Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 6194705" data-attributes="member: 14506">This I agree with, to make this work you have to find what the essence of each class is and then allow the player to determine what class they want and then allow them to determine there background. Are you an ascetic foreigner from a distant land? I think that can be applied to many classes not just monk. I certainly do not want to see new classes based on new cultures. That would be a backwards facing thinking. Barbarian and Monk are the two classes where I feel like the essence of what they are is not captured. What does a barbarian do, and is it a full class or a subclass of fighter? Raging fighter subclass, the barbarian/savage/nomad cultural caricature should be made a background. Then the monk, I think there is a class here after you strip out the eastern trappings. I think the paladin treads in the same water as the monk, both the trained mystical warrior.I also appreciate the notion that every fighter can do mystical things through their training at high level. That takes a concerted effort by game designers to make that paradigm shift though. It adds the book of nine swords mentality to fighters.One other thing, monks as they have been in every edition thus far are clearly in the rogue group. In a pinch they can pull off some spectacular fighting, but they are not front line fighters. They are more dextrous than strength based, though can be both. The rogue is not designed well currently in my estimation. The fighter should have few tricks but be solid and front line. The rogue should have many tricks and be less front line. The monk should be like the rogue, lots of tricks but not front line. Conceptually I can see them as warriors too though. I would like to see the monk split into subclasses for fighter and rogue. Then pull the ascetic "monkish" background out and let anyone select it, for any class.</blockquote>

Verification