Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hassassin" data-source="post: 5738869" data-attributes="member: 6675228">Edit: Sorry, didn't notice the other thread for this. If someone wants to move this, feel free.Note that your argument changed from "monks have low AC" to "monks do less damage". Nothing wrong with that, but did you concede that monks don't have to have (significantly) lower AC? (Your earlier post quoted below.)The monsters you list have on average AC 25.Your 12th level fighter with spiked chain deals 2d4 + 11 damage per hit. Assuming +20/+15/+10 attacks, that's an average of 27 damage per full attack, if my math holds.My 12th level monk with flurry of blows deals 3d6 + 2 damage per hit. Assuming +15/+15/+15/+10 attacks, that an average of 22 damage.Sure, the monk deals 20% less damage. Does that really make him that much less of a threat that enemies can ignore him? Note that not all enemies even think about tactics, and would want to go past the monk to attack a mage.If the party has a bard inspiring courage, the fighter's average damage increases to 29, while the monk's increases to 32. Buffs, debuffs and flanking have a similar effect of giving the monk's extra attacks an advantage.Add in the various feats both characters have, and the advantage will probably shift more to the fighter, who has more of them. However, I didn't spend all the monk's money, either (because I thought it was about AC). I understand that the fighter is better at fighting (duh), but that's how it should IMHO be. I again fail to see how the monk's weakness is so great as to make him totally useless.</blockquote>

Verification