Nice post, motub.
Quote:
|
I don't see any point in Fighter/Rogue, since fighters are mostly meant for melee, and rogues are not melee fighters.
|
I disagree with this comment. Thinking of fighters as strictly melee-only tanks is too limiting. There's thoeretically no reason why fighters can't be a number of other types/styles of fighters.
A Fighter/Rogue can be seen as being like the BG2 Swashbuckler kit. I fought my Fighter/Rogue in melee quite a bit with considerable success. She was basically the 3rd backup tank in my party and was really more of an archer, but she was exceptionally capable in melee in Normal mode. There's not one thing wrong with the concept of a fighter/rogue. It's all about how you envision the character.
Quote:
|
Heck, that's why I don't like paladins either (though I have one in my party)-- a melee fighter doesn't have time to be running around healing other team members, though Bless is not to be sneezed at.
|
There's no reason for a pally to run around and heal if you have a cleric or a druid. Paladins are every bit as much of a pure tank as a pure fighter or barbarian. I use any pally spellcasting I have for pre-battle buffing.
I absolutely agree that Ranger/rogues are excellent characters. A good symbiosis of the two classes.
I've never played a monk/rogue. How well did she work out? What were her primary weapons? Bow? Fists? Melee weapon? What kind of stats (STR, DEX, etc.) did she have?