Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nergal Pendragon" data-source="post: 6523180" data-attributes="member: 6777649">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.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.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.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.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!"</blockquote>

Verification