Tell me about Monks in your world.

[Samuel Leming]

There's a bit more thread here than I expected.

I remove the multi-class restriction from them (that says they cannot gain gain levels in any other class and still remain a monk). This allows a nice blending of fighter and monk that can make the kind of character that most people think of when they want a bad-ass hand to hand fighter.

I have mixed feelings on multi-classing the monk.

At first glance unrestricted multi-classing of the monk seems right. I don't like to hear "no" and I don't like to say "no" unless I've got a good reason. I didn't find any balance isues on further examination.

After further thought I do have an issue with the monk freely multi-classing. As written, the class is about the quest for physical perfection. Unarmed combat is what the monk does, not what it is. Restricting multi-classing makes some sense given the single-minded drive inherent in the class.

For me, the jury's still out on multi-classing the monk. If I can get my unarmed combat feats for the fighter to be both effective and balanced there will be almost no need to multi-class the monk. If I can't work it out, I'll go with the unrestricted multi-classing.

For monks in my game, I use the Defender from Midnight.

I took a look at that earlier today. Took a while to find a copy to borrow.

Saving throws aren't as good. BAB as the fighter. Higher AC bonus. Much more freedom of choice on special abilities. Less mystical claptrap. Kind of has a Bloodgaurd feel to it. I've only given it a cursory glance, but it looks like a solid improvement on the monk.

However, I'd say the Ranger is the most controversial class, by far.

You're talking about the front-loaded 3.0E ranger? Yeah, I'll have to give you that one even though I had an easier time working with it than the monk.

PC and NPC monks have been too rare in my game to justify a major place in the campaign. Instead they are refugees from an overseas kingdom of Rakshasa who prohibit weapons of all sorts, hence the rebel groups devoted themselves to styles of combat that don't use weapons.

Cool idea, but how do these rebels hide their unarmed combat training from these telepathic shapeshifters? Seems like it'd be close to impossible, particularly since the rakshasa exist there in number.

In my games there are usually no monks for 1 primary reasons:
They do not fit into a semi-hellenistic (spelling?) setting nor into a semi-norse setting. Which are what my two games are most like. I did run a more 'typical' d&d game for a long time however that did allow monks.

Hmmm. Skilled unarmed combatants would fit very well in a setting with a hellenistic flavor, but not as implemented by the core monk.

Actually I'm thinking of running an oriental/kung fu movie game in which everyone is a high level gesalt (it's an Unearthed Arcana variant) monk/anything else. I think it could be cool.

Interesting. Are you thinking of dropping some of the more mystical monk abilities and just using them as a martial arts mixin/template?

Current game we have Oathbound (and so far only one player has shown any interest in them).

Are these the Oathsworn from AU? There's a setting named Oathbound that I'm completely unfamiliar with. Are they in there?

I use oathsworn in my AU rules game, and most of them are human priests of the Dragon-gods, especially the Red Monks of Garyx. Initiate of the Draconic Mysteries is a good PrC for them.

I've just borrowed a copy of Arcana Unearthed to look these oathsworn up. The oathsworn look to be standard monks with alternate flavor text.

In Eberron, they're mostly the Valaes Tairn sword-dancers, goblin ninjae, and religious warriors.

Ninja? I don't see that modelling ninja with monks is a good fit. That would be kind of like using the cleric to play a thief.

I have them set up as warrior-philosophers from a pseudo Greco-Roman culture, recognized as a strict psionic discipline alongside Psions and Psychic Warriors.

Interesting. Have you modified the monk to reflect their more psionic nature?

I also have a pseudo-Greek/Minoan culture ruled by Scorcerer -Kings on their way to becoming Dragon-gods. The whole culture is into Eugenics with everyone trying to improve themselves physically, mentally and spiritually even going so far as Biomancy (ie creating monsters like Owl Bears, Athachs etc). Here the Bull Leapers of Minos have become Monks who hone their bodies, mind and souls to service of the Dragon-Kings. The Bull Leaping is an initial selection rite, the true training happens afterwards perfecting the body and eventually overcoming physical limitations (whereupon they become outsiders and true guardians of the Dragon-gods)

Since there's an entrance requirement, are monks a prestige class in your world? Not a bad idea.

