The monk. It will be mystical most likely

[Plane Sailing]

Be that as it may, Gygax is on record (in an early issue of Dragon magazine) as saying that he wishes he hadn't put it in the game, and later wished that he had saved it for the later Oriental Adventures book.

I am in agreement with him. I do not care about the monk's long history with the game. It hasn't ever fit in, and it never will. Removal of the default, vaguely Euro-Medieval/Renaissance feel from the cultural assumptions of the core game will result in something that loses that classic D&D feel that they're trying to recapture.

The inclusion of the monk was a mistake, and it's one I'd like to see corrected in this edition, though I doubt it will due to the horrid class's regrettable and deplorable popularity.

Considering that it is very easy for a DM to say 'only these classes in this campaign', and the class rarity scheme which is being discussed will help reinforce the DM's ability to say this, I find it hard to understand your position.

Because YOU don't like monks, you want nobody to have them in the rules? Rather than accept that putting them in the rules allows people who love them (or having existing PCs they want to convert) to use them, while in no way impacting people who don't think they fit to not allow them in their games?

Is that really what you are trying to say here?

 

[ArmoredSaint]

Is that really what you are trying to say here?

Not really.

Again, I know I'm not likely to get my way on this one. When I have the new 5E PHB in my hot little hands and there is a monk in it, I know I'll just ban it (along with the one or two other classes I always ban) in my games like I always do.

Y'all can have your monks.

 

[Abstruse]

Because YOU don't like monks, you want nobody to have them in the rules?

Why not? Wizards of the Coast is saying that Avengers can't be a class because it "works better as a theme". I think "I can't get around the cognitive dissonance and at times borderline racism of the monk class to include it in the default rules" is as good a reason.

For the record, have you ever tried to limit classes in a game? I have many times. My current Pathfinder game, I told everyone starting out I wanted a very 1st/2nd Ed old school feeling game drawing off the influences of Tolkien. My first three players came to me with a ninja, a gunslinger, and an CE thief. I sent them back to the drawing board. They came back with a LN monk, a CN cleric, and a NE thief. I rolled my eyes and went with it. Next player to join? NE ninja. Sent him back. CN gunslinger. Told him only core rulebook classes and figured I'd get something good back. NE ranger. Sigh. Rest of the party ended up a LE wizard, CN or CE barbarian with monkey grip, and...I can't even remember what the other player played originally because he keeps committing suicide-by-DM when he's bored with the character. Last one he brought was a CE drow sorcerer when we were in the middle of playing a conversion of Vault of the Drow. By this point, I've given up and just shipped them off to Ravenloft.

In other words, if you get a player who only wants to play a certain class, they're going to whine and bitch and complain and whine until they get it. The ranger's player? STILL keeps trying to talk me into letting him play a drow ninja even though I've told him no every time for the past 5 months.

 

[El Mahdi]

I am not certain but I'm pretty sure...

Uhmm...okay. WotC has hardly said a word about Monks yet. How are you able to be even "pretty sure" about something for which we've heard practically nothing...?

 

[El Mahdi]

Stop amputating my D&D to fit in your box.

D&D does not belong to any specific person. First, it only truly belongs to WotC, and they are going to do whatever they think will work best with it. Second, as a hobby D&D is ours; not any me's, my's, mine...

I also don't think anything about his post described "amputating" D&D. It was a valid opinion, just as your opinions are valid. But telling people to stop having certain opinions is definitely not cool.

He can tell us and WotC what he wants from D&D. You can tell us and WotC what you want from D&D. And WotC will decide what strikes a chord with the most people. But nobody has the right to tell anyone not to voice their opinion about what they want out of D&D Next.



As for my opinion, I like the pseudo-Medieval European default to the game. And I'd prefer a non-mysical Monk. An Oriental "Kung Fu" type Monk.

 

[Greg K]

For the record, have you ever tried to limit classes in a game? I have many times.

I do it all the time. For 3e, I allow the the following classes:
1. Barbarian
2. Bard
3. Cleric
4. Druid (cloistered cleric variant)
5. Fighter
6. Holy Warrior (Green Ronin)
Knight (Hong's Knight with support material from the Cavalier's Handbook
7. Monk (OA Shaman)
8. Psychic (Green Ronin)
9. Ranger
10. Rogue
11. Shaman (Green Ronin)
12. Sorcerer
13. Witch (Green Ronin)
14. NPC classes: Thaumaturist (Green Ronin), Unholy Warrior (Green Ronin)

My current Pathfinder game, I told everyone starting out I wanted a very 1st/2nd Ed old school feeling game drawing off the influences of Tolkien. My first three players came to me with a ninja, a gunslinger, and an CE thief. I sent them back to the drawing board. They came back with a LN monk, a CN cleric, and a NE thief. I rolled my eyes and went with it. Next player to join? NE ninja. Sent him back. CN gunslinger. Told him only core rulebook classes and figured I'd get something good back. NE ranger. Sigh.

You should have told them upfront, specifically, which classes you were allowing and then stick to it.

