Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mmu1" data-source="post: 993502" data-attributes="member: 319">Yeah, but then again, no one remotely compares to the high-Strength guy with a greatsword in terms of damage anyway (even if he doesn't quite hit three times at +20 for 3d6+12 damage...), so I'm not sure that's the best thing to compare the Monk to.The real problem with the Monk wasn't a lack of balance compared to other characters (aside from problems inherent in the high stat requirements, and it's hardly the only class with that particular problem) but the fact that many people just didn't enjoy all the things they get to make up for reduced combat ability all that much (probably because many of the abilities are passive or their use depends on circumstances you don't control, unlike being able to hit things with shapr objects) so it looks like instead of actually re-balancing the class' abilities, they're just upping their combat power. I think it might be a questionable design decision.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mmu1, post: 993502, member: 319"] Yeah, but then again, no one remotely compares to the high-Strength guy with a greatsword in terms of damage anyway (even if he doesn't quite hit three times at +20 for 3d6+12 damage...), so I'm not sure that's the best thing to compare the Monk to. The real problem with the Monk wasn't a lack of balance compared to other characters (aside from problems inherent in the high stat requirements, and it's hardly the only class with that particular problem) but the fact that many people just didn't enjoy all the things they get to make up for reduced combat ability all that much (probably because many of the abilities are passive or their use depends on circumstances you don't control, unlike being able to hit things with shapr objects) so it looks like instead of actually re-balancing the class' abilities, they're just upping their combat power. I think it might be a questionable design decision. [/QUOTE]

Verification