I hate monks

[Ranger REG]

I don't think anyone here is speaking proscriptively. We are speaking descriptively. D&D's core rules, at present, are overwhelmingly Western in character.

Perhaps, but then the fighter class can also be non-Western. So's barbarian. There are rangers in the form of hunters in non-Western cultures and there are those that dabbled in divine and arcane magic.

That's why my position is that ... (b) the core rules should be overhauled so they are no longer overwhelmingly Western and the monk can fit in.

It is overhauled. Then again, maybe it's the Asian in me that does not see the overwhelming exposure of Western elements.

 

[Imret]

Not true. Fast movement over 60 feet is supernatural. It would break suspension of disbelief if it were not, anyway. Same with being immune to disease and healing damage quickly. Even if WotC says they're not magical, players believe they're magical.

That's a broad assumption. I'm a player (okay, admittedly very rarely) and I don't believe they're magical. And if I polled my two groups of players, I'm betting at least a few of them wouldn't believe they're magical either.

Wholeness of Body (Su)

Sadly, on at least one count, your two groups of players would be wrong by the RAW.


Of course, all the "monk is inherently non-magical" arguments stop shy of mentioning all the (Su) abilities the monk does get; Ki Strike, Abundant Step, Empty Body, Diamond Body...none of which make any sense without magical explanation - i.e. the deep spiritual introspection and meditation assumed in the monk.

All of this aside, I think the simple fact of it is that not enough of the monk's flavor, as printed in the SRD, integrates easily into the rest of the PHB. Let's take a look at the monk weapons: Monks are proficient with club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, and sling.

Emphasis mine; these are, for every other character, Exotic weapons. And certainly not for their stats; the kama is a slashing, tripping short sword, the nunchaku a club you can't throw but can be used to effectively disarm, the sai is a disarming dagger, and the shuriken and siangham have nothing going for them beyond other weapons. What makes them "Exotic" weapons in the SRD? Their asian origins. Certainly a nunchaku is no harder to use than a flail*, or a kama harder to use than a handaxe.

So the monk's list of weapons are either simple weapons, or Asian-themed exotic weapons that are about as good as martial weapons - maybe a little bit better if the monk spends some of his precious few feats for Expertise and a follow-up feat. So, despite being proficient in weapons largely unique to the monk, asian in origin, and not available to fighters without the expenditure of feats, the monk is without asian flavor and integrates perfectly into the rest of the presumed world? Not even the SRD, taken as a (relatively) cohesive rules set and barely implied setting, supports this, IMO.

Then again, if you're comfortable with wire-fu philosophers who step through walls and fight with weapons unique to them in your campaign setting, enjoy. There is no bad fun so long as nobody gets hurt, and if you think Greyhawk needs Kwai Chang Caine, you're right for your purposes. Just don't tell me I'm "Eurocentric" because I can clearly see the monk is set apart from the other classes by the RAW. Hell, Europe bores me after the Goths sacked Rome anyway.

* For these purposes, I'm not assuming Bruce Lee style show-off work, just using it like a flail to smash someone's cranium.

 

[ForceUser]

Most accusations of racism, like most racist epithets themsleves, are similarly presented e.g. "I'm not calling you a racist but..."

And I'm not. Here, I'll dig up the post since you can't be bothered to click back a couple of pages.

I'll take back the snob comment--snobbery is intentional, which I don't honestly think this is. Ethnocentrism, in it's mildest form, manifests as a healthy pride in one's heritage; at it's worst, you get racism. Let me be clear: I'm not calling anyone a racist. I don't think most of the folks arguing against the inclusion of the monk in core D&D are even aware of what's driving this desire for "purity." That's why I'm pointing it out. There should be room for other cultures in the core rules. We are a multicultural world, the United States is a multicultural nation, and this is without a doubt a multicultural hobby. So why the insistence on keeping to some outdated notion of "European purity" in core D&D?

 

[Imret]

Let me be clear: I'm not calling anyone a racist. I don't think most of the folks arguing against the inclusion of the monk in core D&D are even aware of what's driving this desire for "purity." That's why I'm pointing it out.

I think it's the way you put...everything other than the sentence "I'm not calling anyone a racist". It reads like "No-one in this thread is consciously racist, but they don't even realize they're trying to push out any multicultural elements from D&D with their Euro-centric views! I have to point out that our only hope to not be racists is accept the monk!" Which isn't the case. I love the monk class, even if it mechanically isn't very good (IMO), but it's not exactly smoothly integrated with the rest.

Forgive me if I a) Misread that somehow, b) Got the wrong impression from fusangite's response.

