|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 6:47PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Mar 23, 2001
|
Also they gave the fighter back his beginning parry abilities, and even allowing them to use thier skill die with it.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 9:40AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
As a "complete" class the Monk is mostly okay. I HATE the Immunities and will end up houseruling them to either Resistant or Advantage on Saves. Other than that though, as long as they bring the other combat primary classes up to the same level I have no problems with it.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 11:33AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Aug 24, 2008
|
I have yet to see the monk in full play, but I have to say it appears to be zero fun for the DM and all other non-monk players at the table. I think the teleporting is too much, I think the immunities make core rules and obstacles pointless, and I especially dislike the Undaunted Strike. It is not to say that I don't believe the Monk shouldn't have these abilities at all, but that there needs to be a qualification to their inclusion. For instance, at 2nd level, you can choose one of ways your unarmed strike counts as (magical, adamantine, etc), and perhaps at later levels you can have more than one, but giving them free reign on pretty much all damage reistance makes that whole aspect of monsters pointless and tedious. I hope Wizards reigns in the monk for the next packet.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 3:30PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2001
|
Wow if people are going to whine about things monks have always had, then I want the ability to attack 6 or 7 times per round doing a d20+ per hit back.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 12:50PM
#25
|
|
|
Wow if people are going to whine about things monks have always had, then I want the ability to attack 6 or 7 times per round doing a d20+ per hit back.
if we are going back to 3.x (which is the point im going to assume you we're trying to make) you do understand that the monk was the only class that you never wanted to prestige out of,because of the insane ablitites that the class got.
The monk (to me) seems too strong if you are going to give the class all of those ablities then in my opinion it should not have the same marital value of the fighter.They recive the same attack bonus,same marital die bonus/dice,yet the fighter gets about 1/10 of the monks utility.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 3:03PM
#26
|
|
|
If anything, the monks save or die ability needs to be nerfed (quivering palm). Because once that hits the monk just needs to run around waiting for the target to fail 3 times.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 3:57PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2001
|
Wow if people are going to whine about things monks have always had, then I want the ability to attack 6 or 7 times per round doing a d20+ per hit back.
if we are going back to 3.x (which is the point im going to assume you we're trying to make) you do understand that the monk was the only class that you never wanted to prestige out of,because of the insane ablitites that the class got.
The monk (to me) seems too strong if you are going to give the class all of those ablities then in my opinion it should not have the same marital value of the fighter.They recive the same attack bonus,same marital die bonus/dice,yet the fighter gets about 1/10 of the monks utility.
See that is part of my point. Of all the things to complain about, having immunities against some things that they always have had is not one of them. People act like monks have never been in the game or had these abilities like Quivering Palm. It doesn't say if forcing a save takes up your actions or what the DC is. Cons saves are pretty easy for most things and it would probablky be easier just to stcik a sword in them.
I was more shocked at how Perfect Self gave you all 20's in you stats pretty much negating any points you used leveling unless they took you over 20.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 11:59AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Feb 16, 2008
|
i know that the rules are still incomplete (even though this monk strangely seems complete, heck the cleric doesnt even have any domain spells past the 5th level progression), but the love that has been heaped upon the monk really disenfranchises me as a player and dm.
the monk just seems to have this silver bullet for everything. i was so excited as a dm to see fear aspects coming back to the monsters, but dont even think about using such silly efforts on a monk (or charm to boot). and poison being one of the most common damage types for monsters is completely nullified for a monk.
however, abundant strike is the ability that i find most distasteful. the game seems to be headed for a more low magic feel, which i can appreciate. certainly if you want high magic then you can start slinging out magic items for sale as soon as your generous dm heart desires. however, the monk circomvents this as early as second level. he does as much damage and hits as often as a fighter and basically overcomes every form of physical resistance that protects the higher level monsters from being slain in one hit (thanks to the other bane of this edition - martial expertise dice).
i just don't understand why one class should get the class ability equivalent of a magic item every other level, for not cost against them. they give up nothing to gain everything. and then hey, they can still equip a magic item or two if they so choose just to round out a niche weakness when needed.
sorry to use the b word, but some balance between the classes would be nice.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 2:02PM
#29
|
|
|
Wow if people are going to whine about things monks have always had, then I want the ability to attack 6 or 7 times per round doing a d20+ per hit back.
if we are going back to 3.x (which is the point im going to assume you we're trying to make) you do understand that the monk was the only class that you never wanted to prestige out of,because of the insane ablitites that the class got.
The monk (to me) seems too strong if you are going to give the class all of those ablities then in my opinion it should not have the same marital value of the fighter.They recive the same attack bonus,same marital die bonus/dice,yet the fighter gets about 1/10 of the monks utility.
See that is part of my point. Of all the things to complain about, having immunities against some things that they always have had is not one of them. People act like monks have never been in the game or had these abilities like Quivering Palm. It doesn't say if forcing a save takes up your actions or what the DC is. Cons saves are pretty easy for most things and it would probablky be easier just to stcik a sword in them.
I was more shocked at how Perfect Self gave you all 20's in you stats pretty much negating any points you used leveling unless they took you over 20.
I understand the idea of "hey they have always had these ablitites" but in 3.x the fighter also had more hp/better damage and a whole slew of bonus feats.The onlything that made it into next for the fighter was the extra couple of hp per level. The monk on the other hand got to keep all of its cool stuff AND got the martial prowess of the fighter.....which to me seems odd.Though it does seems like the majority of players seem to agree,which I am pleased with.I guess we will just have to wait and see what the next playtest looks like.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 8:17AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Aug 24, 2008
|
Perfect Self is indeed kind of a slap in the face as well. I mean, when you have a class power that uses the word perfect, you're kind of a doosh.
Anyway, on a more critical note, I simply don't see why they get flat out immunities and flat out overcome resistances. I'm not against these abilities (that they've always had—praise be the almighty 3.x monk, may he live on forever in unbalance), I'm just saying that some real choices should be made, and some real restraint should be showed. Instead of flat out making the monk's hands into silver, magic, adamantine and cold iron (which doesn't even make sense), have them choose one, or require it to be a stance that takes an action. Instead of granting full on immunities to poison and disease, how about resistance, or advantage to saving throws versus disease?
I just don't see why it has to be so black and white. As a DM, if a monk in the party has immunity to disease that whole mechanic is thrown out the door. Even if a party has access to a Cure Disease spell, there are still opportunities to make it a threat, and overcoming a disease uses resources. Even if a Fighter carries around a cold iron sword, a silver sword, a magic sword and an adamantine sword—there are still opportunities to challenge that player in their decision making.
The monk doesn't inspire decision. It's a hand full of trump cards, and in no game is that fun.
|
|
|
