Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jmartkdr2" data-source="post: 8523086" data-attributes="member: 7017304">Not a full answer but: monks have a hard time fitting in. They don't fit the vaguely-Eurocentric default setting tropes, and they don't fit into any of the game roles. Their role (mage-stunner) is emergent rather than core to the themes of&nbsp; the class.By game roles: most classes fit easily into one or more of &quot;cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard&quot; - which aren't just combat roles (leader/support, defender/tank, striker, and controller) but are also skillsets (religion/healing, soldiering, stealth, knowledge) and social roles (religious, warrior, skilled outsider, loremaster). A barbarian is a warrior form a certain kind of culture, a ranger is a wilderness rogue-type, a paladin is a fighter/cleric (role-wise), and so on.Monks aren't really any of these things. They have religious overtones but don't do cleric things, they can fight but aren't soldiers or a society's main warriors, they can be stealthy but aren't skill-monkeys, and they may be smart but aren't loremasters. It's easy to shift them into any such role with one or two mechanics and a little added fluff, but the base monk is just there, slightly to the side because it doesn't quite fit into the the boxes in front of us.Plus they have some wonky/poor design choices in 5e, but the reason people are more likely to call for removal rather than fixing them(like a ranger) is the lack of fit. I believe, anyways.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jmartkdr2, post: 8523086, member: 7017304"] Not a full answer but: monks have a hard time fitting in. They don't fit the vaguely-Eurocentric default setting tropes, and they don't fit into any of the game roles. Their role (mage-stunner) is emergent rather than core to the themes of the class. By game roles: most classes fit easily into one or more of "cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard" - which aren't just combat roles (leader/support, defender/tank, striker, and controller) but are also skillsets (religion/healing, soldiering, stealth, knowledge) and social roles (religious, warrior, skilled outsider, loremaster). A barbarian is a warrior form a certain kind of culture, a ranger is a wilderness rogue-type, a paladin is a fighter/cleric (role-wise), and so on. Monks aren't really any of these things. They have religious overtones but don't do cleric things, they can fight but aren't soldiers or a society's main warriors, they can be stealthy but aren't skill-monkeys, and they may be smart but aren't loremasters. It's easy to shift them into any such role with one or two mechanics and a little added fluff, but the base monk is just there, slightly to the side because it doesn't quite fit into the the boxes in front of us. Plus they have some wonky/poor design choices in 5e, but the reason people are more likely to call for removal rather than fixing them(like a ranger) is the lack of fit. I believe, anyways. [/QUOTE]

Verification