So why the insistence on keeping to some outdated notion of "European purity" in core D&D?

Because everything else in the core, besides a few monsters and a couple token weapons (given, curiously, to the monk), supports a fantasy paradigm that resembles LotR meets Kingdom of Heaven a lot more than it resembles LotR meets Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon?

Like fusangite said, I prefer my mutilation of standard fiction tropes to be internally consistent if nothing else.

 

[ForceUser]

I think it's the way you put...everything other than the sentence "I'm not calling anyone a racist". It reads like "No-one in this thread is consciously racist..."

Forgive me if I a) Misread that somehow, b) Got the wrong impression from fusangite's response.

In fact, you did. To put it in your words, what I said was "No-one in this thread is consciously ethnocentric..."

That's a different thing.

 

[fusangite]

I think it also comes down to where one draws the line for credibility and also from what point one approaches the rules, I think. I understand what you're saying and why.

Glad we're on the same page.

I don't pretend my criteria or anyone else's criteria for suspension of disbelief are rational. The reason I weigh in on these monk threads is that the monk is one of the very rare instances of my standards for suspension of disbelief actually being similar to those of many others in the hobby. Usually I'm coming in right out of left field.

But from my perspective, in a world where a mid-level archer (let's say Ftr6) can pick up a mundane, non-magical bow and fire three arrows in six seconds (and by 20th lvl he's up to 5), the laws of reality have already been immutably changed.

I agree here. It's one of the reasons I can rarely start with a high-level character. If stuff like that doesn't creep up on me but is, instead, sprung on me, I have trouble with it.

A mid-level character can jump off a 200 ft cliff, hit the ground, and walk away.

As you know from my other ENWorld posts, falling damage is the lynchpin for my argument about D&D physics being Aristotelian because otherwise, you're quite right, it undermines suspension of disbelief.

D&D is in many ways a superhero game in a fantasy environment, and for me, the monk fits in well with that.

It's never worked that way for me. But I'll probably steal this quotation of yours for the next monk thread to help explain why the monk bothers some people and not others.

By the way, you should really consider coming to GenCon this year. I had really hoped to meet you last August and have been missing you around the forums.

 

[fnork de sporg]

I don't really like monks from a mechanical point of view. They're kind of weak and, like the paladin, they irk me with their extreme lack of customisability. And I just hate Exotic Weapon Profs. Hate them. From a logical point of view there's nothing inherently more difficult about learning to use most of them, and from a mechanical point of view it only seems justified if the weapon is obviously superior any normal counterpart. Most exotic weapons just aren't worth it.

I wish there were better thought out mechanics for regional and cultural weapon divides like that. In the RAW a elf still knows how to use longbows even if he was raised by humans, and a human raised by dwarves would still have to spend a feat to use a dwarven waraxe. If the only real reason Kamas are exotic is because their asian, well what about asian Fighters or Barbarians?

And I really dislike the name Monk.

But I have never liked the idea that D&D is supposed to be western or european. I mean it can contain europe but it should not be limited to it. Paladins are pretty clearly western, and so is the selection of weapons and armor. But the other classes are culture neutral. The only thing western about Druids is the name. The core races are very Tolkien, but D&D is not tolkien by default. Nor should it be. If anything I'd like to see more non lord of the rings rip off PC races in the PHB.

Play Pendragon if you want to.

 

[fusangite]

Perhaps, but then the fighter class can also be non-Western.

As can the rogues. They're generic.

So's barbarian.

Not on your life. They're Norse berserkers.

There are rangers in the form of hunters in non-Western cultures and there are those that dabbled in divine and arcane magic.

Don't get me started on the Two-Fisted Wildernazi -- that class is just as disaster begging to be culled from the core.

It is overhauled.

The SRD, maybe. Not the PHB. The bard is a fusion of the Celtic bard an Germanic troubador. The paladin and cleric are crusader archetypes. The druids are druids, fused with the Beornings from the Hobbit. Etc.

Then again, maybe it's the Asian in me that does not see the overwhelming exposure of Western elements.

Well, I'd love to sit down with you and develop either truly generic or genuinely Asian classes. I think we'd see Magic Jar moved out of the realm of obscure necromancy spells and into the field of class abilities, for instance. But that's just the beginning.

 

[fusangite]

But I have never liked the idea that D&D is supposed to be western or european. I mean it can contain europe but it should not be limited to it.

Agreed. But the fact is that D&D is modular and the default setting of the game is European. As I said a few posts up, those of us who are saying the monk is out of place are speaking descriptively not proscriptively.

 

[fnork de sporg]

the default setting of the game is European.

How so?