Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6523154" data-attributes="member: 6696971">You've pulled off a Hat Trick of wrongness here: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.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.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.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!).</blockquote>

Verification