Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6194757" data-attributes="member: 95493">Okay I want to make a few things clear before I get into the replies.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">First, I think conceptually the monk is a priest in spirit. It deals with the mysticism of the universe. However it is not a divine caster..</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Second, I think it is probably a warrior. A warrior who uses very different tactics but a warrior nonetheless. Especially since people aren't going to stop using them as warriors no matter how you build them - so you need to build them well enough to survive in combat.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Third, I think that as the class groups are defined now the monk is a trickster. That is, he has a lot of tricks, he fights using ways that warrior classes do not.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Fourth, I think monk is related to paladin, for what that is worth. BUT I think it is related as a cleric is related to a druid. He has a similar feel as a paladin (holy warrior), but a very different bag of abilities (slow fall/wild shape) and thus cannot be made from a paladin.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Fifth, monk as I'm talking about here is a class. It is a 'ascetic' background primarily, which others say is a monk background. Just in I would say a barbarian is a class, but a nomad or berserker is the background. I say this for ease of comprehension more than anything else. I agree in theory that the class should be called berserker and the background barbarian.. but that isn't what we have at the moment and so using those terms confuses things.Sixth, martial artist =/= monk. Again here I might be splitting hairs but I'm using martial artist/s to mean "fights unarmed" or whatever package people are using to say monks should be brawlers.</li> </ul>[sblock=mlund]I disagree, obviously.Monk has many tricks that make it its own. Those tricks can be reflavored and repackaged to apply to other people of other traditions. The monk (class) could be Caine, the street fighters, jedi, or the classic monk I'm familiar with (3e style). That is the versatility of a monk class.The backgrounds and specializations make all that possible, taking a base class and retuning it for campaign specific needs. I just don't see how you can get those versions of monk from something else. Just as I don't see how you can get a nature's protector, wild shaping master, animal master, nature magic expert, and so on, from the cleric. It is a distinct class with things that are uniquely monkish.[/sblock][sblock=Salamandyr]The monk as you conceive is only a higher level monk. That is fine. But others see a low level version. And what is more the game has long had lower level versions too, so it isn't like you shouldn't be able to see where those lower level versions come from. I'm a little confused by you here.I do agree that a monk is probably a warrior (see above) instead of a 'rogue'. I think you are skipping a step though.My big issue is the 'as good as a guy with a sword.' Assuming you mean fighters, then I think there is a false dichotomy here. In 3e for example, the monk honed his training to gain fists as strong as swords. Those swords are short swords, 1d6. The fighter is typically using either TWF (2 short swords (1d6)), 2H (greatsword at 2d6+1.5 STR), even a sword and board (1d8 longsword and a shield). So, while "as sharp as a sword" is in play that is hardly what defines the difference. The monk, historically, didn't have the same BAB, or likeliness to hit. And so on. I think that you are overly worried about the guy who has hard fists when looking at this issue -as even when his fists went up to 2d10 (I believe, don't have my books with me atm) he was still woefully underpowered compared to the fighter who had his 2d6 greatsword with up to +10 enchantments on it. Not to mention that the monk only had bludgeoning fists, whereas the fighter has a wider range.Actually, I happen to agree with the first and last paragraph here. You are comparing high level individuals (and gods) to mortal heroes of a different genre and then saying the problem is that they're... oriental and don't fit?I also get the second paragraph. I disagree but I get it. In the crouching tiger movies, not everyone can do the crazy balance on a treetop acrobatics. Most can't in fact. D'Artagnan wouldn't have the training needed to do it. He would get schooled by the fighters in that world but I get what you mean. But again that has to do with high level/gods and a sword made of jade? (it's been a long time since I've seen the movie) vs. a guy in a blue tabard and a sword that would easily shatter in the same circumstances.But I think all that has to do with campaign expectations and little or nothing to do with the classes that are used. Good try. But I think it fails because the monk isn't "oriental kung fu guy" he is ascetic (though not necessarily, see backgrounds) holy man/sage/warrior.[/sblock][sblock=Celebrim]Literally 600? Literally? List them, and if it is 601 or 599 you used the wrong word. I suggest you address that. You seem to value specificity in words and for people to "look them up in a dictionary" when they don't understand them. Even, as this case shows, if they think they understand them.[/sblock]</blockquote>

Verification