5e announced!

[alhoon]

Good catch!

[Zilfer]

And WotC surprises us with a new class today: the monk.

Yeah... the monk. Bit of an oddball choice.

Odd ball? I almost always have a monk in my group.... oddly enough.... o.O'

[alhoon]

In Ravenloft? Monks and Medieval fantasy/horror don't fit too well.

[Strahdsbuddy]

Monk is always a player favorite tho. So much so they had to make it through 2E with tacked on rules for the class, then reintroduce it in 3E. I have a monk in my current campaign, who seems relatively well justified. Doesn't always have to be the Asian style, my player is from a sort of Catholic-esque monastery who vowed silence during his training to focus on creating a perfect vessel for God's will. I don't think the monk is going anywhere in any D&D format, and I think it is simple enough to play around.

Sorry to chime in without reading entire thread.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

Yup. Same here. I've got a Monk of the Order of the Guardians in my campaign that's a real Monk-class Monk. Does it fit with a rigorously historical Ravenloft? maybe not. But what does, really?

I also play a non-Monk Monk myself in a Council of Thieves AP game. He's not religious in anyway, just a farmboy found and adopted as a toddler who discovers he's super-fast, super-strong, etc as he grows up. Faster than a speeding warhorse. Able to leap tall dragons in a single bound. Fighting for truth, justice and the cheliaxian way.

[Zilfer]

^ Harder better faster stronger? xD

[alhoon]

I have a monk in my current campaign, who seems relatively well justified. Doesn't always have to be the Asian style, my player is from a sort of Catholic-esque monastery who vowed silence during his training to focus on creating a perfect vessel for God's will.

And why the perfect vessel for God's will has flurry of blows? Catholic-esque monks weren't training to be martial arts masters of unarmed combat. The few monastic knights were IIRC ... armored knights. Sword, shield etc. With a nice big cross on the shield.

What I'm saying is that a monk from a monastery doesn't have to be... a monk in class. IMO most monks in monasteries in Ravenloft are commoners or experts. The rest are adepts, wizards etc. Of course in Sri Raji and other oriental domains a monk that has dedicated his life to unarmed combat and mastery of the body is more on-theme.

The good alternative to use monks IMO for Medieval fantasy/horror is ... Gonzoron's take. You're not a monk. You're a lawful guy that tries to achieve physical perfection and mastery of the martial arts. So, your class is monk but you are something else.

[Zilfer]

I don't think Catholic monks try to get possessed as a general guide line.... xD

[Le Noir Faineant]

2e is going to be reprinted.

I ordered my copies already.



2E is going to be reprinted.

RAVENLOFT-ERS*, PREPARE FOR GLORY!






*Lofters? Lofties? Lo's? Ralo's? Ralies? Raaaah. Help me out there.

[Cam]

Re: monks and martial arts: I think the Thaani are cool and underdeveloped in canon. They have never featured extensively in games I've ran or played. However, in my games I usually have Thaani priests make cameos wearing chains. They wear chains to pay homage to their past as illithid slaves. Their chains aren't particularly restrictive (although they would make moving silently or running fast difficult). They use this to surprise their enemies, who often think they're escaped prisoners or some such. I have them proficient in a martial art like capoeira, which they can execute in their chains. (In fact they also use their chains as part of their fighting style -- to choke or whip enemies, etc.) I feel like the Thaani probably must have had some pretty cool powers to manage to escape their lives as slaves, and martial arts that they could have developed while in bondage seems appropriate.

I developed all this under the 2E rules from the Priest's Handbook. There are some rules for martial arts and "fighting monks" in there. I made Thaani priests be fighting monk priests of the Philosophy of Good.

[Mortavius]

I've noticed something that is really bugging me about the monster posts in Legends & Lore.

They start off describing monster X. They describe monster X as is was in 2E/3E. They take a few things here and there from the editions, but mostly the description is as the creature was in those editions.

Then they ask at the end, "Does this look like monster X to you?"

Well, unless you've never read previous editions of D&D (and most people reading that article would be familiar with them), of COURSE it looks like monster X. You didn't change anything! Why would it look different?