But IMHO the best Monk is a Psychic warrior (or at least a Monk with Psionic feats - they rock!)

I see Psychic Warriors as being more like Jedi than monks.

The monk as written is geared more towards physical perfection than spiritual or mental. I've thought about making variant monks that pursue spiritual or mental perfection by devoting themselves to magical or psionic disciplines

Sam

 

[Samuel Leming]

Actually many of those western monks were accomplished wrestlers.

Um... Are you sure these monks weren't just happy in a fifties sort of way? I've heard that about some of those guys...

The question is not being authentically medieval; the question is whether a class conforms to a fantasy medieval archetype we can situate in our shared mythic past.

Does the monk, as is, fit asian myth any better than the ranger or druid fit western legend?

the Barbarian derives from the Norse berserkers who, again, stretch back through nearly 1000 years of literature and myth.

I don't know about this. The Norse were literate, cultured, and as technologically advanced as the societies they came in contact with. I've always felt the barbarian class was more like the Celtic warriors faced by the Roman legions.

Personally, I'd use a prestige class to model Norse berserkers since they had to prove themselves before earning that title.

The only classes that do not stem from powerful cultural archetypes are the Ranger and the Monk -- the two classes that I think add little or nothing to D&D. (Yes, one could link the Ranger to the Robin Hood archetype but suddenly the two-fisted wildernazi doesn't seem such a good way to model the idea.)

Two weapon ranger == definate D&Dism and the phrase "favored enemy" is one of those moronic oxy thingies, but the game does benefit from having a specialize tracker class.

Now, if I were running a campaign in the Eastern Orthodox world -- one based on the medieval near east, I would be all over the Monk class. In both Islam and Eastern Orthodox Christianity, we have the hermit/athlete of God, the original St. Symeon/St. Anthony model of Christian asceticism before St. Benedict came along. It is from this tradition that the Islamic Sufi/Dervish springs.

Is the D&D monk, with its diamond body, timeless body, empty body, etc really a good model for the athlete of God?

So, because I've never run a campaign based on cultural archetypes from east of the Adriatic, I've never run a game with monks therein.

Yeah, I sort of agree.

The way I put together a D&D campaign is culturely mixed enough that I can fit monks in if I want to. What I object to is the monk being the only source for skilled unarmed combatants. That just doesn't work for me. That and the name. When I picture a monk in my mind it's of the western type not that guy from the "Kung Fu" show, Kwai Lo Kane or whatever his name was.

Sam

 

[Samuel Leming]

Folks, in a thread entitled "Tell Me About Monks in Your World", exactly what kind of contribution do you think is being made by posting that you don't have them in your world? If I ask people to tell me what they think of New York, I'm pretty obviously only looking to hear from people who've been to New York.

Well, I did ask in my original post if they used the monk or not.

WotC's treatment of monks in their published material is pretty odd. They actually equate the eatern martial artist monk with the western mendicant friar monk. So if you go to a church of a lawful god, they typically have a few monks on staff.

IMC, I use a few house rules. First off, monks and paladins don't have the standard multi-classing restriction. It's stupid and pointless and accomplishes nothing and should have been repealed in 3.5e.

Well, I see the point of it, but I'm not sure it warrants the restriction. I'm still thinking about it.

Secondly, monks do not inflict more dice of damage with their unarmed strikes as they gain levels. Instead, at 4th level (when they would receive their first die increase), they can add their Wis modifier (if positive) to their damage with both unarmed strikes and with special monk weapons (even ranged weapons, out to 30 feet).

Interesting. This would make it easier for the fighter to match the monk's unarmed prowess, but I have some concerns about balance.

One of the big advantages to this rule is that it doesn't make using monk weapons a sub-optimal choice. Some monks will prefer unarmed strikes so they can make use of feats like Stunning Fist and the others in Complete Warrior that use it as a prerequisite, but it won't be a hands-down choice.

