Rawbeard wrote:Martials get enough shiny bullshit of the kind that made people think 3.0 Monk was overpowered, that the usual crowed doesn't really notice how useless they become over time.
Lets go back to 2008, pathfinder alpha.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:Changing a monk's BAB is not in the cards, just like it is not for any other class. Changing BAB monkey's with a lot of statistics (especially for the monk with flurry). Truth be told, the monk is not a class that is designed specifically to stand up toe-to-toe with a fighter. They serve slightly different roles.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:Monks are support and mobility combatants, generally speaking, useful in moving around the battlefield to assist with problems. In this regard, they gain a number of abilities that allow them to work without the aid of others, which many of the other, straight fighter classes, lack to one degree or another.
Telling me that this is just a band aid, without any playtesting, because they do not get a full BAB, is not very helpful to my development. They might not be perfect for the role that I see them in (at least not yet), but I am looking to work within the system as opposed to just demanding a redesign of some of their core statistics.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:So, I am thinking a lot about the monk as of late. The monk, as I stated before, fills a different role than a fighter. They hit more like a rogue, with a different sort of damage potential. For some reason, and I am wondering why, there seems to be an opinion that the monk does not work, but the rogue, who is based off the same progression, does. The monk has access to some of the same bonuses as a rogue (to hit at any rate), but the monk has quite a bit more defenses (good saves, some immunities, and, in the right build, a better AC).
So, to help me understand the arguments being thrown about here. I am wondering. Where is the flaw with the monk? And, as a secondary question, why are these not the same problems with the rogue?
I have seen a large number of monks played over the past few years, and every one of them has been pretty solid at their role in the party. They are great at harrassing spellcasters (clerics, bards, wizards, and sorcerers) and other, equally classed, combatants (rogues and other monks). They do not stand up as well in a straight up fight with fighters, barbarians, and paladins. But this limitation is more about their niche than their shortcomings.
Once again, I am trying not to come off antagonistic here, but I am not sure I undersand the beef. Help me see the point.