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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shard O'Glase" data-source="post: 287626" data-attributes="member: 1134">couple points one the fighter displayed on this page would get owned by any monk built with any degree of efficiency.  hide/sneak are brutal skills in one on one fights, spring attack and great movement make these skills even more brutal.  weapons may be cool but if your stunned even once your weapons are dropped, and that nice movement rate likely means your weapons are long gone before you get to move again.All of which proves that one on one fights prove nada.  If people want to prove the fighter is a better fighter than the monk, I just say well duh.  Is the fighter so much a better fighter that the monks other abilities don't make up the difference?  Not even clsoe if anything the fighter needs a boost.Which class would I want in a party.  99% of the time I'd prefer a monk if I was the one shaping the party.  Why because a fighter is an absolute and compleate gimp in every situation that can't be solved with his sword.  And his lack of all skills useful generally means the party gets in a ton more fights than I'd prefer.  My favorite part composition of 4 is rogue/druid/ranger/monk.  decent fighting, decent magic, and fantastic stealth.  I'd accept a wiz/sor if they were oriented towards illusion magic.monk to hit/damage at 10th level can easily be +13/+13/+10/+7(+15/+12+9 if you don't flurry) for 1d10+8 great nope, but adequate yep.  And that's all the monk should be adequate at fighting, he gets a cool special ability every level, had 4 skill points with a cool selection of class skill, d8 hp, and all good saves.  If he fought as good as the fighter the fighter would suck more than he already does.</blockquote>

Verification