Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arcane Runes Press" data-source="post: 103093" data-attributes="member: 402">I make no claims on how a monk &quot;must&quot; work. I'm not &quot;blinded&quot; by my superior knowledge. If you want to think I'm a &quot;Monk Wonk&quot;, I don't care one whit. &quot;You missed the point of my argument which is that shields are way down the list of items that D&amp;D monks can't use but probably should be able to, and far less questionably than the core rules 3E shields.&quot;If this was your point you sure hid it well. You said you never saw a monk use a shield in a movie, as though that somehow invalidated the statement that it was part of the archetype. &quot;Some quite lesser-known forms of martial arts involve the use of little shields or gauntlet/buckler things&quot; is a weak, weak argument for &quot;monks in D&amp;D core rules should be able to use medieval-style shields.&quot;&nbsp; First, don't make up your own statements and put quotes around them. THAT is a &quot;weak, weak argument&quot;. I said, exactly: &quot; The rattan shield is a relatively common weapon in the kung fu systems of southern china.&quot; RELATIVELY COMMON is a far cry from quite-lesser known. For goodness sakes, you can by videos teaching Rattan Shield kung fu forms from a kung fu master in California. Second, the katana is mechanically identical to the masterwork bastard sword. Identical. In fact, in the DMG, they say to simply call your bastard sword a katana in asian settings. Why then are the shields in the core rules restricted to &quot;medieval-style shields&quot;? A rattan shield and a buckler shield would be mechanically identical for game purposes.Third, I find it ironic that you think that the &quot;kung fu&quot; monk is a well-established archetype&quot; and that shields don't apparently fit with it, when BOTH shields I used as examples are taken from extremely well known KUNG FU systems born in the SHAOLIN MONK temple in <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />ien provence.&nbsp;&nbsp; Frankly, I don't think monks should begin the game with shield proficiency. But I see no harm in a monk who spends one of his relatively few feats to get it suffering no further penalties for its use.Finally, Jack Lalane can teach you to have a Timeless Body. Half the world's martial arts are designed to keep you spry into your old age. Wing Lam, the teacher in California, is 50+ and moves like a 20 year old. The master I mentioned in my first post is 70+ and can do the splits in any direction, cartwheel, roll and handspring with ease. There's another 70+ Hung gar kung fu master who looks like a grandpa head mounted on Mike Tyson's body.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arcane Runes Press, post: 103093, member: 402"] I make no claims on how a monk "must" work. I'm not "blinded" by my superior knowledge. If you want to think I'm a "Monk Wonk", I don't care one whit. "You missed the point of my argument which is that shields are [b]way[/b] down the list of items that D&D monks can't use but probably should be able to, and far less questionably than the core rules 3E shields." If this was your point you sure hid it well. You said you never saw a monk use a shield in a movie, as though that somehow invalidated the statement that it was part of the archetype. "Some quite lesser-known forms of martial arts involve the use of little shields or gauntlet/buckler things" is a weak, weak argument for "monks in D&D core rules should be able to use medieval-style shields." First, don't make up your own statements and put quotes around them. THAT is a "weak, weak argument". I said, exactly: " The rattan shield is a relatively common weapon in the kung fu systems of southern china." RELATIVELY COMMON is a far cry from quite-lesser known. For goodness sakes, you can by videos teaching Rattan Shield kung fu forms from a kung fu master in California. Second, the katana is mechanically identical to the masterwork bastard sword. Identical. In fact, in the DMG, they say to simply call your bastard sword a katana in asian settings. Why then are the shields in the core rules restricted to "medieval-style shields"? A rattan shield and a buckler shield would be mechanically identical for game purposes. Third, I find it ironic that you think that the "kung fu" monk is a well-established archetype" and that shields don't apparently fit with it, when BOTH shields I used as examples are taken from extremely well known KUNG FU systems born in the SHAOLIN MONK temple in :):):)ien provence. Frankly, I don't think monks should begin the game with shield proficiency. But I see no harm in a monk who spends one of his relatively few feats to get it suffering no further penalties for its use. Finally, Jack Lalane can teach you to have a Timeless Body. Half the world's martial arts are designed to keep you spry into your old age. Wing Lam, the teacher in California, is 50+ and moves like a 20 year old. The master I mentioned in my first post is 70+ and can do the splits in any direction, cartwheel, roll and handspring with ease. There's another 70+ Hung gar kung fu master who looks like a grandpa head mounted on Mike Tyson's body. [/QUOTE]

Verification