Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 7910860" data-attributes="member: 18">That an American* can type this without literally dying of hypocrisy this is what is truly astonishing here, I say to you, sir! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> As arrogant as the British empire was at it's peak, the US has outshone it like the sun to the moon, certainly for well over a hundred years. Not so much the pot calling the kettle black as the deepest ocean calling a river "wet"!As for the rest, there's no actual argument. That's your problem right there! You start your talk re: 1E with a quote - and we all know how """"accurate"""" (hatequotes) class descriptions were in 1E through 3E, and you end it by admitting, yes a lot of the time they died horribly, but claim everyone except Rangers and Fighters did. Not exactly an argument for their mechanical soundness.3E Monks were indeed "flurry of misses", and "Well everyone misses more often after the first two attacks!" is a statement, one I agree with, but it's not an actual argument. It's just a fact. That the class seemed balanced around this terrible ability (by your own admission a poor ability) again speaks against it's mechanical soundness. Monks were a Tier 5 class, right down there with the Fighter. Did people have fun playing Fighters in 5E? Sure they did. Were they mechanically terrible? None could deny it. System problem or not, fellow inmates or not, Monks were bad, real bad, in 3E. You're not even outright denying it.Also, I get that you're having a good time, but I was one of the people I'm talking supposedly about in 1E through early 3E, the people who play mechanically unsound classes and have a good time anyway (didn't stop me pointing out the issues they had on the boards, mind). Unfortunately late 3E, after really seeing the tiers play out (as you may recall I was somewhat in denial about LF/QW initially), broke me of that, and 5E hasn't cured me. So it's like, insulting but not perhaps in the way you mean it to be!The most obvious issues are:A) Only AC-boosting item Monks can benefit from is Bracers of Defense (correct me if I'm wrong), so they can get +2 AC like, ever, and only if they get that specific item (or a close relative thereof that the DM makes up). Whereas many other melees can benefit from magic armour (up to +3) and potentially a shield (so total +5 potential), and can invest in CON, leveraging HP, rather than relying on pushing up DEX (which admittedly broadly useful) and WIS (which is far less so).B) Flurry of Blows has to be used unarmed - not even with Monk weapons (there may be a subclass which breaks this, I forget). That means you don't get the very significant hit and damage bonuses on your Flurry attacks. It's not 3E "Flurry of Misses" bad, but it's a distinct disadvantage.I believe there are others I'm forgetting.And people are ignoring what I'm saying re: 5E Monks - they're a solid class, that needs a slight improvement, not an "Oh god..." class like Rangers. They're in a better state than arguably any other edition. I do appreciate the general "Not this guy again..." tone of your post about me though! Takes me back! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Mmmm. No. "Best at fighting" absolutely does not necessarily mean "highest DPR" (which Fighter only arguably has anyway). It's best all-rounder in mixing it up physically. And a BM Fighter is a vastly better all-rounder than a Monk.That absolutely includes a Monk who gets +WIS mod to his Ki.* = If you are Canadian, you have my sympathies.</blockquote>

Verification