In 3.5 D&D, it is a viable tactic for Monks to get Wizards to light them on fire to attack enemies

Odradek

Discuss.

Fossilmaiden

False.

3.5 monks are never viable.

Tachyon

hm.

Calica

i mean, ninjas can't catch you if you do that, so good idea imho

Odradek

You don't have to deal with the grappling rules either.

Haven

Fossilmaiden said:

False.

3.5 monks are never viable.

Haven

Though I did play a playtest for the 4e monk during which I got hit with ongoing fire 5...while having fire resistance 5. So I just ran around on fire for the whole rest of the fight.

I should've asked for extra damage or something, but honestly being on fire is its own reward, is it not

Yarrun XIX

Haven, did you just reject a situation in which someone is set on fire?

Haven

I reject only the praxeology behind it.

Yarrun XIX

You made a statement claiming that a situation where someone is set on fire is not ideal

This will, naturally, discourage one from creating that situation

Your words are reducing the amount of fire in our future

Fossilmaiden

A monk on fire is an improved monk, but still not a viable monk.

Odradek

Haven said:

I reject only the praxeology behind it.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Haven

I'm saying that it doesn't make the monk any more viable to be set on fire, but I agree with the basic situation of a monk being on fire.

Also, the 3.5 class that is everything the monk wanted to be can just light things on fire themselves anyway.

Odradek

TIL Haven is a libertarian

Haven

Odradek

Praxeology (Gr. πρᾶξις (praxis) ″action″, λόγος (logos) ″talk, speech″) is the deductive study of human action based on the notion that humans engage in purposeful behavior, as opposed to reflexive behavior like sneezing and inanimate behavior.^[1] According to its theorists, with the action axiom as the starting point, it is possible to draw conclusions about human behavior that are both objective and universal. For example, the notion that humans engage in acts of choice implies that they have preferences, and this must be true for anyone who exhibits intentional behavior.

The most common use of the term is in connection with the Austrian School of Economics, as established by economist Ludwig von Mises.^[2]

glennmagusharvey

But when is the sometimes in which a monk on fire is just a monk on fire?

Fossilmaiden

A handy guide to player classes less viable than monks, but which are improved by the application of fire: Paladin, CA Ninja, Rokugan Ninja, Swashbuckler, Soulknife, OA Samurai, Knight, CW Samurai,                                                                                                                     Truenamer.

glennmagusharvey

rokugan no rona

Alduin

Monks are even worse in Pathfinder.

Haven

Fossilmaiden said:

A handy guide to player classes less viable than monks, but which are improved by the application of fire: Paladin, CA Ninja, Rokugan Ninja, Swashbuckler, Soulknife, OA Samurai, Knight, CW Samurai,                                                                                                                     Truenamer.

Wait, Paladin? They at least get full BAB and armor, good saves and some spellcasting. (And the horse, which could probably beat a monk on its own.)

LOAD Cherry

Acererak said:

Monks are even worse in Pathfinder.

Then Pathfinder Unchained happened, making them playable

Alduin

yeah except their Will save sucks now

Corvina

Monks aren't bad in D&D 5

Alduin

Yeah, Monks got buffed big-time.

Although that isn't saying much...

LOAD Cherry

Acererak said:

yeah except their Will save sucks now

I'll take functionality over being the only class with no bad saves. And at least the bad save uses the monk's best stat.