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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mattcolville" data-source="post: 296644" data-attributes="member: 1300">What cracks me up is people who willfully ignore what I'm talking about. I'm not comparing the Monk to the other classes except insofar as the other classes each contribute to the success of the party. Monks don't. I don't care that Fighters are better at dishing out damage, and Clerics are better at healing. I care that Monks aren't that good at anything. They're not even particularly good at being Monk-like. I don't mean to be a weenie-head, and I've been absent from a lot of the discussion (because, even though no other board I'm on does this, it seems that I can't use IE on the Mac to browse ENWorld and get the board to refresh properly, but I'm posting from my PC now) but I think I see two places in D&D where the designers catered to fans, giving them what they want *knowing* they were providing less than useful choices.Half-orcs and Monks.People want to play Half Orcs and Monks, and the 3E team put them in. They probably thought about how to balance them out against the other choices, make them *as* useful as the other races and classes. Then they decide "Hey, we don't have to balance them, if players want to play them, they'll play them."So Monks are different than all the other classes in that they perform no useful function. As I said earlier, it's not a case of them being useless, it's a case of them not being useful *enough*. But they can do *neat* things and players like neat stuff.Monk aren't unarmed combat masters. I think they should be, but they're not. Monks don't belong in a medieval fantasy game. They belong in an oriental game, which D&D is not.My two cents, YMMV</blockquote>

Verification