Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6029822" data-attributes="member: 996">That's a problem with the 3.x version of the Monk, true.&nbsp; It lacked focus and was a '5th wheel' that served no real purpose.&nbsp; But I'd say that was more a result of casting about for a way to differentiate a concept that didn't /need/ to be differentiated in the first place.A monk concept that is simply a 'martial artist' needn't be differentiated from concepts like a swashbuckler or duelist or sword-dancing TWFer or the like.&nbsp; Mobile light fighters - something D&amp;D has rarely done that well, with it's bizarre armor fetish - nothing more.&nbsp; Rather than making a narrow-concept class like the Monk based on orientalism, it would be better to expand the fighter to finally handle the light/mobile concepts better (regardless of source of inspiration), or, if the hoary sacred cow that says class must be married to armor worn can't be butchered, another stab made at a duelist or other formidable light/mobile class without the Monk's 70's Kung Fu legacy.That gets back into the question of how magical the Monk concept is.&nbsp; It's interesting to note that, while the Fighter and Rogue face implacable double-standards that force crushing mundanity upon them, the Monk faces an equally jaundiced 'orientalist' perception that attributes to supernatural elements the things accomplished by RL fighting style.Religious would be divine, and, while there was such a Monk kit in 2e, it didn't make much of an impression, IIRC.As are psionics, the power of the self, specifically the mind.&nbsp; Fighters also tap the power of the self, a disciplined mind &amp; well-trained body.&nbsp; The only distinction between the martial arts of a 'monk' and those of a 'knight' or 'fencer' is the culture they come from.&nbsp; The monk, seen as exotic, is credited with mystic/supernatural abilities, while the more familiar rapier-wielder is just a guy with a pointy bit of wire.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6029822, member: 996"] That's a problem with the 3.x version of the Monk, true. It lacked focus and was a '5th wheel' that served no real purpose. But I'd say that was more a result of casting about for a way to differentiate a concept that didn't /need/ to be differentiated in the first place. A monk concept that is simply a 'martial artist' needn't be differentiated from concepts like a swashbuckler or duelist or sword-dancing TWFer or the like. Mobile light fighters - something D&D has rarely done that well, with it's bizarre armor fetish - nothing more. Rather than making a narrow-concept class like the Monk based on orientalism, it would be better to expand the fighter to finally handle the light/mobile concepts better (regardless of source of inspiration), or, if the hoary sacred cow that says class must be married to armor worn can't be butchered, another stab made at a duelist or other formidable light/mobile class without the Monk's 70's Kung Fu legacy. That gets back into the question of how magical the Monk concept is. It's interesting to note that, while the Fighter and Rogue face implacable double-standards that force crushing mundanity upon them, the Monk faces an equally jaundiced 'orientalist' perception that attributes to supernatural elements the things accomplished by RL fighting style. Religious would be divine, and, while there was such a Monk kit in 2e, it didn't make much of an impression, IIRC. As are psionics, the power of the self, specifically the mind. Fighters also tap the power of the self, a disciplined mind & well-trained body. The only distinction between the martial arts of a 'monk' and those of a 'knight' or 'fencer' is the culture they come from. The monk, seen as exotic, is credited with mystic/supernatural abilities, while the more familiar rapier-wielder is just a guy with a pointy bit of wire. [/QUOTE]

Verification