Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PrecociousApprentice" data-source="post: 4636840" data-attributes="member: 61449">The point is to make a monk like character that doesn't suck. Basing it on a ranger was WotC's idea. Having a character that is basically a ranger, but can't fill the role of a ranger would make it an inferior ranger. Why do we need to try to inject realism in a fantasy game? Just because in real life it is always better to have a weapon doesn't mean that our fantasy has to duplicate it. Making a weaponless fighter that performs as well as a armed fighter is good design, if that is his shtic. Many people like swords. There are classes for them. Many people like the pugilist. There shoud be a class for them. No, it should not suck compared to a sword fighter. Make the monk as effective as a ranger. You can do this by altering the ranger to allow him to fight unarmed as well as he fights armed. Don't look at the longsword. Look at the ranger. That is the goal. Normal folks can't fight unarmed as well as they fight with a sword. Monks can. Why is that so unbeivable in a system that contains fireball chucking wizards and clerics that benefit from divine intervention?</blockquote>