Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8746339" data-attributes="member: 18">Firstly, that's rude, not respectful, you can't make a direct insult respectful by saying &quot;respectfully&quot; lol. Just sayin...And secondly, no I don't. My players are plenty creative, but they're also pragmatic, and they know what works. I've seen players who aren't pragmatic - there are couple, just none playing Monks, and whilst they do try some interesting things, it often doesn't work very well.I didn't say you had to play it that way.I said it's highly effective to play it that way, and I don't believe you're disagreeing. Stunning Strike is a truly incredible tool. It's probably the single most powerful tool Monks have. If you're not using it, you're definitely not playing a Monk to it's &quot;full effectiveness&quot; as you put it.Have you stopped to consider that perhaps your Monk is effective with you playing it in a different way because of your DM and their choices in encounter design? Rather than solely patting yourself on the back for your &quot;creativity&quot; and implied &quot;better-class&quot;-ness (lol jeez dude come on, even I wouldn't say something like that, and I can be pretty pleased with myself!), perhaps consider that they design encounters in a way that actually creates room for a skirmisher to do clever things and for them to actually work? Which is not easy to do, and requires some intentionality (or a natural proclivity, I guess).I will never play a Monk as long as the Shaolin bollocks is in the core chassis though. It's one of those things, like zombies, that I'm profoundly &quot;over&quot;. So I might play one in Morrus' Advanced 5E ruleset, where I understand they turned them into Adepts and removed that, but that probably has other changes too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8746339, member: 18"] Firstly, that's rude, not respectful, you can't make a direct insult respectful by saying "respectfully" lol. Just sayin... And secondly, no I don't. My players are plenty creative, but they're also pragmatic, and they know what works. I've seen players who aren't pragmatic - there are couple, just none playing Monks, and whilst they do try some interesting things, it often doesn't work very well. I didn't say you [I]had[/I] to play it that way. I said it's[I] highly effective [/I]to play it that way, and I don't believe you're disagreeing. Stunning Strike is a truly incredible tool. It's probably the single most powerful tool Monks have. If you're not using it, you're definitely not playing a Monk to it's "full effectiveness" as you put it. Have you stopped to consider that perhaps your Monk is effective with you playing it in a different way because of your DM and their choices in encounter design? Rather than solely patting yourself on the back for your "creativity" and implied "better-class"-ness (lol jeez dude come on, even I wouldn't say something like that, and I can be pretty pleased with myself!), perhaps consider that they design encounters in a way that actually creates room for a skirmisher to do clever things and for them to actually work? Which is not easy to do, and requires some intentionality (or a natural proclivity, I guess). I will never play a Monk as long as the Shaolin bollocks is in the core chassis though. It's one of those things, like zombies, that I'm profoundly "over". So I might play one in Morrus' Advanced 5E ruleset, where I understand they turned them into Adepts and removed that, but that probably has other changes too. [/QUOTE]

Verification