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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6004045" data-attributes="member: 95493">It's all cool <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" /> Gotta congratulate you though, three straight pages where you are the first poster - impressive.What I tried to say is that monk Should carve out his own niche within classes. If we are going to subscribe to the four main classes/roles idea then the monk is 5. He should be GREAT at 5 but sup-par when compared to the elite of any of the 4. In my opinion if a monk specializes he could and perhaps should be a fighter+. That doesn't mean that he should replace the fighter or surpass him but it does mean that if a monk trains up I have no problems seeing him as good in battle. It doesn't ruin the fighter's schtick anymore than having a paladin does. A paladin and a monk are both different paths who happen to use fighting. But if someone wants to be that guy in full plate or the elite combat specialist he shouldn't be dallying around with anything else.What I also wrote is that the monk has a toolbox with completely different tools. If the fighter is a carpenter and crafter with all the best woodworking tools in the world that is great, then the monk could be a painter. The fighter creates something far more tangible and something useful every day but he'll never be able to create the same level of beauty of the monk's landscapes or evoke the same kind of emotional range of expression in his work. That is fine though because the monk is never going to craft a good solid chair that will support the weight of a 1000 lb man. They are different toolkits for a reason and I think both are equally valid.Rangers, paladins, warlocks (as in the specific class it is now), sorcerers (as they are now - 2 souls and whatnot), clerics, bards, etc. None of these belong in Arthurian legend either. Merlin was the only true wizard to my (limited) knowledge - Morganna was a witch <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />The question shouldn't be if a class fits in one specific setting or another. The question should be if a class has a unique set of skills, role, or mechanic that validates creating a new class. Rangers aren't paladins and wizards aren't fighters. There is some blending or grey area between classes but I really would hate to see them do away with certain classes because they figured it was basically just a fighter or wizard or rogue.Again, monks are the great number 5 class. They aren't fighters, they aren't rogues, they aren't wizards and they aren't clerics. They are a mix of all four. They (may) fight in melee as a fighter and possibly become (nearly) as good as him in that arena. They may gather skills and tricks to aid them in battle and out of battle, just as a rogue does but they aren't a rogue either. (Just a quick note: flurry of blows =/= sneak attack.) They may fly through the air, or jump from feather to feather, or perhaps even balance on water; but none of these things make them a wizard because they draw this power not from spells but through sheer ability. And lastly they MAY devote their whole life to attaining true understanding of their form and sequester their lives away in a mountain monastery for years, just as a cleric might, but they aren't going to go around healing people and turning undead.I may have forgot to mention last time but if you don't like monks in your setting that is fine. A solution might be either to reclass them as mystics or it might be to not use them at all. But more people than just me seem to agree monk is and should remain its own class.</blockquote>

Verification