Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Salamandyr" data-source="post: 6195214" data-attributes="member: 40233">Stipulated that this is true, which is why I have pretty much accepted that the monk will be in the core game.&nbsp; To me this is kind of like the Justice League; if you think about it real hard, it kind of stops making sense to believe that Batman can contribute to the same extent Superman can.&nbsp; What normally happens is Batman gets a Justice League powerup that doesn't effect his normal books-because we really like to read stories where Batman and Superman hang out and do stuff (at least I do).But this thread asked us what we thought of the monk, and I gave my opinion.&nbsp; The monk bugs me in the same way that including Buck Rogers into the party would bug me (okay that's actually pretty fun as an occasional diversion--but I don't really want the core game of D&amp;D to be &quot;Elves, Dwarves, Dragons, Barbarians, and Spacemen&quot;).That reminds me of something.&nbsp; D&amp;D has always had the monk as inferior to the fighter at fighting, but with more breadth.&nbsp; So if you wanted to be really, really good at fighting, you used a sword, but if you wanted a lot of wild-ass abilities and the ability to fight a little bit, you had the monk.&nbsp; What they're talking about now, is the monk being the equal of the fighter, only fighter will need toys to do what the monk does buck naked.&nbsp; And as I keep saying, if you're trying to created a coherent world, and included in that fiction is the idea that if you train hard enough, you are as hard to damage as someone in plate armor and as deadly with your hands as a sword, spear, or mace, then inherent in that fiction is the idea that the guy who uses plate armor and swords is not that highly trained.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Salamandyr, post: 6195214, member: 40233"] Stipulated that this is true, which is why I have pretty much accepted that the monk will be in the core game. To me this is kind of like the Justice League; if you think about it real hard, it kind of stops making sense to believe that Batman can contribute to the same extent Superman can. What normally happens is Batman gets a Justice League powerup that doesn't effect his normal books-because we really like to read stories where Batman and Superman hang out and do stuff (at least I do). But this thread asked us what we thought of the monk, and I gave my opinion. The monk bugs me in the same way that including Buck Rogers into the party would bug me (okay that's actually pretty fun as an occasional diversion--but I don't really want the core game of D&D to be "Elves, Dwarves, Dragons, Barbarians, and Spacemen"). That reminds me of something. D&D has always had the monk as inferior to the fighter at fighting, but with more breadth. So if you wanted to be really, [I]really[/I] good at fighting, you used a sword, but if you wanted a lot of wild-ass abilities [I]and [/I]the ability to fight a little bit, you had the monk. What they're talking about now, is the monk being the equal of the fighter, only fighter will need toys to do what the monk does buck naked. And as I keep saying, if you're trying to created a coherent world, and included in that fiction is the idea that if you train hard enough, you are as hard to damage as someone in plate armor and as deadly with your hands as a sword, spear, or mace, then inherent in that fiction is the idea that the guy who uses plate armor and swords is not that highly trained. [/QUOTE]

Verification