Monk weapons are weird to begin with, being based on what were used by the Karateka of Okinawa, a group with very little in common with the monk.

No, it is not the same. It's like people posting that they have no opinion on New York, whether or not they've been there. They're posting to say they have nothing to offer. The initial post assumes you use the monk in your world, which subsumes that you do like the monk.

It's me, the original poster, again. I'm not having any trouble with the way the threads going, but I'm new here and haven't had a chance to get tired of thread wierdness yet.

Ki:There are some, scattered cultures with a tradition of cloistered and/or dedicated ecclestiastics. Some of which practice methods of mental, physical, and spiritual perfection. Since life can get hazardous at times, this training includes fighting skills. These are the closest I have to the D&D® Monk.

Did you make any modifications to these monks to more closely represent their pursuit of mental and spiritual perfection?

However, I am starting to work on adapting a point based class variant I picked up off the web to a template system ala GURPS. In this scheme of things a character would have a minimum of two templates, racial and occupational. The standard D&D® template becoming what I'm calling a conditional template. So you would have, for example, a Savage (conditional) Kobold (racial) Druid (occupational) character. But that's for postings in House Rules.

I'd be interested in seeing this. Would you also be able to describe your conditional template as a cultural template? I think I discussed something similar when cultural stereotypes where brought up in a thread on Eddings' trash fantasy books.

They are cloistered orders under the great church.

They are often celibate and spend much of their time in a monastary.

They do not know martial arts...

Think medieval european monks...

Razuur

Yes, a person that want to play a medieval monk should be able to play one and have it called a monk. As I said in my first post, I'm going to call the standard D&D monk something else. Shou Lin is too specific and too asian, I'll call them Ascetics.

Sam

 

[Samuel Leming]

First off, I never really bought into this "European prototype" mentality. RPGs are a big game of what if. It's very easy for me to ask about what a world would be like where a Europe-analog was located somewhat closer to an India-analog, and the early practitioners of unarmed styles went into Europe instead of China. Such an exercise is minor compared to contemplating the impact of magic.

Hmmmm. I'd guess the Europe-analog would develop an unarmed combatant more in line with the modern martial artist than the monk.

On the monks themselves, my view of them is largely influenced by an article in Dragon (Bond of Brotherhood in Dragon #164). The primary point to take home here is that for a functional background for a fantasy monk, they should belong to an order than has a purpose. Ever since then, I have tried to conceive what the purpose of various orders monks belong to whenever they are set to paper. Some are dedicated to defending the royal line, some are dedicated to guarding ancient artifacts, and so forth.

This looks like a good idea.

The 3.x monk is much more dedicated to personal improvement than the AD&D monk. Which comes first, the inner and outer dedications?

I have no problem with the having a "monk" type in my campaigns. My problem is that the monk class as written does not work for me. Therefore, I just rework other classes to get closer to what I want.

Yep

I would guess they think their contribution consists of directly answering a question posed by the individual who started the thread. To whit...

Umm... Yep

At least they actually read the entire post.

Now back to the topic at hand...since my campaign has moved more in the direction of a D20 Modern/Grim Tales ruleset I don't use Monks as written. However my players are welcome to use Feats & Talent Trees to create a pretty good aproximation of the 3.5 Monk....of course they also now have the flexibility to go in a direction that allows them to create unarmed martial artists that better fit other concepts as well.

I've borrowed a copy of D20 Modern, but haven't found Grim Tales yet. If it's as good as y'all say, I'll order it online.

I think there is a middle position between the two that are being articulated and I feel bad for the original poster that the thread is devolving into "should there be monks in your world" instead of "tell me of the monks in your world."

Hi, it's me, the original poster. I'm enjoying the thread as is, but I do appreciate your concern.

GMs should be willing to modify the monk class in order to adapt it to the myth structure of the campaign. So, if you're anywhere west of the South China sea, ditch the shurikens and nunchaku. If you're anywhere west of the Arabian Sea, ditch the unarmed fighting style. If you're anywhere west of the Bosphorus, ditch the whole damned class.

