Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 1969474" data-attributes="member: 7240">Ah... the reasoned, careful response I've come to expect of you Hong.So, it's okay for you to discuss what a class is generally like, minus a whole bunch of specifics such as the magic the class uses, the weapons the class uses and nearly every other one of its features besides how it does melee combat. But when I suggest a general resemblance between two things, it's "babbling." Make up your mind. Either people can compare things generally or they have to make comparisons using every single specific detail. The position you are taking in this debate is that people who agree with you are entitled to make general comparisons but people who disagree with you are not.Yeah -- and that's a surprisingly rare thing in European myth and literature.What gives you the sense this doesn't bother me? All I have indicated is that the other classes in the PHB can be fitted into a mythic Europe framework and the monk cannot. This is not because the other classes are 100% perfect; it is because they are good enough. Besides, if everything besides a class's melee attack abilities are just "flavour text," doesn't this make discussing any class with you pretty problematic?The fact that many things in D&D are, to one degree or another, out of place in a mythic Europe setting does not mean that these things are equally out of place. Druids and dark elves, while more out of place than paladins are still nowhere near as out of place as monks. Well, it's a pleasure to correspond with so many people on ENWorld who share my delusion. How do you account for so many people having the same misinterpretation of D&D as I have?Is this the point in the thread where you try to make it look like your other recent factual errors are also tongue-in-cheek statements like this?Well, the dictionary seems like a good place to start. Tell us, hong, does the dictionary define a monk as "an unarmed combatant with a bunch of super powers"? If that definition were to show up in any dictionary or encyclopedia, wouldn't it be much more likely to appear next to a term like "Superman" or "Batman"?So, why do you suppose that D&D chose to use the word "monk" to signify someone who does this? Might it be that the centre of the class is not its melee attack progression but the fact that it represents an Oriental "monk"?By the way, I was quite impressed with your unarmed fighter class substitute for the monk. It looks well-balanced and well-designed.</blockquote>

Verification