I hate monks

[Crothian]

Sure they did. I maintain that you guys are too wrapped up in labels. One man's Norse berserker is another man's Mongolian hun.

Right, but the man with the Norse Beserker seems to be the guy who wrote the book.

Now, I don't care about these europe or asian labels. It doesn't bother me or influence my game. But I can see how people see them. Argueing about them though it pretty dumb. But oddly fun.

 

[ForceUser]

Argueing about them though it pretty dumb. But oddly fun.

Agreed.

 

[Imret]

watered down the Asian-ness of monks.

Down to merely 80% asian-themed, I guess? Still not really close enough to "acultural" to be generic.

Why? To make them applicable cross-genre. Why? To open up the game to multiculturalism. Why? Because it's 2005 and parochialism is so last century.

If all the classes are applicable cross-genre, why does Oriental Adventures remove the bard, druid, cleric, and paladin? Why are monks the only ones who get proficiency with asian-origin weapons at 1st level without expending feats? Why are all the options for monks, the least-customizable class until then, in Oriental Adventures? Why does the PHB, with a handful of exceptions, contain only weapons, armor, and equipment from European origin or straight out of fantasy?

You can argue for the modern, all-inclusive, politically acceptable, "stop being narrowminded" approach all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the monk is included in the PHB for the single, solitary reason of the designers of D&D 3.x wanted it there. Not because it was a critical party role, not because it meshes well with the rest of the game, not even because it's mechanically very good and has abilities that work well together (IMO, neither is true). It's there because white kids like to play ninja, because wuxia films are popular, and because eleven classes sounds better than ten.

I'm not saying the monk shouldn't be there. I'm saying with his abilities (and their names), his weapon proficiencies, the implications of calling an unarmed fighter with mystical powers a monk, the PHB monk is an unagi roll on the burger platter of the PHB. I've got nothing against sushi, but it's not even related to hamburgers.

Also,

Tell that to the Scarlet Brotherhood, a vast nation run by....monks.
....
Blond-haired, blue-eyed foreigners.

Wait, it's not oriental-themed because they're (ostensibly, kinda,) fantasy-Caucasian? Does that even make sense to you? Culture != genetics. (Well, we'll pretend that means "not equal to.)

 

[Krieg]

Blond-haired, blue-eyed foreigners. IIRC, the natives (Baklundish?) are the swarthy ones.

You were making an argument defending the monk as being core in a "eurocentric" fantasy world (Greyhawk). The founders of the Scarlet Brotherhood were not endemic to the primary gaming locale. The were foreigners with strange ideas and non-native fighting abilities.

Are they really a good example in support of the monk being compulsory in a quasi-euro fantasy realm? IMO not really.

....Of course being that the city of Grehawk was a fantasy stand in for Milwaukee Wisconsin the entire point is probably moot.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Shilsen says pretty much what I would with less incendiary hyperbole, so let's just let him speak for me, shall we?

 

[shilsen]

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.

Sure, steal away.

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.

Unfortunately, I invariably end up back in India during the summer break, so I wasn't back when GenCon rolled around. If I am, I'll definitely consider it.

Shilsen says pretty much what I would with less incendiary hyperbole, so let's just let him speak for me, shall we?

Oh, come on - where's the fun in that? *hands KM some naptha*

 

[ForceUser]

Imret and Krieg, your comments are worth pondering.

/ponder

 

[Ranger REG]

As can the rogues. They're generic.

Didn't mean to neglect that class.

Not on your life. They're Norse berserkers.

Nah. D&D barbarian is too tame and easier to control by players to be a berserker.

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

I resent that derogatory term. Besides, 3.5e is a bit tamer than its 2e & 3.0e predecessors. Add a Dragon magazine issue that offers alternative combat styles and it becomes more appealing. The only thing I'm disappointed is the lowered hit die. It no longer the uberranger I have come to know and love.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I maintain that you guys are too wrapped up in labels.

Not at all. I'm looking at the mechanics of the class and tracing backwards to find the inspirational sources of the class. What I see screams "ASIAN!"

One man's Norse berserker is another man's Mongolian hun.

Nah...not really. The Mongols were excellent horsemen and archers (esp. from horseback) who fought with skill rather than brute force and fear-inspiring frenzy.

That said, I still view the barbarian as an aculturally inspired class. There are other legends throughout the world of fierce hand-to-hand combatants more concerned with depriving you of your head than saving a single hair on their own. The Contraries and Ghost Dance Warriors of Native American legend, the Boxers of China and many others- all rushed fearlessly into combat, even against impossible odds.

Contrast that with the monk, which, as has been pointed out, is proficient with several exotic (Asian) weapons without spending any Feats on them and whose abilities show up more in Eastern-themed fiction than in Western.

(BTW- I have NO problem calling them monks. Its accurate.)

It BELONGS in Oriental Adventures. That's its home.

I'm not saying the monk shouldn't be there. I'm saying with his abilities (and their names), his weapon proficiencies, the implications of calling an unarmed fighter with mystical powers a monk, the PHB monk is an unagi roll on the burger platter of the PHB. I've got nothing against sushi, but it's not even related to hamburgers.

Quoted for Truth, Justice and the American Way!

Er...Quoted for truth and a nice analogy!

 

[Imperialus]

ANo, he's a "barbarian"--whatever that means in the context of one's campaign world.

Someone who doesn't speak Greek? "Baa, baaa, bah, baaa"

So, explain to me why lords would set up a system whereby they couldn't defend their assets or make a profit for themselves. Nobody is going to tolerate a system where their labour supply is constantly being killed, their crops burned, etc. unless they absolutely have to. They are simply not going to enact laws, on a large scale, that will decimate their own economic base.

because equipping, training, paying, feeding, and maintaining a standing army is a very expensive proposition. Even here in Canada where our standing army is second rate when compared to many third world nations our yearly tab comes to billions of dollers. The very existence of a feudal system is polar opposite to a standing army since the entire premise is based around the idea that when necessary noblemen would call soldiers for a brief campaign before disbanding them.

I could get into how the enclosure acts of the 17th century and other techniques that made farming more efficient created the surplus food and manpower required to maintain standing armies in Europe but I'm sure no one wants me to drag this thread that far off topic. The reality is that before the modern period Rome was the only nation that successfully created a standing army and that was largely due to the sheer size of the empire. Despite that even at the height of the Pax Romana the Roman army was miniscule. 28 legions * approx 6000 men to a legion ment that on average (assuming full strength) there were only 168,000 legionnaires throughout the whole of western Europe and north Africa. Compared to the empires overall population that is a miniscule number and I was even pretty liberal with my calculations. Most legions probably had closer to 5000 combat soldiers at a given time.

The best a peasant could hope for is that there was a garrison of a couple hundred soldiers a day or two away. I mean look at what happened to England during the late 10th century. Vikings raided with almost total immunity and no one could do a thing about it.

That sounds like it could be a neat idea for a particular game world but that doesn't make it a legitimate core class.

any less legitimate than a wizard school or order or paladins? I'm not saying that the PC's would be involved in the creation or development of these monasteries merely that if the process I described took place over a couple hundred years you could end up with a monk class identical to what is found in the PHB, perhaps with campaign specific ability names but one that makes logical sense in the context of nearly any D&D world. No matter how civilized the world is there will almost always be boarder regions inhabited by all manner of nasties. The peasants of said boarder regions would be pretty much on their own.

Where do they learn all these mystical abilities from?

They wouldn't, or at least not at first. It would almost definatly start out as a simple non magical unarmed combat style(s) not at all unlike Tie Kwon Do, Judo, Karate or anything else that exists in the real world. Only after the involvement of a church or deity eventually begins to take on more mystical aspects. It's a back story, something that happens over generations to explain why there are people with English names punching holes through brick walls in the Free City of Greyhawk.