Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8724708" data-attributes="member: 6877472">People have been debating the validity of the Monk class for so long it's not funny.&nbsp; Point by point dissertations have been made by very smart people, and yet, people not only still play Monks, they defend them with great vigor, perhaps more steadfastly than even Fighter players.Two people can play a Monk and have wildly different experiences, which, to me, at least, means that something strange is going on.Looking at the Monk, I see a lot has been tied to Ki Points, even abilities other classes can do without spending Ki (take for example, bonus action Disengage). Martial Arts are not especially great, and most Monks find themselves using weapons for a good chunk of their career- and most magic weapons are still better than an unarmed strike.At higher levels, however, proficiency in all saves and much larger amounts of Ki lets Monks be pretty outstanding.&nbsp; Some subclasses are pretty bad, but that's not exactly a unique problem.I don't personally think I'd like playing a low level Monk, but they do get a lot better over time.&nbsp; The Monks I've seen played haven't done anything special, but a successful stunning attack could radically change some encounters.The wide and varied toolkit of the class is potentially very good, but not always useful.&nbsp; So I think the mindset of players is what really makes discussing the Monk difficult- players who value consistency find the class frustratingly swingy early on, and are not happy.Players who don't mind the swingy nature of the class, seeing it as a balancing point for it's range of options, and can make it to higher-tier play, are rewarded for stumbling out of the gate.In other words, it's akin to being a quadratic class in an edition that has largely done away with such things.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 8724708, member: 6877472"] People have been debating the validity of the Monk class for so long it's not funny. Point by point dissertations have been made by very smart people, and yet, people not only still play Monks, they defend them with great vigor, perhaps more steadfastly than even Fighter players. Two people can play a Monk and have wildly different experiences, which, to me, at least, means that something strange is going on. Looking at the Monk, I see a lot has been tied to Ki Points, even abilities other classes can do without spending Ki (take for example, bonus action Disengage). Martial Arts are not especially great, and most Monks find themselves using weapons for a good chunk of their career- and most magic weapons are still better than an unarmed strike. At higher levels, however, proficiency in all saves and much larger amounts of Ki lets Monks be pretty outstanding. Some subclasses are pretty bad, but that's not exactly a unique problem. I don't personally think I'd like playing a low level Monk, but they do get a lot better over time. The Monks I've seen played haven't done anything special, but a successful stunning attack could radically change some encounters. The wide and varied toolkit of the class is [I]potentially [/I]very good, but not always useful. So I think the mindset of players is what really makes discussing the Monk difficult- players who value consistency find the class frustratingly swingy early on, and are not happy. Players who don't mind the swingy nature of the class, seeing it as a balancing point for it's range of options, and can make it to higher-tier play, are rewarded for stumbling out of the gate. In other words, it's akin to being a quadratic class in an edition that has largely done away with such things. [/QUOTE]

Verification