Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 281654" data-attributes="member: 1757">I know this topic has been beaten to death, but the fact remains that the &quot;generalist&quot; classes (monks, bards, multiclasses, rangers) never look too good when compared to the more specialized classes.&nbsp; When a class has the ability to be REALLY good at one thing (a favorite example is the wizard with high save DCs, but the bag-of-rats fighter and the bbn/frenzied berserker uber-ragers are good examples as well), it's easy to max that thing into what appears to be a guaranteed winning tactic. A class that's pretty good in a number of situations but exceptional in few, OTOH, tends to look worse on paper.In short: I think monks are perfectly capable of holding their own with other classes. Inversely, any DM who thinks that monks are overpowered enough to warrant a lower hit die is just wack. My suggestion: Print this topic and show it to him. Maybe he'll change his mind!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ruleslawyer, post: 281654, member: 1757"] I know this topic has been beaten to death, but the fact remains that the "generalist" classes (monks, bards, multiclasses, rangers) never look too good when compared to the more specialized classes. When a class has the ability to be REALLY good at one thing (a favorite example is the wizard with high save DCs, but the bag-of-rats fighter and the bbn/frenzied berserker uber-ragers are good examples as well), it's easy to max that thing into what appears to be a guaranteed winning tactic. A class that's pretty good in a number of situations but exceptional in few, OTOH, tends to look worse on paper. In short: I think monks are perfectly capable of holding their own with other classes. Inversely, any DM who thinks that monks are overpowered enough to warrant a lower hit die is just wack. My suggestion: Print this topic and show it to him. Maybe he'll change his mind! [/QUOTE]

Verification