Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How Magical or Non-Magical Should the Monk Be?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6032992" data-attributes="member: 95493"><p>Right, so to compare a barbarian and a monk to in terms of being a barbarian, the monk can't ever win.</p><p>Same as comparing a barbarian and a wizard in terms of being a wizard, the barbarian can't compare to wizard or ever win.</p><p></p><p></p><p>They aren't though. You say that monks are trying to be fighters, but I would show that they have a 3/4 BAB and a bag of tricks. They aren't trying to be fighters. The other classes you say in this (rangers, paladins, barbarians) could all conceivably be fighters because they all have full BAB. The monk doesn't. It isn't that the monk is a poor fighter/barbarian, it is that the monk isn't TRYING to be a good one.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So I'm glad we agree, monks are as effective as rogues in combat. Monks SHOULD be compared to rogues. Now 3e monks are still a poorly built class. If you think I disagree then you should point out where I've said otherwise.</p><p></p><p>I have said that they are among the more effective in a party but that is only when they are played to their strengths. Their strengths are not a fighter, nor a fighter substitute. Their strengths are LIVING, and avoiding obstacles.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay, 3e had flaws? And?</p><p></p><p>I'm definitely of the camp where 'those classes' should be muted in some form, as opposed to all classes being 'dragged up' to the same level. I've worked on a number of ways to address this concern in my own games. But currently we are talking about 5e and about what a class should look like there. I'm saying that monks should exist and they should be viable. I'm not saying they should replace fighters. I am saying that 3e has some good ideas, I also say they need to be greatly fixed to make them better.</p><p></p><p></p><p>You slightly lose me here, if only because I don't think all classes need to hold their own in combat. They need to excel in their chosen niche, not all classes need to be as good as the fighter/wizard (depending on edition) in combat. Similarly, not all fighter/wizards need to be as competent as rogues out of combat.</p><p></p><p>My point I guess is that they should FIX that garbage, instead of just tossing out everything about the monk that makes them unique. This is the same objection I would raise about tossing out the paladin, ranger, bard or druid. All of the classes have a specific set of qualities that define them. The abilities themselves can be hit or miss but the qualities remain the same. So they should spend time fixing those qualities instead of trying to invalidate people who like a class. (Invalidating them would include, but not be limited to, the class appearing years later than the 'original' classes.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tovec, post: 6032992, member: 95493"] Right, so to compare a barbarian and a monk to in terms of being a barbarian, the monk can't ever win. Same as comparing a barbarian and a wizard in terms of being a wizard, the barbarian can't compare to wizard or ever win. They aren't though. You say that monks are trying to be fighters, but I would show that they have a 3/4 BAB and a bag of tricks. They aren't trying to be fighters. The other classes you say in this (rangers, paladins, barbarians) could all conceivably be fighters because they all have full BAB. The monk doesn't. It isn't that the monk is a poor fighter/barbarian, it is that the monk isn't TRYING to be a good one. So I'm glad we agree, monks are as effective as rogues in combat. Monks SHOULD be compared to rogues. Now 3e monks are still a poorly built class. If you think I disagree then you should point out where I've said otherwise. I have said that they are among the more effective in a party but that is only when they are played to their strengths. Their strengths are not a fighter, nor a fighter substitute. Their strengths are LIVING, and avoiding obstacles. Okay, 3e had flaws? And? I'm definitely of the camp where 'those classes' should be muted in some form, as opposed to all classes being 'dragged up' to the same level. I've worked on a number of ways to address this concern in my own games. But currently we are talking about 5e and about what a class should look like there. I'm saying that monks should exist and they should be viable. I'm not saying they should replace fighters. I am saying that 3e has some good ideas, I also say they need to be greatly fixed to make them better. You slightly lose me here, if only because I don't think all classes need to hold their own in combat. They need to excel in their chosen niche, not all classes need to be as good as the fighter/wizard (depending on edition) in combat. Similarly, not all fighter/wizards need to be as competent as rogues out of combat. My point I guess is that they should FIX that garbage, instead of just tossing out everything about the monk that makes them unique. This is the same objection I would raise about tossing out the paladin, ranger, bard or druid. All of the classes have a specific set of qualities that define them. The abilities themselves can be hit or miss but the qualities remain the same. So they should spend time fixing those qualities instead of trying to invalidate people who like a class. (Invalidating them would include, but not be limited to, the class appearing years later than the 'original' classes.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How Magical or Non-Magical Should the Monk Be?
Top