MjH

I was thinking about difference between warriors, wizards and monks meanwhile reading thread above. My opinion is that in average situation looks as following: Warrior type - 90% of time rely on tools as swords, armor and so on; and 10% of time rely on skills as 'might push' etc. Wizard type - 10% of time rely on tools as bow, staff; and 90% of time rely on skill e.g. fireball. And historically it is aligned with their roles in party: warrior are contact fighters; wizards are distant fighters. However we have archers. They were boring at the beginning but later various types of bows/guns/crossbows appeared combined with different bullets; and it resulted in that it's now interesting to build your archer. Now back to the monks. Can you build your unique monk? They all look the same. They still rely 90% on tools, their enhanced hands and body. But number of tools is very limited for them that is why IMHO they are boring. Careful reader already should noticed where I'm going. Warrior types have melee and distant builds. But wizard type usually have only distant build. Monk has his place here: to be a 'wizard' at close combat. Monk should rely 90% on his skills. What do you think?

People say stupid and strong... and I recall Minsk from BG. He was stupid and strong however good. Now tell me how many people prefered to keep Minks in their party? My point is that stupid/smart, strong/intellegent, evil/good, orc/human means nothing. The story behind and character features make fun play. Culture is important and what makes difference as many said. And Orc race has a good seed in it to develop a good culture. I can think about Dothraki tribes from A Song of Ice and Fire for instance. IMHO it will be much harder to develop new reace from scratch. So I support jivex5k completely. So I voted Yes - fully playable.