So, to put this into practice, let's imagine modifying the monk class into the athlete of God of Middle Eastern Christianity:
(a) Make the monk a staff-wielder and have the stuff damage progress exactly and unarmed damage does now.
(b) Change the term "ki" to "merits."
(c) Grant wider weapon proficiency to compensate for the loss of special unarmed attacks.

A dervish, similarly, just need to have his ki changed to baraka, a special weapon or class thereof and a feat progression that points more effectively towards Whirlwind attack.

I'm all for the modifiable monk. Their physical discipline is only the tool they use for achieving physical perfection and can be different for the various orders.

I will use this.

3. One might ask: why can't the monk class be modified into the European mendicant friar? My answer is: because the mendicant friar is already modeled in the form of an armourless cleric. The starting point for making a European monk is modifying the cleric class not modifying the monk class. About the only things I can think one would borrow from the monk for such a class are, possibly:
(a) Wisdom bonus to AC
(b) Lack of armour proficiency

I like adding the spontaneous caster option to the cloistered cleric for the European monk. So I guess I'm with you there also.

Sam

 

[Samuel Leming]

It doesn't help that DnD isn't very flexible, and Improved Unarmed Strike sucks Furthermore light fighters (and any unarmored character who wants to melee) get hosed by the rules. A fighter who went unarmored, even if he took a PrC, and only used his unarmed attacks in combat will be much weaker than a typical heavy fighter.

As is, a typical heavy fighter will stomp on the monk also. My goal is to make it possible for an unarmed fighter that dedicates himself to unarmed combat feats to also stomp on a monk.

Most of the character concepts for unarmed combatants I've seen from players just don't fit the monk very well.

We must be free of the tyranny of the monk

The monk is one of the least flexible and least supported classes out there. The lawful requirement is annnoying on it's own; what does being lawful have to do with unarmed combat?

Nothing. Unarmed combat is what the monk does, not what he is. I supose the monk being a member of an ascetic order also has some bearing on their choice of alignments.

Part of the reason is that the monk isn't a martial artist, he's a mystic, with all kinds of semi-random (and often useless) ki abilities; that's why he only gets a 3/4 BAB. However, people who don't like the mystic angle will gravitate towards it anyway, since it's the only way in the core rules to have unarmed attacks that do decent damage. Well, sort of decent damage.

This is the main problem with the monk as is, the tendency to "play it anyway". In an ideal game, the fighter class should be the first kind of character a "martial artist" considers.

The best martial artist class I've ever seen is D20 Modern's Martial Artist advanced class. Grim Tales and Spycraft also have very good methods of dealing with martial artists (neither of them use an advanced class, but both have their foibles as well). I don't believe DnD is capable of handling an unarmored warrior - there's no balanced way of boosting AC at low levels without boosting it at higher levels too (which is the source of some of the balance problems).

Some of the feats I'm creating to improve the fighter's unarmed combat are turning out to be of the unbalanced "must have" variety.

I still think D&D can be modified to better handle unarmed combat though.

You always could bring back the great 2e OA martial arts system or import the Palladium martial arts system. To solve the light fighters getting the crap beaten out of them problem I judst use a class bonus to defense like in the SWRPG.

And now my head is swimming. What are some of the highlights of the 2e OS martial arts system?

Isn't your signature rather short to be using the handle "Warlord"?

I ditched UA strike for the brawling, Combat MA, and defensive MA feat chains as well as Blood and Fist MA styles.

I took a look at d20 Modern earlier today. Their martial arts system isn't quite plug & play with D&D. It's good inspiration though.

If it means much, I also tend to avoid psionics as it comes off too strongly as sci-fi and implied evolution (didn't even really like it in Dark Sun). I'm curious how often the two - dislike of monks and psionics - goes hand in hand. I'd say fairly regularly.

I have my issues with monks, as this thread illustrates, but I like psionics.

Sam

 

[Klaus]

No one commented my post!

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I've just borrowed a copy of Arcana Unearthed to look these oathsworn up. The oathsworn look to be standard monks with alternate flavor text.



