Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5987272" data-attributes="member: 95493">Just right, the monk doesn't need to be be better or even as good as a fighter in combat. That isn't their job. What they are supposed to do, and do so successfully, is be a decent melee combatant AND have extra tricks. They do it well, but they could always do it better. It is the same problem as a cleric outshining the fighter in his own role. The solution isn't to roll clerics in with fighters and be done with it. The solution is to let each class have things they do well, and that are unique to them, and then let them fill whatever roll they can from there. The monk is a fighter+ just like the paladin, ranger and barbarian are all fighter+. Giving me a fighter with a monk package isn't going to cut it - for reasons I gave above.8 archetypes. Presumably that is the 4 &quot;cardinal&quot; classes and the 4 in between? That excludes a middle, half-half classes (which would make it 16 classes), and even classes that fill 3 different roles. Monks aren't as simple as fighters, I don't know what else matters.I'm guessing, what you seem to want would be something like this..Fighter - Paladin - Cleric - Ranger - Rogue - Bard - Wizard - Swordmage? - (back to)Fighter.As in a circle, leading from one to the next?But in reality we have a number of unrelated classes. Hell, even druid didn't make it in that version of an 8 point/subpoint system. That doesn't include any variation on wizard, druid, or barbarian. I would also debate that bard has less reason for being in your system too.The 4e power sources made more sense to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tovec, post: 5987272, member: 95493"] Just right, the monk doesn't need to be be better or even as good as a fighter in combat. That isn't their job. What they are supposed to do, and do so successfully, is be a decent melee combatant AND have extra tricks. They do it well, but they could always do it better. It is the same problem as a cleric outshining the fighter in his own role. The solution isn't to roll clerics in with fighters and be done with it. The solution is to let each class have things they do well, and that are unique to them, and then let them fill whatever roll they can from there. The monk is a fighter+ just like the paladin, ranger and barbarian are all fighter+. Giving me a fighter with a monk package isn't going to cut it - for reasons I gave above. 8 archetypes. Presumably that is the 4 "cardinal" classes and the 4 in between? That excludes a middle, half-half classes (which would make it 16 classes), and even classes that fill 3 different roles. Monks aren't as simple as fighters, I don't know what else matters. I'm guessing, what you seem to want would be something like this.. Fighter - Paladin - Cleric - Ranger - Rogue - Bard - Wizard - Swordmage? - (back to)Fighter. As in a circle, leading from one to the next? But in reality we have a number of unrelated classes. Hell, even druid didn't make it in that version of an 8 point/subpoint system. That doesn't include any variation on wizard, druid, or barbarian. I would also debate that bard has less reason for being in your system too. The 4e power sources made more sense to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification