Steely_Dan
First Post
Why does it irk you?
Because they are such Johnny-Come-Lately classes (and synonyms for wizard), i would prefer they released some classes with more traction first (like Druid, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, etc).
Why does it irk you?
Yes, as I said, the original Monk was sort of a Druid/Rogue/Psionic deal.
Not sure where the druid thing comes in? Because they were called Grandmaster of Flowers?
The original monk was written because somebody in Dave Arneson's game wanted to play Kaine from Kung Fu.
If you mean Druid/Rogue/Psion in the sense that he had no druid spells, no wild shape, no back-stab, no open locks/disable devices/pick pockets, no psionic powers, horrifying MAD stat requirements to enter, and was completely functional in a setting without any psionics then, yeah, sure - totally a druid/rogue/psion ...
He looks a heck of a lot more like a terrible melee warrior with a ton of gimmicks bolted on to crudely ape an occidental stereotype of orientals spawned from 1970s television and movies.
It was the bolt-on gimmicks he shared: speak with animals, speak with plants, immunity to diseases, immunity to poisons, immunity to aging, fighting a higher-level master in order to level.
And it totally reads like that too, shoehorn and all.
Because they are such Johnny-Come-Lately classes (and synonyms for wizard), i would prefer they released some classes with more traction first (like Druid, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, etc).
If you mean Druid/Rogue/Psion in the sense that he had no druid spells, no wild shape, no back-stab, no open locks/disable devices/pick pockets, no psionic powers, horrifying MAD stat requirements to enter, and was completely functional in a setting without any psionics then, yeah, sure - totally a druid/rogue/psion ...
I gave how he was effective. And it wasn't effective at "being a barbarian" so I don't get where any of that comes from.If your monk is the most effective member of the party, the party has really done something terribly wrong. I'm not talking about optimization. I'm not talking about using the fixed melee classes like Warblades and Swordsages. I'm talking that a barbarian can pick up a big 2 handed weapon and just go to town.
All valid ideas, do you want to discuss how to fix the monk? I have several ideas too. Sadly, I didn't realize that you were trying to fix it, instead it seemed you were trying to say monks don't belong. Which I happen to disagree with.P.S. If you wanted to fix him, you could make it so he could use flurry even when moving or charging and move his BAB to full. Sadly, he'd STILL be weak, but at least he'd be better.
I could be wrong, having never had an actual conversation with either gentleman, but I could have swore they created DnD as a WAR game. Not a team game. There may be cross-over elements between the two, but it seems like Gygax was never happiest except when PCs died in droves and the game mastery was on the GMs side.P.P.S. Who made D&D a team game? Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
Should we now cut clerics because you find them redudant? I mean they are basically just wizards/druids.My bad, I don't think too hard about clerics because I find them redundant.
Not really what I said. I said I kind of get why you would want to make a monk-fighter, or a monk-rogue, but I definitely didn't get the monk-wizard. And I didn't understand why you didn't even try for the monk-cleric, which as a "background" would seem to be the most applicable.But it seems to me you've extrapolated just fine. A monk with divine powers is a cleric with the monk background. Yay!
I think you missed what I said with this one, because you didn't answer my question.That's all the monk is...a background. Someone who lives in a monastery as part of a monastic order is a monk. What they've trained to do there is an entirely different thing.Tovec said:Fifth, all the backgrounds we have seen so far are relatively minor. They grant a couple +3's to certain skill checks. So how do you replace an entire class with those?
Right, but a fighter isn't a monk. And a monk isn't a fighter. If anything a monk is closer to a rogue. So I guess you could play a rogue and say "he was raised in a monastery" but even then you wouldn't be playing a monk. You would be playing a guy who says he is something without being that thing.Then you do the same thing do if you're playing in my B/X game. You tell everybody, "My fighter was raised in a Monastery, so he's a monk"Tovec said:Sixth, what happens if you (as they have already expressed) don't want to use backgrounds and yet still want to play a monk?