Ninja? I don't see that modelling ninja with monks is a good fit. That would be kind of like using the cleric to play a thief.

The ninja-monks are really monk-rogues, but close enough for government work.

Oathsworn are Bloodguard. A whole lot of stuff in AU is inspired heavily by the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant.

 

[Felon]

Well, I see the point of it, but I'm not sure it warrants the restriction. I'm still thinking about it.

IMO, the monk should easily lend itself to multi-classing. If you multi-class with rogue, for instance, you can have a character than sneaks around in black and sneak attacks foes with flurries of poisoned shurikens. Cross a monk with a fighter and you get a tougher character with lots of hit points and an increased focus on martial art training, be it unarmed strikes, monk weapons, or even just the sword (as you point out, historical shao-lin monks did use swords and other non-exotic weapons). And if a player wants one of those flashy monks capable of spectacular energy displays, then a sorcerer-monk can fit that bill.

Interesting. This would make it easier for the fighter to match the monk's unarmed prowess, but I have some concerns about balance.

Well, the benefit to the monk is that he will do more damage at lower levels, where the PHB monk really needs it. At higher levels, his strength is sheer quantity of attacks, not sheer quantity AND ridiculous damage dice. Also, this house rule also allows monks to multi-class more effectively.

 

[xenoflare]

a defence of the monk

Hi,

first off, sorry if i offend anyone with this post.

i've been reading this thread with mixed feelings, as i'm not from a Hellenistic/ "Classically"-influenced cultural background, and i'm far more familiar with monks and the whole "mystic ki" thingajigs than i am with clerics and crusading paladins of the imagined past. As a minor introduction - i'm ethnically Chinese, culturally Southeast Asian, and religiously Buddhist with Taoist overtones - in all these 3 nodes of identity, the monk is a central figure.

I was just having a talk with my Muslim friend/ DM/ fellow player - and having a laugh over the fact that monks are supposed to be this kung fu experts obsessed with seeking perfection and kicking ass. Even though his background doesn't really include monks as a common myth, my friend has some problems imagining the serene men in saffron robes in temples as doing those funky stuff. Me too - i also just came back from work at a buddhist library, where there's a Buddhist version of Sunday School, and Sri Lankan monks teach kids and teenagers meditation and ethics.

i don't exactly see those monks as doing kung fu - in fact, they were asking me questions about how to prepare for the SATs as they wanted to study philosophy in university here in Singapore haha.

but somehow, if we follow the "mythic ideal" discourse - monks jump over clouds, fly around with flurries of superquick strikes, can step between spaces etc.

but - wait up. i do some readings over in some sutras and buddhist tales - and it becomes easier to understand. Monks are different from laypeople in that they have sworn to follow the way of enlightenment to the exclusion of all else - through the path of practising their road to enlightenment, they attain different fruits of merit.

Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, and Taoist tales are replete with tales of saints, sages, ascetics, monks, sorcerors, and priests (and no - those terms are not synonymous - monks are not necessarily ascetics, etc) who have gained great esoteric powers through their spiritual insight. For example, since Deepavali just passed by a while ago - the rakshasa king Ravana sacrified one of his ten heads in ascetic dedication to Rudra-Shiva, destructive lord of the Trinity, and gained great magical power and immunity to the attacks of gods and demons. Lord Vishnu had to incarnate himself into the mortal avatar Rama to defeat him, in order to bypass that magical defence.. and in Taoism, Zhuang Zi speaks of how this man, Lie Zi, who is so enlightened and carefree that he can dance upon the wind, chariot upon the elements, and be content no matter how the wheel of fortune turns.

Central to this idea is that spiritual power can be attained through some way, some means - the Hindu would argue that power is attained through sacrifice and devotion to the Gods, the Taoist, in understanding "nature" (the Tao) and thus transcending power/powerlessness's paradox, the Buddhist, in training the faculties of the mind and reaching enlightenment etc.

But this power is not necessarily the - END - result. Not the objective, if you will.

