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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 5943557" data-attributes="member: 1879">There are really three seperate things being conflated here:1) Should there be unarmed fighting styles as a valid combat choice?2) Should there be a mystical warrior class akin to Shao-lin Monks or Sohei?3) Some rather confused notions about the 'historical purity' of D&D's vaguely-sorta-kinda european vibe.My thoughts on these matters.1) Yes. With multiple styles please, some mystical, some not. Some tied to classes and some not. A Theme is a perfectly lovely place to stick a few of these. Or possibly as a background for others or as an alternate weapon proficiency. a) Yes, Europeans had unarmed fighting styles. Yes, some of them were as developed as Eastern ones. No they were not tied to mystical traditions, for the same reasons that Shao-lin monks did not carry around the bones of 'saints'.2) Why not? We already have paladins and combat clerics. D&D theology/cosmology has never been nailed down enough to preclude the idea, so it only seems logical someone would have wanted to blend magic and buttkicking. 3) I'll try not to turn this into a rant.  a) D&D is not set on Earth in the past. It is a different world with multiple intelligent races and different geography, ecology, theology, and physics. b) D&D society is not a good match for any historical culture or region on earth. Anywhere. Ever. c) Crusaders and Shao-lin Monks along with Samurai, Ninjas, Chevaliers, Shamans, Witch-Doctors, Hassishim/Assassins, Mongol horsemen and Rabbis all lived right here, on Earth, at the same time.  d) Marco Polo, whose journeys would take a day or two on dragon-back or an instant for a teleporter.</blockquote>

Verification