Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AmerginLiath" data-source="post: 8427707" data-attributes="member: 777"><p>What strikes me as the basic reason is the balance between HP and AC, or more broadly the classes’ ability to absorb damage versus resist damage. The monk — between higher natural AC, deflection abilities, and bonus dodge actions — can avoid taking damage without the negative impact (weight, penalties, etc) of heavy armor that a fighter deals with. That same fighter has few avoidance tactics aside from being slowed down by heavy plate…or taking a bunch of ablative hits to his HP pool. Both are front line characters, but their play style is described in game math this way. The barbarian is the interesting middle child who gets a bit of both but whose abilities effectively make him choose between them (and effectively cost him the other in terms of making him recklessly easier to hit or an exhausted wall). It’s always the case in game design that what’s on paper in the game math is a way of presenting simply the effect of the narrative reality, not necessarily it’s full breadth (hence why you’ve historically had so many tropes buried within Fighting Men and Magic Users instead of a thousand classes with tiny differences). Something like the monk feels odd, but it (like the barbarian or even the paladin) represents a game concept more than a unified narrative concept and so can be used for many types of characters with some serial numbers filed off and abilities described differently without changing things in the system.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="AmerginLiath, post: 8427707, member: 777"] What strikes me as the basic reason is the balance between HP and AC, or more broadly the classes’ ability to absorb damage versus resist damage. The monk — between higher natural AC, deflection abilities, and bonus dodge actions — can avoid taking damage without the negative impact (weight, penalties, etc) of heavy armor that a fighter deals with. That same fighter has few avoidance tactics aside from being slowed down by heavy plate…or taking a bunch of ablative hits to his HP pool. Both are front line characters, but their play style is described in game math this way. The barbarian is the interesting middle child who gets a bit of both but whose abilities effectively make him choose between them (and effectively cost him the other in terms of making him recklessly easier to hit or an exhausted wall). It’s always the case in game design that what’s on paper in the game math is a way of presenting simply the effect of the narrative reality, not necessarily it’s full breadth (hence why you’ve historically had so many tropes buried within Fighting Men and Magic Users instead of a thousand classes with tiny differences). Something like the monk feels odd, but it (like the barbarian or even the paladin) represents a game concept more than a unified narrative concept and so can be used for many types of characters with some serial numbers filed off and abilities described differently without changing things in the system. [/QUOTE]

Verification