Paul Farquhar
Legend
If you actually use encumbrance, no one would have a strength of 8.
I have and did, and I regretted it regularly.If you actually use encumbrance, no one would have a strength of 8.
What it's really saying is that light-weight boxers aren't as competitive against heavy-weight boxers, and I'm really okay with that message. All else being equal, the bigger boxer should win, because size is a very important factor in boxing. That's why boxers are organized into weight categories.Sure, that's a valid opinion to take. However, I feel like stripping dexterity melee out is like saying a light weight boxer is not an athlete because heavy weight boxers exist.
If you want light armor to be real armor, like a gambeson, then you could also just give them a +2 AC bonus when not wearing armor. That's not a super important part of the concept.Sure they could of put the gambeson as a better descriptive match and look but if I am thinking monk I am thinking like Bruce Lee without a shirt and the wisdom dexterity combo of reading your opponent and dodging then punching in the week spots is the monk I think of.
Were they viable in 3E? You could still hit, if you took a feat for it, but you wouldn't deal enough damage to matter, since you didn't have Sneak Attack. I distinctly remember seeing a lot of level 10 characters that dealt 1d6+2 damage with a rapier, next to the other level 10 fighters that did 2d6+10 with a greatsword (before Power Attack).They've been viable since 3rd edition - and they should be. The Princess Bride is one of the most popular D&Dish fantasy movies with my group.
I think some of the conflict that you might be having is that you're conflating skill (5e proficiency bonus) with Dex, and bulk with 5e Strength.Sure, that's a valid opinion to take. However, I feel like stripping dexterity melee out is like saying a light weight boxer is not an athlete because heavy weight boxers exist. Their is something to be said for skill and speed vs power as separate fighting styles. I don't want ninja based on sumo strength. Thematically I like the separation. As I said I don't want one stat, because as you said its a slippery slope. I like skill (dexterity), strength, and toughness (constitution) as my variable on any fighter. Less seems like a lose of variety and more seems nit picky. That is absolutely opinion and preference. If I have a complaint its that a longsword is strength weapon in D&D even though its a back balanced cutting weapon make for speed as skill ….so I just have to remind my self its a fantasy game somethings are not perfect. You have your desire and I have mine. So what's wrong with players liking the skilled fighter stereotype over the strong brute stereotype? The mountain vs that fancy guy with a stick?
To me, D&D monks are the mystics (or cheaters). They use magic to enhance their capabilities, removing the need for mundane training or an athletic physique.I agree with your first statement, but to me, a Monk is like a Ninja skill (aka dex) and no armor and Strength with no armor is Conan the Barbarian and strength with armor is The Mountain.
I think some of the conflict that you might be having is that you're conflating skill (5e proficiency bonus) with Dex, and bulk with 5e Strength.
Dexterity is grace, balance, reflexes. All useful in a fight, but generally defensively for avoiding attacks and preventing yourself be placed in a vulnerable position. Strength is athleticism and the ability to generate force. Also good in a fight due to granting speed and control of your weapon, as well as your body.
Both Conan and Bruce Lee are examples of characters with both high Str and high Dex.
To me, D&D monks are the mystics (or cheaters). They use magic to enhance their capabilities, removing the need for mundane training or an athletic physique.
Conan is the Fighter or Barbarian, using armour, weapons and martial arts.
Aaand the Mountain is a lumbering stereotype, not only literally musclebound, but also given an oversize weapon to accentuate how slow and clumsy he is.
What it's really saying is that light-weight boxers aren't as competitive against heavy-weight boxers, and I'm really okay with that message. All else being equal, the bigger boxer should win, because size is a very important factor in boxing. That's why boxers are organized into weight categories.
If you want light armor to be real armor, like a gambeson, then you could also just give them a +2 AC bonus when not wearing armor. That's not a super important part of the concept.
What it's really saying is that light-weight boxers aren't as competitive against heavy-weight boxers, and I'm really okay with that message. All else being equal, the bigger boxer should win, because size is a very important factor in boxing. That's why boxers are organized into weight categories.
If you want light armor to be real armor, like a gambeson, then you could also just give them a +2 AC bonus when not wearing armor. That's not a super important part of the concept.
If you actually use encumbrance, no one would have a strength of 8.
Were they viable in 3E? You could still hit, if you took a feat for it, but you wouldn't deal enough damage to matter, since you didn't have Sneak Attack. I distinctly remember seeing a lot of level 10 characters that dealt 1d6+2 damage with a rapier, next to the other level 10 fighters that did 2d6+10 with a greatsword (before Power Attack).
The Man in Black always struck me as more of a pure rogue, or possibly fighter/rogue multi-class.