Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why not combine the Fighter and Monk Classes?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 5986353" data-attributes="member: 7635"><p>There is a nasty habit among reductionists to gut anything flavorful out of a class and reduce it nothing more than a means of delivering X ability. </p><p></p><p>Lets take two examples. A 3e wizard and a sorcerer are very different mechanically but have overlapping fluff. (Assuming book learning vs. blood/innate not being terribly different, at least as the mechanics define it.) A Paladin and a Fighter have similar mechanical elements (being melee combatants, one focused on feats the other on special powers) but are day-and-night different in fluff and story. (A trained warrior vs. a living embodiment of Justice and Righteousness.) </p><p></p><p>By reductionist logic: a wizard and a sorcerer are two separate classes as they do two different mechanical things, but the paladin and fighter should be condensed into a theme/background combo, despite the fact that "fighter" and "paladin" are not overly similar concepts while "sorcerer" and "wizard" are practically synonymous. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is just 4e all over again. "Replace "class" with "role" (Defender, Leader, Striker, Controller), and "theme" with "build". </p><p></p><p>If you are fine with this, that's great. I'm not. I HATED that Bards, Clerics, Warlords, and other Leaders all felt similar (a minor action 2/encounter heal, powers that granted minor bonuses to hit/damage, etc). Ditto with all Defenders having a "mark" mechanic. I want a paladin to play differently than a fighter, and I don't just mean "radiant damage" and "different mark effect". </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, why stop there. Why can't a magician be a Holy-man? Why can't a Warrior be a Rogue? Why not just make Rogue a theme so I can have sneaky Fighters or Mages? Why not give Magician's healing and make Cleric a Theme (or a series of themes, based on each god?) </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The standard should be "Is this a viable fantasy archetype that can be customized via OPTIONAL rules like Theme and Background?" </p><p></p><p>Your standard really is best served with a point-buy or classless system. Honestly, 4e came as close to a classless system as D&D ever was. It needed one step further: it already had everyone using the same power advancement, the same +1/2 level bonus, access to all skills, etc. All a class did was assign you HP, a bonus skill, proficiencies, and a few starter powers. Throw off those shackles and open all powers up and you have the perfect classless system. I could literally build any class out of those powers. We wouldn't need a single class, since I could replicate a fighter, wizard, ranger, assassin, or whatever just by picking the right powers.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 5986353, member: 7635"] There is a nasty habit among reductionists to gut anything flavorful out of a class and reduce it nothing more than a means of delivering X ability. Lets take two examples. A 3e wizard and a sorcerer are very different mechanically but have overlapping fluff. (Assuming book learning vs. blood/innate not being terribly different, at least as the mechanics define it.) A Paladin and a Fighter have similar mechanical elements (being melee combatants, one focused on feats the other on special powers) but are day-and-night different in fluff and story. (A trained warrior vs. a living embodiment of Justice and Righteousness.) By reductionist logic: a wizard and a sorcerer are two separate classes as they do two different mechanical things, but the paladin and fighter should be condensed into a theme/background combo, despite the fact that "fighter" and "paladin" are not overly similar concepts while "sorcerer" and "wizard" are practically synonymous. This is just 4e all over again. "Replace "class" with "role" (Defender, Leader, Striker, Controller), and "theme" with "build". If you are fine with this, that's great. I'm not. I HATED that Bards, Clerics, Warlords, and other Leaders all felt similar (a minor action 2/encounter heal, powers that granted minor bonuses to hit/damage, etc). Ditto with all Defenders having a "mark" mechanic. I want a paladin to play differently than a fighter, and I don't just mean "radiant damage" and "different mark effect". Again, why stop there. Why can't a magician be a Holy-man? Why can't a Warrior be a Rogue? Why not just make Rogue a theme so I can have sneaky Fighters or Mages? Why not give Magician's healing and make Cleric a Theme (or a series of themes, based on each god?) The standard should be "Is this a viable fantasy archetype that can be customized via OPTIONAL rules like Theme and Background?" Your standard really is best served with a point-buy or classless system. Honestly, 4e came as close to a classless system as D&D ever was. It needed one step further: it already had everyone using the same power advancement, the same +1/2 level bonus, access to all skills, etc. All a class did was assign you HP, a bonus skill, proficiencies, and a few starter powers. Throw off those shackles and open all powers up and you have the perfect classless system. I could literally build any class out of those powers. We wouldn't need a single class, since I could replicate a fighter, wizard, ranger, assassin, or whatever just by picking the right powers. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why not combine the Fighter and Monk Classes?
Top