Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5988871" data-attributes="member: 95493">It is the same argument with slightly different classes. My being facetious has almost nothing to do with the argument either way. The idea you present is that XYZ classes are all you need in order to play any class. It is reductionist and exclusionary as it cuts out a number of classes that have existed in a number of editions in favour of ones that YOU feel are close. Any classes could be put in that same lineup, or any line up could have those same classes plus or minus a few. Once again, all you do with that argument is present what YOU are happy with without giving ME any reason that I should be happy with it too.Why Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Clerics, Druids, Mages, Bards and Paladins? I'm also assuming by Mage you mean Wizard as Mage isn't a class. Again, why not add a few more in there. Why does Paladin make the cut but Monk doesn't? Why does Bard but not Sorcerer? Why Ranger but not Assassin? Why Druid but not Barbarian?Barbarian really IS a 'Class' see: <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/barbarian.htm" target="_blank">Barbarian :: d20srd.org</a>It's also in the 4e PHB2 page 48.TO YOU it is also a cultural background. But even WotC has tried more than once to explain that Barbarian (the class) and "barbarian", as per the definition of the word, aren't really the same. I'm glad YOU feel confident that you could make a barbarian, warlord and assassin with other classes. I played 3.5 for a number of years and I'm sure I could build things CLOSE to those concepts. I don't feel that any fighter could replace the barbarian though. Nor am I confident that rogues make the best assassins.First, they don't have a lack of focus, if anything it is too specialized. But I go over that more below (after the next quote).And I keep asking, what would I no longer be able to do if I was a fighter-monk that I could have done if I was a monk with a different package. Themes and Backgrounds seem to be about making characters different from one another or about making them unique or special in some other way. If all monks have the same background and themes (in order to make them monks instead of fighters) in what ways will they be dissimilar from eachother? What vestiges of 'fighter' will still be included in the monk build? In what ways will the fighter with the monk themes and backgrounds be different from a fighter who happens to be an unarmed specialist?This also assumes you do ALL the specialization of monk with a fighter base and THEMES AND BACKGROUNDS. The problem is Themes and Backgrounds are OPTIONAL. Optional. If I want to play a monk without themes and backgrounds I now can't because there is no longer a monk class. There have been 3-4 editions WITH the class but suddenly it is excluded it as a playable class because TrippyHippy thinks they aren't needed, because "they're basically fighters".This isn't the situation with monk though. Yes you could apply "unarmed and mystic" or w/e the themes and backgrounds are for this fighter-monk to other classes. You could. But monks AREN'T just the few things you seem to think belong in themes and backgrounds. This isn't just me saying it. I haven't personally made a list but others have - just read back. There is a laundry list of things that make monks unique from fighters or indeed other classes.I did talk about the bonus speed and evasion qualities a couple posts back. You could get from barbarian or rogue to monk easier because they at least come with these two traits. Fighters don't. Fighters=/=Monks, just like Fighters=/=Rogues. They could do things similarly, high damage, high evasion, light/finessable weapons and stealth and stuff but that wouldn't mean fighters are suddenly rogues or that rogues are suddenly no longer a class.</blockquote>

Verification