Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7416974" data-attributes="member: 996">He did start with: Which is clearly contrasting the monk to classes that use magic - which is off, because 5e Monks /explicitly/ use magic, in the form of Ki.  5e Monks can also actually cast spells, fueled by Ki, but still spells. 'Martial' is typically used to describe classes that use weapons, or classes that don't use magic, and, given he's already classed his monk as not using magic... - again, something off.  The Monk does use magic in 5e.  It's schtick still emphasizes fighting unarmed.  It's a bizarre irony of D&D, one that perhaps doesn't get much play because it has so much competition with other bizarre and ironic things, that the D&D Monk, the closest thing to a 'martial artist' isn't very martial, at all.  PF has a larger body of material out than any single edition of D&D, including the 3.5 it cloned.  It's hardly surprising that an ed that puts out maybe one supplement containing some 'crunch' in a given year has fewer options than that.  But it's not that the Monk lacks 'cool ki powers,' it's that he doesn't have as many choices.  Really, nobody does.  There's fewer spells, fewer feats, fewer options for every class down the line.That's how the game is designed to be played! In a sense, 4e improved the 3.5 formula - the sense that they were both player-focused games & that 4e improved mechanical qualities like balance.  5e is not improving on 3e or 4e, even though it lifts many bits from each, it's mainly improving upon the classic game, which was far more DM-focused. As such, 5e is arguably comparable to and better than TSR stuff, even as it trades heavily on evoking the 'feel' of that era.  But, 5e's much harder to compare to 3e, and, since I appreciate the qualities that go into both DM- and Player- focus, contrasting as they may be, I find it very hard to label one meaningfully better than the other.  3e provides far more customization and much deeper play on the player side of the screen, while 5e gives the DM tremendous latitude to customize the rules maintain control of the play experience from his side of the screen.  They're like two halves of a hypothetical great game. What appeals to new players is a community that doesn't present as hostile and divided as an active warzone.  5e - with some smoke, some mirrors, the odd platitude, and some otherwise highly questionable design decisions - delivered that, and it would be sheer folly to mess with that success by in any way trying to 'improve' or 'expand' it to appeal to the hard-core fans of 3.x/PF or 0/1/2e/Arduin/OSR that still resist it's siren call.</blockquote>

Verification