You've pulled off a Hat Trick of wrongness here:
You really are saying that to the wrong person, given the entirety of your post. Honestly, if I pulled off a hat trick of it, you managed to be the dictionary definition.
1) You don't get to tell people who have expressly selected an archetype that they are playing their character wrong. You don't get to tell a Paladin player that he isn't playing skilled when he chooses to lead from the front as the valorous knight who charges headlong into glory when faced with insurmountable odds. That is the archetype the player has chosen. Courage and valor over shrewdness and pragmatism. And in this case, you don't get to the "Nature is red in tooth and claw" Circle of the Moon druid that they're playing their shape-changing, mix-it-up-in-melee Druid archetype wrong.
That would be nice... except that I at no time claimed that you shouldn't be able to maintain your main schtick or make it work. See, you were
blaming the class system for what you now claim is
personal choice in how to play the class. I merely responded to a single sentence that I thought summed up the entire problem, given you were discussing class design.
Keep in mind you were discussing class abilities and potential problems with having the base class ability synergize with the abilities of a subclass when I responded to your post. That is what I was responding to. As such, you just basically argued that
the items you cited as mechanics problems in your prior post are actually player choice problems.
Given you are
now saying it is how you choose to play the class when you had previous said, and I quote, "I don't think that is the player's fault. That is a system issue." Well, it kinda makes it look like you are intentionally changing your stance to fit whichever suits your purposes and make it difficult to argue with you instead of addressing the merits of the system the moment someone disagreed with you on system design. That may not be what was intended, but that's how it looks from my end.
So, yes, I am saying you are wrong to even use this stance as a defense, given the post I responded to was blaming the issue on the system itself. The nature of my reply easily responded to the system side of things.
I know Gygaxian skilled play seeps into all manner of gaming agendas as a priority. But if it subordinates player protagonism, you better let them know up front because if you establish a game where Paladins should be retreating or subordinating valor to pragmatism or Moon druids should be subordinating wetting their fangs and claws to metagame, strategical needs (that are supposed to make up for the system's deficiencies with respect to their archetype's capabilities at varying levels of play)...then you should (rightly) expect some blow-back.
Should I also rightly expect some blowback for expecting players to be able to adapt to situations at hand? Like, say, when they can't melee combat at all and need to rely on ranged tactics? Or when they're dealing with a room too small to use AoE spells? Or dealing with enemies who close to melee range when the character is normally adept at being ranged? Because if you think so, then yes... you are probably playing your character wrong through simple crippling overspecialization.
Adaptability was the point of my post in relation to the system itself.
2) The post that was being responded to was specifically talking about "shapechange losing its punch" at various levels of play but the "net loss of punch" being made up for by summoning spells which augment a moon druid's red in tooth and claw-ness. It wasn't talking about a Moon Druid just "sucking it up and taking it on the chin" by eschewing its archetype for level x - y. It was referring to summoning spells as the means to augment shapechanging melee druids such that their gross output is in-line...and their "red in tooth and claw" shtick still being legitimate.
The post that was responding to that was relaying play experience that disputed that augmentation (due to D&D's initiative cycle, action economy, and 5e's concentration mechanics). Hence, the original point that the "red in tooth and claw" archetype waxes and wanes throughout the levels.
And you pretty much invalidated that point by claiming that playing that way is player choice, up above. After all, since it is player choice, you don't get to tell people who have expressly selected an archetype that they are playing their character wrong. You don't get to tell a Paladin player that he isn't playing skilled when he chooses to lead from the front as the valorous knight who charges headlong into glory when faced with insurmountable odds. That is the archetype the player has chosen. Courage and valor over shrewdness and pragmatism. And in this case, you don't get to the "Nature is red in tooth and claw" Circle of the Moon druid that they're playing their shape-changing, mix-it-up-in-melee Druid archetype wrong.
3) The problem with the Monk in 3e had absolutely 0 to do with it being a one-trick-pony. The problem with the Monk in 3e is very well documented (and lived through with people like me who ran a game for multiple Monk players throughout the levels):
a) Monks suffered terribly from MAD. They needed good Str (to hit and damage). They needed Dex (AC and Reflex). They needed Con (HP and Fort). Meanwhile, Wisdom fueled all monk-related abilities (plus AC again and Will). Pretty much all other classes could easily get away with 2 scores (sometimes almost 1).
b) Monks were supposed to be a melee skirmisher, dashing into combat, delivering a big payload and dashing out. Unfortunately for them, due to crappy 3.x full attack action economy for martial characters, their best offensive ability (Flurry and their unique attack rate) can't be used with their archetypical skirmisher benefit (Fast Movement). Further, as a class that is expected to mix it up in melee (as martial arts masters), they get 3/4 BAB (WTF?) and d8 Hit DIce. Unlike clerics, they don't get armor and self-buffing abilities to make up for their BAB/HP deficiencies.
c) They have terrible class abilities that either come way too late, are just plain crap (Purity of Body doesn't affect magical diseases...which is pretty much the only diseases that matter.../facepalm) or are utterly outclassed by other class analogues. Quivering Palm, their signature/capstone offensive ability, requires a successful attack roll and a moderately low Fort save (good luck finding many of those at the level you're getting the ability), can't be used on five types of creatures, and is only usable once a week. Just awful.
d) There is plenty of other stuff that is magic item related (dearth of means for weapon enhancements thus lowering to-hit and damage by comparison to other martial characters) and skill related (their setup doesn't synergize well as any functional niche in a group setting).
In summation, the 3.x Monk terribleness had nothing to do with being a one-trick-pony. Ironically, a hefty portion of the 3.x Monk's problem had to do with lack of proper synergy between archetypical class abilities (which sounds familiar!).
A) They were no more MAD-dependent than the Paladin, which would typically need at least Str, Con, Cha, and Wis. MAD was a constant problem in 3E, and part of why Pathfinder revised several classes (including both the Paladin and the Monk).
B) Monks were only 3/4ths BAB
if you never used their primary class feature. You know, Flurry of Blows? The only class ability in the core book that allowed 5 attacks per round of combat? Complaining about this is like complaining the wizard does poor damage simply because you refuse to use spells.
C) The abilities all relate to being an unarmed striker. Immunity to disease? Well, take a look at the disease examples given. Quivering Palm? Take a look at some martial arts movies; it's basically a killing punch move ripped from any number of them. The AC bonus and entire section of the chart devoted to unarmed damage? Well, those make it pretty obvious... It's that one-trick-pony problem I was talking about. The 3E monk was designed to be an unarmed martial artist and everything about the class is designed along those lines.
D) Their functioning niche is Asian-style martial artist that replicates what is seen in fantastic martial arts films. The resulting class does that very well. It just doesn't work well in a DnD-style setting.
So, yes, it very much is the one-trick-pony problem. In this case, the single trick is "I'm good at unarmed martial arts!"
