Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gadget" data-source="post: 6221971" data-attributes="member: 23716">While the 1e monk had the flavor of kung-fu psychic, it really slotted into the thief role much better than other roles.&nbsp; I can see an argument for both rogue and priest.&nbsp; The key is to look at the role of the class separate from the flavor of it for a moment.&nbsp; While I do not see monks as happy-go-lucky or roguish ne'er-do-wells, they seem to slot into that mechanical role much better than the buffer, healer, undead smasher priestly role, even if by the flavor text they are more closely aligned with that outlook.&nbsp; Bards seem to be difficult as well.&nbsp; I'm fond of the 1e implementation and so would lean toward the divine role there to give the class a little gravitas and dignity.&nbsp; Not to mention their abilities can be made to fill this role on a mechanical level as well.&nbsp; I could be prejudiced though, as I am not fond of the foppish, singing troubadour of recent years.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gadget, post: 6221971, member: 23716"] While the 1e monk had the flavor of kung-fu psychic, it really slotted into the thief role much better than other roles. I can see an argument for both rogue and priest. The key is to look at the role of the class separate from the flavor of it for a moment. While I do not see monks as happy-go-lucky or roguish ne'er-do-wells, they seem to slot into that mechanical role much better than the buffer, healer, undead smasher priestly role, even if by the flavor text they are more closely aligned with that outlook. Bards seem to be difficult as well. I'm fond of the 1e implementation and so would lean toward the divine role there to give the class a little gravitas and dignity. Not to mention their abilities can be made to fill this role on a mechanical level as well. I could be prejudiced though, as I am not fond of the foppish, singing troubadour of recent years. [/QUOTE]

Verification