My biggest problem is the Giants from awhile back. I LOVED the new take on Giants in 4E, tying them to the history and world more. But instead, we go back to these Roman-esque looking giants from 2E/3E, where they really aren't fleshed out very much. They're described as how they think, and where they live, but that's it. There's nothing to tie them to the world, and WHY DO STORM GIANTS WEAR ROMAN ARMOR???

Sorry, I know I'm ranting, but does anyone else notice this? They're not taking any chances, not doing anything new. 4E had it's flaws, I readily admit. But they took chances with the monsters; went in new directions. At this rate, 5E looks like a new rules system layered over top of a 2E/3E game.

[Le Noir Faineant]

But then, what is 5e meant to be, really? A "good game", or a solid money maker?

"Dragon Warriors" is a "good game". Sold seven thousand copies. IN TOTAL.

5e needs to be the consensus game; easy enough for everybody to play, and hopefully, with a setting open enough to appeal to everybody.

That's its sole mission.

Because by summer of 2013, FIVE different editions of D&D will be back in print, and library of Alexandria-size pdf libraries will be legally available.

D&D as a brand will live, but for the next decade, or so, most people will play the same game only in name.
And 5e, lacking any setting appeal so far, will have to be "the consensus game", or it will be nothing.

[Jester of the FoS]

I've noticed something that is really bugging me about the monster posts in Legends & Lore.

They start off describing monster X. They describe monster X as is was in 2E/3E. They take a few things here and there from the editions, but mostly the description is as the creature was in those editions.

Then they ask at the end, "Does this look like monster X to you?"

Well, unless you've never read previous editions of D&D (and most people reading that article would be familiar with them), of COURSE it looks like monster X. You didn't change anything! Why would it look different?

My biggest problem is the Giants from awhile back. I LOVED the new take on Giants in 4E, tying them to the history and world more. But instead, we go back to these Roman-esque looking giants from 2E/3E, where they really aren't fleshed out very much. They're described as how they think, and where they live, but that's it. There's nothing to tie them to the world, and WHY DO STORM GIANTS WEAR ROMAN ARMOR???

Sorry, I know I'm ranting, but does anyone else notice this? They're not taking any chances, not doing anything new. 4E had it's flaws, I readily admit. But they took chances with the monsters; went in new directions. At this rate, 5E looks like a new rules system layered over top of a 2E/3E game.

The catch being, some of the changes were accepted and loved, others were not. Some of the changes seemed like change for change's sake, or one vocal developer's pet peeve. And some, like the giants, were a form of the "needless symmetry" that they were trying to get away from.

Dragons for example. You can really see someone arguing "why are blue dragons in deserts? That makes no sense. They're blue, they should be by the water!". And bam, all of sudden we have blue dragons as stormy coastal dragons.
The giants are a fun example. They tied them to the elements, as there were fire, frost, stone and storm giants. Makes sense. But then hill giants and cloud giants don't quite fit (to say nothing of desert and jungle giants, formorians, ettins, cyclops, etc). And the new titans don't fit what people have been using titans for over the past 35 years.
It fits some of the giants but trying to get all giants to conform to a single ideal is tricky.

And while the change was great for a world it wasn't great for all worlds, which was the big flavour problem with 4e. Suddenly primordials needed to be forced into the Forgotten Realms and Eberron and Dark Sun and worlds needed to change their history and flavour to conform to the new assumption.

Sometimes the descriptions haven't worked for people. I was disappointed by the bugbear and a few others. Many lacked important points and elements. Ditto the art. I was incredibly disappointed by the initial take on the goblin.

[Le Noir Faineant]

Wow, read my last post with Michael Caine's voice.

I should write 19th century drama.

[alhoon]

My biggest problem is the Giants from awhile back. I LOVED the new take on Giants in 4E, tying them to the history and world more. But instead, we go back to these Roman-esque looking giants from 2E/3E, where they really aren't fleshed out very much.

Well, giants were my unfavorite from 4E. I hated them.
On the other hand, I liked the 2E take on them but I prefer... the 3e take on them. I hate the "frost giant has str 20" thing. Since a Frost giant's armor probably weights about as much as the maximum load for str 20. A storm giant would have trouble getting out of bed or a chair. That's how weak they are compared to their weight.

At this rate, 5E looks like a new rules system layered over top of a 2E/3E game.

Weeell... that's what most of us wanted Mortavius. Pathfinder or "pay for a slightly updated 3.5 edition again" sold more than 4E.