Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arcane Runes Press" data-source="post: 287463" data-attributes="member: 402">Either one, since they both have their strengths and weaknesses.The monk doesn't have the sheer combat power of the fighter, but he also doesn't have the brain of a turnip or a Will save that's going to cause him to drop like panties on prom night. It's all gonna come down to party composition. As designed, the fighter is great against nasty beasties. He can get stuck in against brawling monsters and more than hold his own.  Get some enemy spellcasters in the mix though, and, without proper support, he's very likely f'ed. The monk sample character, meanwhile, lacks the sheer stopping power of the sample fighter. He can, however, get across the entire battlefield in about .5 seconds and put a hurt on the spellcaster that's just itching to drop a Dominate Person or Hold Person on the fighter. He also makes a great partner for a party rogue, since he can set up flanking maneuvers with ease and has more than respectable scores in Move Silently and Hide. Now, as to the question of whether the monk class does what it was supposed to do.I think it does, but I don't think that what it does is what it should have been designed to do in the first place.I think that there is simultaneously too much and not enough "asian" flavor, for lack of a better term. Many of the monk's abilities are clearly inspired by HK movies and the whole eastern unarmed ass kicker archetype, but the class comes across as more of a survivalist than it does a Kain/Bruce/Jackie/Jet/Shaolin composite. I think a problem a lot of players and DMs have with the class is that it brings to mind images of Shaolin warriors kicking and punching their way through legions of hapless opponents without really giving you the tools to do it. In other words, it does its job well, but it does the wrong job. -Patrick Younts</blockquote>

Verification