Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5988113" data-attributes="member: 95493">This is going to be a little all over the place, hopefully the quoting works properly.I'm sorry, where exactly is the 3E/PF Warlord?It seems more like a "if it shows up more than once it should be in the PHB" argument. Which is actually a far cry from WotC's own "if it has ever shown up in the PHB it'll be in Next" comments made months ago.Honestly, I've seen this argument before and I really don't care either way if elf and dwarf shows up as a CLASS in 5e. I care if they are balanaced against other classes but otherwise I wouldn't mind them being in the PHB. I DO mind when a class which has existed in a number of editions suddenly is just a fighter. Especially since... it isn't.Give me a quote of where we have said it is a dealbreaker, in those exact words. Otherwise that comment is just silly. We have legitimate concerns which you aren't even trying to discuss. You instead assure us that monks are just reflavoured fighters and tell us to move on. I'll have to fall back on the "if it shows up more than once" argument for how valid a class is. Honestly I would love if illusionists and thiefs (who aren't rogues) show back up too but I fear they would be too similar to the classes they got rolled into.It is funny how mlund's only solution is to use an OPTIONAL rule to get close to what we want. Instead of just allowing us what we want. And without the optional rule you can't get it at all his way. It is like "here add this cherry flavour to your yugurt, but you can't have actual cherries. All good?"  I completely agree here. I don't think this idea was really clear earlier but I do agree.Minor nitpicks.In my edition it is BETTER than steel - adamantine, lawful and magic at reasonably low levels.Which relates into my, "they shouldn't try to BE LIKE fighters, they should try and do it differently" comments earlier.Flurry should be a real choice that is different from full attack with a longsword. It should have completely different damage and attack structure. You get pretty close if you ADD pounce or full BAB in 3e, but remove the chance to upgrade with 8 different methods.Talking about themes for a second. WotC has talked about the kinds of things they want to do with themes, which seems to be allowing new tricks like TWF and what not. The themes have been more a new set of skills, but you always retain the core of the class. I agree that themes can't get you there because the only way to get there is to REPLACE not augment the fighter class. There is so little overlap in the classes that replacing aspects is the only way to get there. And so far at least nothing I've seen from 5e seems to do this. There doesn't appear to be any options to turn the fighter into a ranger or paladin, but there does seem to be themes that can give them a horse, or a pair of swords, or improved proficiency with a bow.I love that themes can get you partially the way there but themes can't and shouldn't ever be able to replace an entire class or even emulate an entire class. That would be a poor idea all around.I don't get this. 5e so far seems to be very rules light where skills go. And as previously brought up a +3 to Acrobatics won't exactly describe what monks are good at. You need something completely different here. Also, you keep making the point that monks and barbarians have quicker speed and that rogues have evasion - so what? Fighter's don't have those things. Even barbarians don't have evasion, nor rogues faster speed. That would seem to indicate pretty clearly that monk is unique as it brings a lot of different things under one roof.First, they have only discussed fighters being resistant to things. And if I recall that was mostly magic. That they should have an ability yo shrug off DAMAGE and impairments so that wizards don't start to completely rule them again. That has nothing to do with how monks do it.Second, he didn't say IMMUNE he said RESISTANT. See..Third, monks should be able to avoid those attacks in the first place, not be able to shrug them off in the same way the fighter can.Here let me give an example.Monk may be immune <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" /> or gain advantage (or a +4 or something) to resisting mind controlling-effects. In this way they are more likely to NOT suffer any ill effects at all.Fighters (assuming they can resistant in the first place) would get something along the lines of allowing them a saving throw after X number of rounds to throw off the effect. But getting nothing up front.I hope to god this is an optional rule. If it isn't I'm going to start having an asthma attack. I didn't like any of what I read in the combat superiority article and I felt kind of dirty after reading it. I felt worse when I read the thread around here discussing it and how it seemed to be a thinly veiled attempt to reintroduce 4e concepts. Again, OPTIONAL rule.Again, what do I have to GIVE UP to take this?Except in 4e fighters are all jedi. But I agree with your points Minigiant. That's one of the reasons I started playing monks in the first place.I could see this, makes a lot more sense. Also vaguely reminiscent of Tome of Battle. I'm not a fan of the book but they did have some interesting ideas.The problem is that unless you reflavour things like this the character went from playing a fighter to playing a ranger. And taking along all the fluff that went with each.The problem is the GAME suddenly telling them a fighter couldn't use a ranged weapon, and that the ranger had to use a bow.I've said all this before, but its a "get to" vs. "had to" kind of mentality which the game didn't do well in advertising. To me, and mine, we saw every bit of reflavouring as "having to" change the game to fit our needs and didn't like "having to" redesign things (or being stuck with things) when the previous game could so easily let us play a fighter using a bow, instead of "having to" a ranger to use one.I keep seeing replies from 4e people how this is a good thing because you "get to" change things to suit you. But I don't like having to "get to" so often with a game. I like things out of the box with as little change needed as possible.I'm glad you would be happy with those. I'm not you, sadly. I want other classes too.How would you react if I said:"FighterRangerBarbarianDruidSorcererWarlordYep. That would suit me. I agree, everything else could be done with Backgrounds and Themes, Feats and Multiclassing." ?</blockquote>

Verification