Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Voi_D_ragon" data-source="post: 8493114" data-attributes="member: 6855956">That's actually a pretty good idea, I might steal that for future sessions <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />. However, I still think it's a disappointing feature for most players (not saying it's necessarily bad, but, again, I think most monk players think they're playing a fighting character and don't much count social features when determining if their class feels good to play).Agree. I'm not saying the monk needs to be a top tier DPR class, because it's mobility is crazy and its defenses are very good (and both are undervalued). I am saying it feels bad to think you're a damage dealer and then having to consistently use resources to stay on par with a rogue ([MEDIA=googlesheets]gid=1541770495;id=1sVbgG1No5PMMz4QbBnS4d0xSEPT0whP84J3iB2X_Mjk[/MEDIA]), while also being unable to use your mobility/defensive class features. It also feels bad to get features that don't fit the perceived play style of the class you've chosen (ToSaM, again, not bad) or straight up bad (TB, which I'm still going to keep treating as trash unless given a good reason not to), no matter how strong the features you gain in other levels are.These features don't need to be strong, since indeed, 13&15 sandwich Diamond Soul, which is straight up awesome. They do need to be something, imo. It could be trivial, but it needs to make the player feel like they're getting stronger.In fact, if you look at my proposals, the additions to those levels don't directly increases the maximum DPR currently available to the Monk: you get to use your defensive and offensive features together, which actually increases the possibility that a player plays a Monk "as they should": a kiter/dodge tank, while still letting them play it as they want to: the guy that punches a lot (this is an assumption I'm making and possibly a branding problem or just a "problem" of the simplicity of player's perceptions).As far as this goes, I'm going to be very dismissive and just say that's not my problem. After all, there are simpler classes to play if you don't think you'll be able to keep up with a lot of features, and high-mastery classes need to be a thing so you can appeal to a wider player base. And maybe the one guy that likes intricate PCs just got tired of playing casters. This is also not to mention players can get help from their DMs or other players if needed.Well thank you. I'll admit, the post's structure is a bit all over the place, but I had limited time as I was wrinting it and some things came to mind while I was already basically done (like the idea of adding a poll to make a point about TB).The way I see it, it's all actually one big discussion on how good the class feels:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">My assumption is: players play a monk thinking they're either a martial or something closer to a rogue (which is more accurate IMO)<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Martial Monk players just want to punch stuff, and think dashing is only good for getting stuck in and then punching stuff even more.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Rogue Monk players want to play more of a skirmisher, but can't really do it as effectively as a Rogue<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Rogue gets damage & utility. Its utility is more out of combat than in combat, so they usually don't need to choose which is going to apply and are happy doing their go-to move most of the time in both cases.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Monk's utility is in combat, and it comes at the cost of keeping up damage-wise. The automatic response to entering combat is usually "I want to kill this as fast as possible" -especially if you're playing a character that can't control enemies to take pressure off party members. This makes the Monk eschew their utility in favor of doing damage, and they suffer for it (both in terms of damage taken and feeling good to play, because more than half the things you should be doing are locked away behind the BA cost, and you're not going to use them outside of combat most of the time, so you feel like you have "bad" features -they aren't, but the opportunity cost is usually too high for players to use them).</li> </ul></li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">In either case, getting features that don't help their role, which is by a large margin mostly in combat (since, again, their utility is in combat vs the Rogue's out-of-combat), feels bad.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I'm not attacking the right these features have to exist. I am saying, in rather the opposite manner as you've put it, that you can't put in narrative or simulationist features at the cost of gamism features. At least, that's my reasoning for ToSaM & TB.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You're probably right about the poll part, but honestly the fact TB is a standalone feature just frustrates me so much I don't think straight and wanted to insert something to justify my spite in some manner.</li> </ul></li> </ul>This was all written one-shot, I haven't gone over it, but if I re-read it later I might fix possible logical inconsistencies. Feel free to point any out in the meanwhile and give any other thoughts on the matter <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />.</blockquote>

Verification