.I can't even remember what the other player played originally because he keeps committing suicide-by-DM when he's bored with the character.

We would kick this player out

In other words, if you get a player who only wants to play a certain class, they're going to whine and bitch and complain and whine until they get it. The ranger's player? STILL keeps trying to talk me into letting him play a drow ninja even though I've told him no every time for the past 5 months.

If the player is a problem, you boot them. You told them what you are offering. They agreed. If they have a problem, they should find another game offering providing them the style/theme they want.

 

[Gold Roger]

Why not? Wizards of the Coast is saying that Avengers can't be a class because it "works better as a theme". I think "I can't get around the cognitive dissonance and at times borderline racism of the monk class to include it in the default rules" is as good a reason.

For the record, have you ever tried to limit classes in a game? I have many times. My current Pathfinder game, I told everyone starting out I wanted a very 1st/2nd Ed old school feeling game drawing off the influences of Tolkien. My first three players came to me with a ninja, a gunslinger, and an CE thief. I sent them back to the drawing board. They came back with a LN monk, a CN cleric, and a NE thief. I rolled my eyes and went with it. Next player to join? NE ninja. Sent him back. CN gunslinger. Told him only core rulebook classes and figured I'd get something good back. NE ranger. Sigh. Rest of the party ended up a LE wizard, CN or CE barbarian with monkey grip, and...I can't even remember what the other player played originally because he keeps committing suicide-by-DM when he's bored with the character. Last one he brought was a CE drow sorcerer when we were in the middle of playing a conversion of Vault of the Drow. By this point, I've given up and just shipped them off to Ravenloft.

In other words, if you get a player who only wants to play a certain class, they're going to whine and bitch and complain and whine until they get it. The ranger's player? STILL keeps trying to talk me into letting him play a drow ninja even though I've told him no every time for the past 5 months.

I've never had a problem restricting races and classes. If it was a single thing, I just told them (oh yeah guys, no gnomes please). If it was bigger or changed race/class fluff, I wrote up a small gazeter for the campaign.

So far, I never had players even questioning it, though I'll admit that's also luck. I think communication is key. That's not just telling players, but having a talk to ensure everyone is on the same page. I also like being involved in PC creation and advising how to fit the PC's into the world and realize concept parts (your character always carries a cane? Cool, tell you what, how about counting it as a shield?).

With the above mentioned gazeter I learned that having a document that clearly spells out restrictions and intent that can be reread and referenced helps ensuring everyone is on the same page.

Of course none of this helps if the players don't want to play the kind of campaign you want to run. But a lack of other classes won't help you then either, they'll manage to run it into the ground with only all human rogues and fighter.

 

[Minigiant]

Uhmm...okay. WotC has hardly said a word about Monks yet. How are you able to be even "pretty sure" about something for which we've heard practically nothing...?

The monk was mentioned in the fighter's design goal article.
Another goal mentioned was to include all the classes that were in the first PH style book for each edition.
Many designers have claimed that a goal is to make each class unique.

 

[Abstruse]

You should have told them upfront, specifically, which classes you were allowing and then stick to it.

I had assumed I could trust my players once I told them the tone of the game. When that didn't work, I sent them back to the drawing board and told them specifically which classes/races weren't allowed. One player begged and begged and begged to play a monk. And since we're playing at his house, I gave in.

We would kick this player out

Trust me, I'm trying to figure out a way to do so without causing hurt feelings with other, far better and less annoying players who are closer friends with that player than they are with me.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I also don't think anything about his post described "amputating" D&D. It was a valid opinion, just as your opinions are valid. But telling people to stop having certain opinions is definitely not cool.

I'm sorry, I'm just getting a little fed up with people saying that this thing doesn't belong in D&D and that thing doesn't belong in D&D when most of the things they're bitching about were part of D&D since before they were-- it's one thing to say that something new and different "isn't D&D" or "doesn't feel like D&D" and it's quite another to run around saying that things that have been part of D&D for thirty goddamned years aren't legitimate parts of D&D because they don't fit inside this tidy little Eurocentric wankfest they've constructed, that D&D itself has never actually fit into and was never actually intended to fit into.

He wants to run a particular kind of game at his table, that's fine-- I'm not even saying that, as a matter of taste, I even particularly disagree with him. I've run different kinds of D&D with different kinds of rules all the time, and there's nothing wrong with that. But if someone is sitting there saying that such-and-such class or such-and-such culture "doesn't fit" or "doesn't belong" in D&D, when it has been a part of D&D for as long as there has been D&D, then the problem isn't the class or the culture-- it's their narrow perception of what D&D is and what it's supposed to be.

It's all well and good for us to have our individual tastes and our individual wants and needs for the game, and I don't mean to imply that people shouldn't express those desires-- of course we should all be telling the designers what we want and don't want in our D&D.

I'm just baffled how anyone could have played D&D and read any of the D&D rulebooks published in the last thirty-some years and still somehow come away with the misapprehension that any D&D setting ever was supposed to look like Middle Earth.