Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 6195691" data-attributes="member: 58416">I think what needs to happen in the context of D&amp;D is a splitting of the monk classes into pieces.For unarmed fighting, I think there simply needs to be an option for a guy (or girl) who is skilled at fighting unarmed.&nbsp; For the mystic chi warrior archetype, there needs to be something which explains why everyone doesn't just train to be a monk.I also believe monk needs to be some sort of background/fluff as well.&nbsp; It's certainly possible for one character to have all of these.The problem with the first idea is that it raises the question of how effective an unarmed strike can be against armor.&nbsp; Realistically, if you can acquire a weapon, you normally do.&nbsp; However, it's hard to argue realism when some of the other things that are possible in D&amp;D are possible.&nbsp; Still, it might be best for an unarmed warrior in the context of D&amp;D to focus on things such as throws and locks.&nbsp; Such a character might very well also learn unarmed strikes, but such things would most likely not be the main focus of the class.&nbsp; Taking an opponent off of his feet or using leverage to move your opponent into a certain position can be important even in an armed and armored fight.&nbsp; I suppose many of those things would be feats though.&nbsp; The mystic warrior idea is pretty easy to do, and there are several ways it could work.&nbsp; In a world where a paladin can channel divine energy to smite foes with a sword, why couldn't a monk channel the will of a god into his fists?&nbsp; Why couldn't Chi be a type of sorcery which focuses on inner magic (meaning augmenting yourself) and provide things like metal splitting punches and kicks instead of focusing on outward effects such as fireballs and magic missiles.&nbsp; 4th Edition's take on making the class psionic could make sense as well.&nbsp; Maybe multiple styles exist and all of those ideas are simply different methods of tapping into similar techniques.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Argyle King, post: 6195691, member: 58416"] I think what needs to happen in the context of D&D is a splitting of the monk classes into pieces. For unarmed fighting, I think there simply needs to be an option for a guy (or girl) who is skilled at fighting unarmed. For the mystic chi warrior archetype, there needs to be something which explains why everyone doesn't just train to be a monk. I also believe monk needs to be some sort of background/fluff as well. It's certainly possible for one character to have all of these. The problem with the first idea is that it raises the question of how effective an unarmed strike can be against armor. Realistically, if you can acquire a weapon, you normally do. However, it's hard to argue realism when some of the other things that are possible in D&D are possible. Still, it might be best for an unarmed warrior in the context of D&D to focus on things such as throws and locks. Such a character might very well also learn unarmed strikes, but such things would most likely not be the main focus of the class. Taking an opponent off of his feet or using leverage to move your opponent into a certain position can be important even in an armed and armored fight. I suppose many of those things would be feats though. The mystic warrior idea is pretty easy to do, and there are several ways it could work. In a world where a paladin can channel divine energy to smite foes with a sword, why couldn't a monk channel the will of a god into his fists? Why couldn't Chi be a type of sorcery which focuses on inner magic (meaning augmenting yourself) and provide things like metal splitting punches and kicks instead of focusing on outward effects such as fireballs and magic missiles. 4th Edition's take on making the class psionic could make sense as well. Maybe multiple styles exist and all of those ideas are simply different methods of tapping into similar techniques. [/QUOTE]

Verification