Why not combine the Fighter and Monk Classes?

[Tovec]

I'd probably react by pointing out it's not really an argument you are presenting beyond just being faecetious.

It is the same argument with slightly different classes. My being facetious has almost nothing to do with the argument either way. The idea you present is that XYZ classes are all you need in order to play any class. It is reductionist and exclusionary as it cuts out a number of classes that have existed in a number of editions in favour of ones that YOU feel are close. Any classes could be put in that same lineup, or any line up could have those same classes plus or minus a few. Once again, all you do with that argument is present what YOU are happy with without giving ME any reason that I should be happy with it too.

The thing is for me, at least, 99% of all 'Classes' are indeed just minor adjustments on the fundaments represented by Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Clerics, Druids, Mages, Bards and Paladins.

Why Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Clerics, Druids, Mages, Bards and Paladins? I'm also assuming by Mage you mean Wizard as Mage isn't a class. Again, why not add a few more in there. Why does Paladin make the cut but Monk doesn't? Why does Bard but not Sorcerer? Why Ranger but not Assassin? Why Druid but not Barbarian?

A Barbarian isn't really a 'Class' - it's a cultural background. The various abilities associated with the class are stereotyping. You could build a Fighter with the Background of 'Barbarian', the theme of 'Beserker' and have all the raging abilities bought as Feats, and all the survival abilities bought as skills. The same could be argued with a Warlord (simply a fighter that is built with a theme of Leadership and Inspiration, rather than a seperate Class). Assassins, likewise, are really just highly specialised Rogues, in effect. Sorcerers are just Mages with a more primal, spontaneous approach to magic. All of these concepts could, potentially, be built from the core eight classes with various Backgrounds and Themes.

Barbarian really IS a 'Class' see: Barbarian :: d20srd.org
It's also in the 4e PHB2 page 48.
TO YOU it is also a cultural background. But even WotC has tried more than once to explain that Barbarian (the class) and "barbarian", as per the definition of the word, aren't really the same. I'm glad YOU feel confident that you could make a barbarian, warlord and assassin with other classes. I played 3.5 for a number of years and I'm sure I could build things CLOSE to those concepts. I don't feel that any fighter could replace the barbarian though. Nor am I confident that rogues make the best assassins.

Same thing with Monk, to a degree, although the other major problem with Monks have always been a lack of focus as to what the Class was really about. I'm saying that a Monk could be represented by a Fighter Class, with a Mystic Background and an Unarmed Combat Theme (say). If the Class/Background/Theme system is built carefully enough, no character concept ought to be left out.

First, they don't have a lack of focus, if anything it is too specialized. But I go over that more below (after the next quote).

And I keep asking, what would I no longer be able to do if I was a fighter-monk that I could have done if I was a monk with a different package. Themes and Backgrounds seem to be about making characters different from one another or about making them unique or special in some other way. If all monks have the same background and themes (in order to make them monks instead of fighters) in what ways will they be dissimilar from eachother? What vestiges of 'fighter' will still be included in the monk build? In what ways will the fighter with the monk themes and backgrounds be different from a fighter who happens to be an unarmed specialist?

This also assumes you do ALL the specialization of monk with a fighter base and THEMES AND BACKGROUNDS. The problem is Themes and Backgrounds are OPTIONAL. Optional. If I want to play a monk without themes and backgrounds I now can't because there is no longer a monk class. There have been 3-4 editions WITH the class but suddenly it is excluded it as a playable class because TrippyHippy thinks they aren't needed, because "they're basically fighters".

Indeed, if it is done well, there is no reason to suppose it can't open up options rather than shut them down - imagine that afore-mentioned Barbarian Beserker? Imagine it being built on top of the Ranger Class instead of the Fighter as an option? Imagine a Barbarian Cleric? Imagine a Mage with a Background of Mystic and a Theme of Unarmed Combat? Etc

This isn't the situation with monk though. Yes you could apply "unarmed and mystic" or w/e the themes and backgrounds are for this fighter-monk to other classes. You could. But monks AREN'T just the few things you seem to think belong in themes and backgrounds. This isn't just me saying it. I haven't personally made a list but others have - just read back. There is a laundry list of things that make monks unique from fighters or indeed other classes.

I did talk about the bonus speed and evasion qualities a couple posts back. You could get from barbarian or rogue to monk easier because they at least come with these two traits. Fighters don't. Fighters=/=Monks, just like Fighters=/=Rogues. They could do things similarly, high damage, high evasion, light/finessable weapons and stealth and stuff but that wouldn't mean fighters are suddenly rogues or that rogues are suddenly no longer a class.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I think you've pretty much exhausted any chance of a reasonable debate with that last rant. I've no interest in getting into a personalized feud, and I'll just leave my comments for other people to respond to.

 

[MoonSong]

I don't approve Tovec's getting personal, but I share the same concerns and desires. For many of us the ability to play a monk, paladin, ranger, bard, sorcerer, barbarian, assasin, warlord or druid out of the box as full classes on their own right is very important. Any other possibility is as good as not having them at all.

If they are only "sub classes" of the other four, but still get a full write up, they become a needless restriction to multiclass, specially given that we are going to get the more open level-by-level kind rather than the hybrid one or the feat-by-feat one, since you cannot multiclass with your own class because that is just increasing the current one by one level.

If they aren't true subclasses but builds, any kind of customization becomes a painful fight against the system. If they also require an speciffic theme/background combination, then that's even worse, you just lost what was suppossed to make your character unique in order to be a stereotypical member of the class you desired to play in the first place.

If we don't get them as classes, then my noble-defender-sorcerer, streetrat-double-wielder-sorcerer/Paladin, Lurker-Pyromaniac-sorcerer, mystic-berseker-sorcerer, hunter-archer-bard, bar-brawling-hostess-bard and phantom-thief-swashbukling-bard will be crying in a corner

 

[Remathilis]

The thing is for me, at least, 99% of all 'Classes' are indeed just minor adjustments on the fundaments represented by Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Clerics, Druids, Mages, Bards and Paladins.

I'll start by saying "that's a good starting point." Those 8 classes are my bare-minimum acceptable standard for a new PHB. But I think 99% of all classes CANNOT be represented by them alone. Not as D&D has defined them.

I am curious why you chose those eight. Specifically, why rangers (fighter with wilderness skills), paladin (fighter with clericy powers), bard (mage/thief with song powers), druids (cleric with nature domain) were acceptable as "standone" but not assassin (rogue with killing skills), barbarian (fighter with rage power), warlord (fighter with healy/buff), warlock (at-will mage), sorcerer (spontaneous mage), and monk (fighter/priest/rogue with unarmed combat) didn't?

I'd see them all as classes myself...

 

[Sammael]

I'll give you a reply as to why I see those 4 classes as essential archetypes and why I chose them for my own revision of the system.

Rangers do not rely on formal martial training. Instead, they focus on speed, guerrilla tactics, and the use of the environment to their advantage. While a tactically-minded fighter will also make good use of the terrain to help him win a battle, he will primarily win the battle because of his skill at arms. Not so with the ranger, who will make the terrain win the battle for him.

Champions (Paladins), likewise, do not gain their combat prowess as much as from training as they draw upon their belief and divine inspiration. A Champion manifests those beliefs through his aura (helping allies and/or hindering foes), uses them to boost his defenses and attacks, and, finally, can release all that concentrated power by smiting those who oppose his beliefs.

Druids are not just nature priests. They act as nature's avatars, able to shift their own form to take on nature's various aspects, and harness the raw power of elements to produce magical effects that do not break the natural world but draw upon its most powerful phenomena (storms, earthquakes, quicksand, etc). Whereas clerics receive their power from prayers (classical Vancian casters), I think that druids represent their archetype much better by being spontaneous casters.

Finally, bards harness the power of words and sounds, both mundane and magical. They are unparalleled diplomats, negotiators, and liars, and the only class that can resolve almost any encounter non-violently through the power of their bardic songs. Their repertoire may be limited in scope, but I've taken a cue from 3.x warlocks and made the bardic songs a non-expendable resource. The bard can use his song as often as he desires, and the only limitation is that he cannot have multiple songs active at the same time. That's a very different type of magic than that practiced by mages.

 

[Minigiant]

Well Lets do the D&D archetypes

• Combat
  • Martial
    • Heavy Melee Warrior
      • Trained
      • Untrained
    • Light Melee Warrior
      • Finesse
      • Unarmed
      • Dirty
    • Archer Thrower
    • Tactical & Inspirational Combatant
    • Beast mastery
  • Divine
    • Divine Spellcaster
    • Domain & Divine Channeler
    • Blessed Warrior
  • Nature/Primal Divine
    • Primal Spellcaster
    • Nature Controller
      • Animal
      • Plant
      • Spirits
    • Wildshaper
  • Arcane
    • Proper Wizardry
      • Evocation
      • Illusion
      • Conjuration
      • ...
    • Other Arcane
      • Bardic Magic
      • Sorcerous/Bloodline Magic
      • Warlock Magic
• Exploration
  • Athlete
    • Climb
    • Jump
    • Swim
    • Carrying
  • Acrobat
    • Escape Bond
    • Balance
    • Tumble
  • Thief
    • Open Lock
    • Disable Traps
    • Pick Pocket
  • Naturalist
    • Tracking
    • Survival
    • Nature & Dungeon Knowledge
  • Scholar
    • Recall Lore
      • Magical
      • History
      • ...
  • Mysticism
    • Slow Fall
    • Self healing
    • Immunities
  • Magic
    • Scrying
    • Travel spells
    • Skill copying spells
• Interaction
  • Conversation
    • Diplomacy
    • Bluff
    • Intimidation
    • Insight
  • Languages
  • Gathering information
  • Magic
    • Skill copying spells
    • Magical information gathering

We're gonna need a lot of classes.

 

[Remathilis]

I'll give you a reply as to why I see those 4 classes as essential archetypes and why I chose them for my own revision of the system.

All of which are damn good reasons. I'll finish the list off.

A Barbarian isn't just a warrior from a foreign or primitive culture, but an avatar of primal spirits, savage and wild. Either knowingly or not, he taps into that primal fury, a song lost to those made soft by civilization, to become the Hunter, the Beast, the Fury of Nature. This fury gives him abilities beyond those of mortal men; strength, stamina, agility, and savage attacks no trained swordsman dare use.

A Monk is his polar opposite; a mystic and aesthetic who has devoted himself to greater understanding of the harmony of mind and body. By harnessing the natural energy of life, they train in mysterious combat arts to make their fists like steel, the body like armor, faster, tougher, and capable of supernatural feats to rival any mage. To maintain this ability, he must focus on a life-long dedication to right thinking, right action, right training.

A Sorcerer gains his power not through training or books, but through the raw magical power that flows though their bloodline. He may learn fewer spells than traditional wizardry, but his soul powers his magic; granting him access to magic on a near constant basis. He can use his magical bloodline for a variety of magical feats and to do things a wizard can only dream to.

A Warlock is a magician that has made a pact with a powerful force to gain magical ability, but at the cost of his soul. Fear and shunned, warlocks walk a lonely path. Their magic is fused to them; they need only ask their patron and more is given. However, such power takes a toll on them and even the strongest one is driven to do dark deeds to fuel his need for greater and greater power...

An Assassin is a rogue who has mastered the exquisite art of murder. More than a common thug or hired blade, he is a master of death in all forms; poison, weapons, traps, and even dark magic. His mastery of anatomy gives him an edge even the best warrior lacks, and his ruthlessness grants him the ability to get the job done whatever the cost. He is feared, reviled, and held in awe of his talents all at the same time.

A Warlord is a master of tactics. Unlike a fighter, who sees the battle from the perspective of a warrior, the warlord see's it in the form of a strategist. He knows how to organize people, coordinate attacks, rally his troops, and make a sacrifice to gain a strategic position. He can use his talents in the war room, or he can lead from the front, inspiring his troops to greater glory. He may not be the leader of a group, but all respect his keen intellect and improvisational skills.

 

[Sammael]

Alright, you have somewhat convinced me to grudgingly accept the Barbarian and Monk as worthwhile archetypes that can stand on their own - but they need A LOT of mechanical work to make them distinguished enough.

The Sorcerer and Warlock, OTOH, are just mages who acquire their power in a slightly different way than the vanilla wizard. They may require slightly different mechanics for power acquisition and usage but, at the end of the day, they can work fine as kits/subclasses/themes/whatever.

And finally, Assassin and Warlord are not class-worthy archetypes. Anyone can be an assassin - a rogue, a fighter, a mage, even a cleric or druid; they just need to focus their abilities on killing people (for money, pleasure, king and country, etc). Likewise, anyone who is strategically inclined can fill the Warlord's role. Arguably, the champion/paladin is the most likely candidate, but the same can be said for like-minded bards, rangers, fighters, mages, clerics, and so on.

 

[Minigiant]

Here is the thing.

There are no subclasses and kits in Next.
There are themes and backgrounds.
Themes are feats.
Backgrounds are skills and noncombat traits.

And not everything can or should be made into a feat, skill, or trait.

 

[Sammael]

Here is the thing.

There are no subclasses and kits in Next.
There are themes and backgrounds.
Themes are feats.
Backgrounds are skills and noncombat traits.

And not everything can or should be made into a feat, skill, or trait.

Next is far from finished. We have no idea as to what other mechanics they are currently developing. We just learned about Fighting Styles a week ago, and the Combat Superiority (a very novel mechanic) shortly before. In other words, there may be versions of Next rules currently being playtested internally that have kits, subclasses, prestige classes, themes that are not just feats, backgrounds that have a broader scope, and so on.

EDIT: just so that people understand where I'm coming from - I literally cannot stand class-based RPGs that have a glut of base classes. D&D 3.5 was getting problematic towards the end of its lifecycle. Pathfinder is getting there. 4E is ridiculous, it has a humongous list of base classes and every little mechanic they felt like testing got its own base class. If Next starts the same way, I am not even going to bother buying the core books.