Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jer" data-source="post: 3765019" data-attributes="member: 19857">Thought of another one&nbsp; (maybe) -The nonhuman &quot;favored class&quot; attribute.&nbsp; Is that flavor or rules?&nbsp; It seems to be as much flavor as alignment restrictions, so I'm going with flavor.&nbsp; And it tastes terrible to me.&nbsp; I'm okay with something that gives iconic class/race pairings a boost, but I hate punishing someone because he wants to do something interesting with a race/class multiclass combo - he's probably punishing himself enough by taking classes that aren't optimal for the ability score bonuses / penalties he gets as a member of that race anyway.As far as the &quot;monk&quot; - I think that the monk fills an interesting niche in the game - the unarmed fighter - I think the name &quot;monk&quot; could be reconsidered, and there's no reason to make him a &quot;foreign&quot; character, but I like the idea of the unarmed fighter who may or may not draw their power from an internal mystical power reserve.&nbsp; The rest of the &quot;asian flavored&quot; classes I can give or take - it annoys me more that we can't model a Samurai as a Fighter or as a Paladin than it does that the Samurai is in the game at all.(In my current campaign I've given the monks less of a &quot;foreign&quot; feel by making them members of a contemplative order of druids, with &quot;ki&quot; power drawing from local ley lines rather than the internal power of the monk himself.&nbsp; It works well in my campaign - if only I could find some miniatures for my monk player that didn't automatically assume &quot;monk==asian flavor&quot;).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jer, post: 3765019, member: 19857"] Thought of another one (maybe) - The nonhuman "favored class" attribute. Is that flavor or rules? It seems to be as much flavor as alignment restrictions, so I'm going with flavor. And it tastes terrible to me. I'm okay with something that gives iconic class/race pairings a boost, but I hate punishing someone because he wants to do something interesting with a race/class multiclass combo - he's probably punishing himself enough by taking classes that aren't optimal for the ability score bonuses / penalties he gets as a member of that race anyway. As far as the "monk" - I think that the monk fills an interesting niche in the game - the unarmed fighter - I think the name "monk" could be reconsidered, and there's no reason to make him a "foreign" character, but I like the idea of the unarmed fighter who may or may not draw their power from an internal mystical power reserve. The rest of the "asian flavored" classes I can give or take - it annoys me more that we can't model a Samurai as a Fighter or as a Paladin than it does that the Samurai is in the game at all. (In my current campaign I've given the monks less of a "foreign" feel by making them members of a contemplative order of druids, with "ki" power drawing from local ley lines rather than the internal power of the monk himself. It works well in my campaign - if only I could find some miniatures for my monk player that didn't automatically assume "monk==asian flavor"). [/QUOTE]

Verification