification