Search results

Hey, I've climbed Diamondhead! Can I be an honorary Hawaiian? :)

I think Eberron is clear evidence that "medieval fantasy" in the vein of Tolkien has gone out the window at WotC. That's okay, though, for two reasons--one, it's been done to death in print, and two, countless homebrews will continue in that vein regardless of what comes out of Seattle. :)

I don't think that the core game is so rigidly European-inspired any longer, nor should it be going forward. The token Asian-flavored class is a good start, but there needs to be more multiculturalism in the core rules in 4E. If there is enough demand for a straight Euro-flavored campaign...

Nyar, I think we're talking apples and oranges here. Your home(brew) is your castle, and all that. I'm talking about published material. I think WotC has a responsibility to not make core D&D Eurocentric, especially going forward. I think they are doing this (the monk inclusion in the core rules...

That's fine for your game. Not for core rules.

That's how many posts have accumulated in the General forum. Over one million. Wow. Go ENWorld.

I'll take back the snob comment--snobbery is intentional, which I don't honestly think this is. Ethnocentrism, in it's mildest form, manifests as a healthy pride in one's heritage; at it's worst, you get racism. Let me be clear: I'm not calling anyone a racist. I don't think most of the folks...

I think you missed my earlier comment--I'm not arguing that everyone should include everything from core rules in their homebrews. Do what floats your boat. The point I am refuting is the assertion made in this thread that the monk does not belong in the core rules. That's ethnocentric BS. And...

Tell me, when you're striving for that historical actuality, do you allow magic? Medusas? Centaurs? Gorgons? (Greek critters, not Western European.) Do paladins and druids exist in the same campaign world? If so, there goes historical accuracy--the timeframes are a few hundred years apart. For...

Flaming does not occur on this board. Check yourself.

You know, I keep forgetting that Dannyalcatraz is a lawyer by trade and loves to argue--hell, it's his profession. :D Danny, you're throwing an encyclopedia of information at us as though it is relevant. It's a smokescreen--tricks and mirrors, logos as red herring. There's as much a reason to...

Pointless--you're arguing just for the sake of argument. Then your argument is irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion is about whether the monk fits in the default game, not your homebrew. Sure, but that doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the core game. If we're going to remove classes...

Again, I say--so what? It's not like you're running an historical campaign.

I'm with Drowbane. For a stand-up melee barbarian, the extra attack is way better than the +2 to attacks standard rage gives. I know this because I played a barbarian with regular rage to 9th level, and when he died, I made a barbarian/fighter with whirling frenzy in the same campaign. At 12th...

As have I. Edena's always been in his own world. You just roll with it. ;)

I guess we're all just wondering what the point is. What happened to finding a concept that seemed fun to play and building that? Cherry-picking classes for maximum crunch is so 2001.

True20 limits all characters to one attack per round, regardless of class or level.

Nobody I know.

True, But the chameleon class has an entry requirement--the fighter does not.

It ain't all that. The Chameleon is a sort of uber-bard, sacrificing potency for extreme flexibility. Every day you wake up, you decide "What am I today? A mediocre fighter, a mediocre cleric, a mediocre rogue, or a mediocre wizard?" That's the gig.