Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6194342" data-attributes="member: 42582">I agree, both that they would have to be modified (&quot;orientalism&quot; is an attitude toward the other, whereas the paladin is not, in the relevant sense, an other) but that suitably modified they would apply.For me, the monk archetype is established by Jet Li in Tai Chi Master, Chow Yun Fat and friends in Crouching Tiger, Michelle Yeoh in Wing Chun, etc. Unarmed or weapon attacks are equally effective (as in 4e and, at certain levels, 1st ed AD&amp;D). Compared to the traditional D&amp;D fighter we're talking better move and dodge defence, slightly more vulnerable to being hit, and appropriate mystic abilities (psionic, autohypnosis or what have you) like self-healing and resistance to charm and ESP. Stealth (at higher levels, invisibility) is an optional extra but you want to be careful about treading on the rogue's toes.The D&amp;D monk also has some extra quirks, namely, speak with animals and plants (I liked the 3E name for this - &quot;Tongue of the Sun and Moon&quot;), and the Quivering Palm as a capstone attack ability (though the actual mechanics have never been that wonderful).As far as Mearls class groupings are concerned the monk is a warrior who can also do limited duty as a rogue-ish/ranger-ish scout. Framing the monk as a rogue first I think will undermine the fighting ability too much (similarly if framed as a priest) and the monk doesn't have the spells to buff the party and/or influence antagonists to compare to a priest or bard. (If a fighting monk turns out to just be better than the rogue, that would be evidence that the rogue needs a bit more oomph, which is not inconceivable to me.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6194342, member: 42582"] I agree, both that they would have to be modified ("orientalism" is an attitude toward the other, whereas the paladin is not, in the relevant sense, an other) but that suitably modified they would apply. For me, the monk archetype is established by Jet Li in Tai Chi Master, Chow Yun Fat and friends in Crouching Tiger, Michelle Yeoh in Wing Chun, etc. Unarmed or weapon attacks are equally effective (as in 4e and, at certain levels, 1st ed AD&D). Compared to the traditional D&D fighter we're talking better move and dodge defence, slightly more vulnerable to being hit, and appropriate mystic abilities (psionic, autohypnosis or what have you) like self-healing and resistance to charm and ESP. Stealth (at higher levels, invisibility) is an optional extra but you want to be careful about treading on the rogue's toes. The D&D monk also has some extra quirks, namely, speak with animals and plants (I liked the 3E name for this - "Tongue of the Sun and Moon"), and the Quivering Palm as a capstone attack ability (though the actual mechanics have never been that wonderful). As far as Mearls class groupings are concerned the monk is a warrior who can also do limited duty as a rogue-ish/ranger-ish scout. Framing the monk as a rogue first I think will undermine the fighting ability too much (similarly if framed as a priest) and the monk doesn't have the spells to buff the party and/or influence antagonists to compare to a priest or bard. (If a fighting monk turns out to just be better than the rogue, that would be evidence that the rogue needs a bit more oomph, which is not inconceivable to me.) [/QUOTE]

Verification