Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Salamandyr" data-source="post: 6003830" data-attributes="member: 40233">Tovec,You are correct; I am violating the terms of my thread.  I throw myself upon the mercy of the court, pleading only it was going that way already, and I just went along for the ride.As to your point about the monk.  You pointed out something I did not explicitly say, but is implicit in what I did say (and it's close to something I said elsewhere).  In fact, what you said kind of proves my point about monks.  They step all over everybody else...especially the fighter.Look at what you wrote, the fighter trains every day, but the monk is the "totality", "perfection".  You're defining what it means to be the other class.  And the thing is, for the monk to exist, you have to do that.  For the monk to carve out a space of its own, it has to be "special".  There's no room for the fighter who becomes one with his blade, the most perfect blend of martial form imaginable, because that's the monk.  The fighter's just a guy who needs a toolbox of gear to do what the monk does with all his super special training that nobody else has access to.The monk really does not fit in a campaign set in, for instance, Arthurian Britain.  Knights of the Round Table don't wear armor because they need it.  It's not a fashion choice.  A guy who can fight so well that he needs neither sword nor armor to be as damaging and well protected as Lancelot, well it makes a mockery of the entire story.As I said, or at least implied.  I don't like the monk because it stomps all over other character concepts, or, it's unnecessary because it's something that all warrior types should be able to do.</blockquote>

Verification