Buddhist sutras caution of becoming attracted to psionic powers that may develop with meditation - for they may impede one's enlightenment, and provide glitzy funky power that corrupts one's progress. Taoists would scoff at power for power's sake, for that is illusionary order that would degenerate with time's passing.

Power is amoral, in that sense.

And this is what this long-winded message is about, i guess..

The DnD monk is an aberration because he is removed from his cultural roots, so as to speak, and placed within (mostly) contexts that he may never have gone before. His special abilities are very much steeped in those mythologies i've mentioned - "still mind" is a kind of meditation process, ki is very real to Chinese and Japanese, dimension dooring via Abundant Step is like charioting on the universe i guess.

In the imaginations of non-Asian (i hesitate to use the word Oriental, because of my own problems with colonialism and orientalism - being a product of colonial history myself) audiences, the monk, transplanted into your mythic realms, seems to face indifference, hostility, at times. i've seen lots of posts that talk about how the monk doesn't fit, how the monk doesn't suit DnD, about how it must be tweaked..

i agree, because most games are not designed with the hmm. how to say. teleological focus of the monk in mind? DnD, as an erudite earlier poster pointed out - is not based on historical "fact", but based on imaginings.

For most of you, i guess tales of Fa Hai (literally "The Ocean of Law"), the diabolical monk/ exorcist who hunted the hengeyokai Lady White Snake would be unfamiliar. References to Jing Lun Fa Wang, (literally "The Law-King of the Golden Wheel"), the Tibetan monk in Louis Cha's swordfighting wuxia epics would find little resonance. You have your Bunyan, Robin Hood, Atalanta and Meleager, and King Arthur..

(where is this post going? lol. sorry.)

But i think - the two trends are not necessarily exclusive. in my gaming environment, my friends and I draw from the Occidental, if you will forgive my use of the term, tradition to imbue our games with lots of energy and ideas from traditions far from my own. i think... perhaps most of you could draw some ideas from the home cultures of the monk, as "imagined"?

In this age of globalisation and rapidly closing borders - (heck, i'm writing this on a message board in real-time, from singapore, on campus) - let us embrace what we can offer to each other, with open minds?

that's what i think, at least, the "monks in my world", teaching the merits of the mind to the children in the library, would be happy with haha.

avaunt!

Yours Sincerely,
shao

 

[xenoflare]

oops

and there i was, ranting..

Monks in the game world i'm playing in - er, most of the monks so far have been played by me haha in this game.

in the Shou Empire, monks fulfil the role of teachers, peasant heroes usually, for the good guys. Monastaries are built to be schools for children to learn basic reading/ writing, where genealogical records are held and religious ceremonies are held, and where martial arts are taught. As the embodiment of mortal will, monks are the intermediaries with the spirits and outsiders as much as priests are - they represent mortals, and the pinnacle of what mortals can achieve, and hence gain respect from outsiders. In the mortal sphere, monks sally forth to punish corrupt officials and bandit kings in the name of Heaven's Law - they are living embodiments of the Wheel of Karma. Mystic and esoteric knowledge is taught in the inner sanctums of the halls of isolated monasteries, where shamans, psions, and monks debate on theological and philosophical concepts.

for the bad guys, however, monks seem to have found a niche as the "evil assasin" or "funny flunkies en masse" a la Putty Patrol in the Power Rangers. Somehow the idea of a lot of people in funny costumes tumbling and kicking PCs seems to appeal to my DM a lot for flunky combat, and the idea of evil martial artists with immense destructive power at the mere touch of a palm resonates strongly with a lot of badass movies and stories.

Elsewhere, there're martial monks of Heironeous who multiclass with paladin levels, wandering the demon-stricken deserts with longsword and fist scouring the land of filth and woe. There're psychic fists of zuoken guarding the secrets to epic lore and seeking their lost master. There're monk bodyguards of alchemist scholars whose knowledge of arcana, philosophy, and ability to evade explosions make them very helpful assistants in the laboratory.

Just a bit to spice up the board, a little bit about "New York", so as to speak, haha.

Yours Sincerely,
shao