Friday, August 31, 2007

Everybody was Kung-Fu fighting

Not in 4e baby.

The word (and by "word" I mean rumor and speculation) is that there will be no monk in the new 4th Edition of D&D. This belief seems to be based almost entirely on the conspicuous absence of the monk in anything the Devs have said/written/dreamed about.

For now, I'll assume that the rumors are true and the monk will no longer exist as a stand alone core class.

But, does this bother me?

Yes and no.

On the one hand, part of me is against the cutting of any core class. In some measure I believe that the class is the first thing that defines a character. It's an important part of their identity. When you tell someone about your latest kick ass character the first words are what class he or she is. Not what feats or skill ranks he has.

"My new character Drazz't is totally awesome! He's got Dodge, Two Weapon Fighting and 4 ranks in Survival."

I don't think so.

On the other hand, and this is a profound about face on an earlier blog, I think that the pruning of a few classes could be a good thing. Thanks to the talent tree.

Why have a seperate Monk class when you can take a Fighter and follow a "martial arts" or "unarmed combatant" talent tree? Same goes with the Paladin. Chose Cleric or Fighter and take a "holy defender" or "champion of the faith" or "Cavalier" tree. I'll even go so far as to eliminate the Sorcerer (a personal fave) and say, take a wizard with the "inate casting" or "dragonblooded" talent.

My paradigm on class has shifted. It's not about class anymore. To steal a line from Shakespeare, the play is the thing.

Speaking of "the Bard", I hear the Bard is another class that won't see 4e ink. Meh. Who cares?

Addendum: According to the latest Dev&Des Article the Bard will be in 4e. Meh. Who cares?

No comments: