Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6195706" data-attributes="member: 42582">The monk has never been a caster, and has always exemplified &quot;the mysterious wisdom of the east&quot; (which is Celebrim's Orientalism point).Changing those things would seem to be a mistake. Make a new class like that, sure (wouldn't that be a Pscyhic Warrior in 3E terms?) but you're no longer talking about the traditional D&amp;D monk.I think this is a good analysis of both the commercial and gaming logic of D&amp;Dnext.Exactly!I mean, in the current playtest the barbarian has skin that's as tough as dragon leather - but we don't ask why the thief doesn't just train as a barbarian to save the cost of buying armour! The barbarian exhibits its genre tropes, the thief its. And the monk its.No. The fighter is differently trained. Just like the thief and barbarian are differently trained. And at least traditionally in D&amp;D it has been an advantage, rather than a detriment, to use weapons and armour because magic armour is more common than magic cloaks or rings, and until 3E there were no items to benefit monk unarmed attacks at all other than Slippers of Kicking.Whatever mechanical benefits the fighter has over the paladin, s/he can have the same ones (mutatis mutandis) over the monk.As for the thematic oomph of the fighter, D&amp;Dnext seems to be sticking to the traditional lack of such a thing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6195706, member: 42582"] The monk has never been a caster, and has always exemplified "the mysterious wisdom of the east" (which is Celebrim's Orientalism point). Changing those things would seem to be a mistake. Make a new class like that, sure (wouldn't that be a Pscyhic Warrior in 3E terms?) but you're no longer talking about the traditional D&D monk. I think this is a good analysis of both the commercial and gaming logic of D&Dnext. Exactly! I mean, in the current playtest the barbarian has skin that's as tough as dragon leather - but we don't ask why the thief doesn't just train as a barbarian to save the cost of buying armour! The barbarian exhibits its genre tropes, the thief its. And the monk its. No. The fighter is [I]differently[/I] trained. Just like the thief and barbarian are differently trained. And at least traditionally in D&D it has been an advantage, rather than a detriment, to use weapons and armour because magic armour is more common than magic cloaks or rings, and until 3E there were no items to benefit monk unarmed attacks at all other than Slippers of Kicking. Whatever mechanical benefits the fighter has over the paladin, s/he can have the same ones (mutatis mutandis) over the monk. As for the [I]thematic[/I] oomph of the fighter, D&Dnext seems to be sticking to the traditional lack of such a thing. [/QUOTE]

Verification