[004]
SpectralTime
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
...I admit that the position that \"monks and barbarians just don\'t do much damage\" is an \'\'insane one\'\' to me, when monks in my experience blast fighters out of the water until level 11 with their regular attack string and outspike them for most of the game\'s progression too, especially since they get more qi and can use it for more things, but I\'m willing to argue about it here rather than argue about it on the page. I\'m also skeptical that barbarians don\'t do much damage when they hit like a dump truck full of meth while raging and \'\'fighters\'\' aren\'t any better at tanking than they are according to the parameters laid out. Yes, admittedly, the lack of ranged options aren\'t great, but it\'s not like either class is meaningfully worse at them than a fighter that didn\'t specialize in ranged weapons from level 1 in the same situation, at which point we\'re having a very different conversation about how ranged combat is so strong in 5e that every character who\'s built for melee is arguably gimped by not being a ranged combatant.
to:
...I admit that the position that \\\"monks and barbarians just don\\\'t do much damage\\\" is an \\\'\\\'insane one\\\'\\\' to me, when monks in my experience blast fighters out of the water until level 11 with their regular attack string and outspike them for most of the game\\\'s progression too, especially since they get more qi and can use it for more things than fighters get their own limited resources, but I\\\'m willing to argue about it here rather than argue about it on the page. I\\\'m also skeptical that barbarians don\\\'t do much damage when they hit like a dump truck full of meth while raging and \\\'\\\'fighters\\\'\\\' aren\\\'t any better at tanking than they are according to the parameters laid out. Yes, admittedly, the lack of ranged options aren\\\'t great, but it\\\'s not like either class is meaningfully worse at them than a fighter that didn\\\'t specialize in ranged weapons from level 1 in the same situation, at which point we\\\'re having a very different conversation about how ranged combat is so strong in 5e that every character who\\\'s built for melee is arguably gimped by not being a ranged combatant.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
...I admit that the position that \"monks and barbarians just don\'t do much damage\" is an \'\'insane one\'\' to me, when monks in my experience blast fighters out of the water until level 20 with their regular attack string and outspike them for most of the game\'s progression too, especially since they get more qi and can use it for more things, but I\'m willing to argue about it here rather than argue about it on the page. I\'m also skeptical that barbarians don\'t do much damage when they hit like a dump truck full of meth while raging and \'\'fighters\'\' aren\'t any better at tanking than they are according to the parameters laid out. Yes, admittedly, the lack of ranged options aren\'t great, but it\'s not like either class is meaningfully worse at them than a fighter that didn\'t specialize in ranged weapons from level 1 in the same situation, at which point we\'re having a very different conversation about how ranged combat is so strong in 5e that every character who\'s built for melee is arguably gimped by not being a ranged combatant.
to:
...I admit that the position that \\\"monks and barbarians just don\\\'t do much damage\\\" is an \\\'\\\'insane one\\\'\\\' to me, when monks in my experience blast fighters out of the water until level 11 with their regular attack string and outspike them for most of the game\\\'s progression too, especially since they get more qi and can use it for more things, but I\\\'m willing to argue about it here rather than argue about it on the page. I\\\'m also skeptical that barbarians don\\\'t do much damage when they hit like a dump truck full of meth while raging and \\\'\\\'fighters\\\'\\\' aren\\\'t any better at tanking than they are according to the parameters laid out. Yes, admittedly, the lack of ranged options aren\\\'t great, but it\\\'s not like either class is meaningfully worse at them than a fighter that didn\\\'t specialize in ranged weapons from level 1 in the same situation, at which point we\\\'re having a very different conversation about how ranged combat is so strong in 5e that every character who\\\'s built for melee is arguably gimped by not being a ranged combatant.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
The mobility thing also gets my gander, since both classes have mobility for days (and the barbarian a flexible subclass option that can be built for it). They are, once again, no worse off than fighters in the same situation when dealing with flying enemies, itself already a hypothetical most monsters and situations won\'t involve anyway. If your GM is throwing enemies the party can\'t hurt at them every encounter, that\'s not the class design\'s fault. Or are we going to argue that ghosts aging entire mid-level parties to death is a reason why every class without Timeless Body is bad now?
to:
The mobility thing also gets my gander, since both classes have mobility for days (and the barbarian a flexible subclass option that can be built for it). They are, once again, no worse off than fighters in the same situation when dealing with flying enemies (and the monk is arguably better off since they \\\'\\\'can\\\'\\\' run on walls from a reasonably low-mid level while fighters have \\\'\\\'no\\\'\\\' core mobility features), itself already a hypothetical most monsters and situations won\\\'t involve anyway. If your GM is throwing enemies the party can\\\'t hurt at them every encounter, that\\\'s not the class design\\\'s fault. Or are we going to argue that ghosts aging entire mid-level parties to death is a reason why every class without Timeless Body is bad now?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
...I admit that the position that \"monks and barbarians just don\'t do much damage\" is an \'\'insane one\'\' to me, when monks in my experience blast fighters out of the water until level 20 with their regular attack string and outspike them for most of the game\'s progression too, especially since they get more qi and can use it for more things, but I\'m willing to argue about it here rather than argue about it on the page. I\'m also skeptical that barbarians don\'t do much damage when they hit like a dump truck full of meth while raging and \'\'fighters\'\' aren\'t any better at tanking than they are according to the parameters laid out. Yes, admittedly, the lack of ranged options aren\'t great, but it\'s not like either class is meaningfully worse at them than a fighter that didn\'t specialize in ranged weapons from level 1 in the same situation, at which point we\'re having a very different conversation.
to:
...I admit that the position that \\\"monks and barbarians just don\\\'t do much damage\\\" is an \\\'\\\'insane one\\\'\\\' to me, when monks in my experience blast fighters out of the water until level 20 with their regular attack string and outspike them for most of the game\\\'s progression too, especially since they get more qi and can use it for more things, but I\\\'m willing to argue about it here rather than argue about it on the page. I\\\'m also skeptical that barbarians don\\\'t do much damage when they hit like a dump truck full of meth while raging and \\\'\\\'fighters\\\'\\\' aren\\\'t any better at tanking than they are according to the parameters laid out. Yes, admittedly, the lack of ranged options aren\\\'t great, but it\\\'s not like either class is meaningfully worse at them than a fighter that didn\\\'t specialize in ranged weapons from level 1 in the same situation, at which point we\\\'re having a very different conversation about how ranged combat is so strong in 5e that every character who\\\'s built for melee is arguably gimped by not being a ranged combatant.
