Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7159610" data-attributes="member: 6704184">&quot;Close enough&quot;, I like that. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I'd love to see DnD get a *lot* more global in it's inspiration. Playing a monk in 5e definately feels like playing a character from films like crouching tiger, and house of flying daggers, to me.&nbsp;I've rarely seen a PrC that couldn't be either a subclass or a feat in 5e. All of those can be any of those things, depending on what they need to do, and how the system handle that sort of thing. &nbsp;I'm not gonna go around in circles on this with you. The Monk is a core part of DnD. It belongs in the PHB. &nbsp; None of those would be to the sort of mysticism that isn't divine or arcane what the ranger and paladin is to the Druid and Cleric. Which is what the monk is. In 5e terms that is a half-casting warrior class. The elemental monk isn't an elemental sorcerer with a hermit background. It's a graceful, wise, centered, aesthetic warrior that can harness the elements as part of his fighting prowess. You could kludge a rogue and sorcerer together, but it's gonna have tons of stuff that doesn't add to the concept, and some that detracts from it. The rogue assassin does literally nothing to get at the concept of the shadow monk. The BM fighter needs a feat just to get to the mundane parts of the concept, and has no way to be effective without armor, or hyper fast, and has no part at all of the supernatural aspects of the concept. The mystic wasn't in the phb, and it's unlikely it would have been with the monk taken out. Even so, the mystic would be a poor monk. Even the soulknife isn't as much a warrior as a monk, paladin, or ranger. Because the base class is a psionic magic user.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 7159610, member: 6704184"] "Close enough", I like that. :) I'd love to see DnD get a *lot* more global in it's inspiration. Playing a monk in 5e definately feels like playing a character from films like crouching tiger, and house of flying daggers, to me. I've rarely seen a PrC that couldn't be either a subclass or a feat in 5e. All of those can be any of those things, depending on what they need to do, and how the system handle that sort of thing. I'm not gonna go around in circles on this with you. The Monk is a core part of DnD. It belongs in the PHB. None of those would be to the sort of mysticism that isn't divine or arcane what the ranger and paladin is to the Druid and Cleric. Which is what the monk is. In 5e terms that is a half-casting warrior class. The elemental monk isn't an elemental sorcerer with a hermit background. It's a graceful, wise, centered, aesthetic warrior that can harness the elements as part of his fighting prowess. You could kludge a rogue and sorcerer together, but it's gonna have tons of stuff that doesn't add to the concept, and some that detracts from it. The rogue assassin does literally nothing to get at the concept of the shadow monk. The BM fighter needs a feat just to get to the mundane parts of the concept, and has no way to be effective without armor, or hyper fast, and has no part at all of the supernatural aspects of the concept. The mystic wasn't in the phb, and it's unlikely it would have been with the monk taken out. Even so, the mystic would be a poor monk. Even the soulknife isn't as much a warrior as a monk, paladin, or ranger. Because the base class is a psionic magic user. [/QUOTE]

Verification