Again, I think perhaps you are missing what I'm saying.Being a monk shouldn't grant anything particularly special. If you want to be an archer, make an archer, call him a monk. Done.Tovec said:Seventh, what do you have to give up in order to be a monk with this system? This is of course assuming you solve the 5th question's problem of actually using backgrounds to create monk abilities.
Because assuming you use something other than backgrounds to create a monk, such as specialties/traits/whatever they're calling them now, you won't be able to be an archer anymore because all of your specs/traits are now ALL monk.
(I covered most of what this one was talking about in the previous section.)Actually they can. A monk is someone raised in a monastery who has taken vows. It's actually a lot simpler background than being the son of landed gentry. Monk is NOT all about "spend whole life training your mind and body (and soul)" That just as easily describes a fighter, or even a rogue, or even, in some cases a cleric. Heck, I could use that same schtick to describe a sorcerer. That's a question of motivation, not character class.
You can count on the "raised in a monastery" aspect to be shoved into a background. "Proficient in unarmed fighting to the point where bare hands on competitive lethal weapons," ought to be open to all characters via Feats. The "Lawful Only" alignment restrictions will probably be dropped entirely. The laundry list of self-centered immunity powers will probably need to be reigned in or pruned (the 2E and 4E Monks lacked these).
And remember: the best person at Unarmed Fighting in all the land will be a Fighter. If you want to be the Best Martial Artist and a "Monk" you'd better hope the "Monk" is a Fighter build.
I gave how he was effective. And it wasn't effective at "being a barbarian" so I don't get where any of that comes from.
In 3e, even a fighter is a poor barbarian.
Besides that, a monk isn't a barbarian, nor is he trying to be?
It is like comparing a rogue to a wizard and then saying "haha, see you are wrong Tovec, rogues aren't really a class, see!" Granted that comparison would be a little more extreme but the point remains.
Right, so to compare a barbarian and a monk to in terms of being a barbarian, the monk can't ever win.No, the point doesn't remain. Wizards can be a better version of almost any other class in the game, and those they can't Clerics and Druids can manage to be a better version of. That's not the point.
They aren't though. You say that monks are trying to be fighters, but I would show that they have a 3/4 BAB and a bag of tricks. They aren't trying to be fighters. The other classes you say in this (rangers, paladins, barbarians) could all conceivably be fighters because they all have full BAB. The monk doesn't. It isn't that the monk is a poor fighter/barbarian, it is that the monk isn't TRYING to be a good one.The point is to compare two classes who are trying to do very similar things. There's actually four and a half classes who are trying to do the same thing in the 3.5 PHB - be a close range weapon-using damage dealer. Of them:
So I'm glad we agree, monks are as effective as rogues in combat. Monks SHOULD be compared to rogues. Now 3e monks are still a poorly built class. If you think I disagree then you should point out where I've said otherwise.Monk - No spells. Hmm. Less damage than fighter, nevermind a Barbarian. Much less tough than a Fighter. 3/4 BAB so they miss all the time. And a collection of gizmos. This is... humiliating. They're about as effective as a rogue in combat (Flurry of Blows vs Backstab). And with none of the Rogue features that makes Rogues unique (well, until Factotems came along).
Okay, 3e had flaws? And?Look, you don't have to be more effective than a Wizard, Druid, or Cleric to be a real class. Each one of those should be banned at character creation if you're playing 3E or the party should be dragged up to their level. That's not the standard you measure classes by.
You slightly lose me here, if only because I don't think all classes need to hold their own in combat. They need to excel in their chosen niche, not all classes need to be as good as the fighter/wizard (depending on edition) in combat. Similarly, not all fighter/wizards need to be as competent as rogues out of combat.Measured by the standards of actual classes that
Monks DO belong in D&D. I said as much. But not the 3E monk, a bad unarmed fighter with a collection of random garbage. No. Not that at all. Monks belong in as a unique class that feels different from every other class on the battlefield and can hold their own whatever the circumstances.