Monk or Assassin, Which do you Dislike?

[steeldragons]

"Some Guy" happened to be Gary Gygax.

It was in response to the popular David Carradine show "Kung Fu" that was going on in the 70s.

To show that, even then, catering to the popular culture was an element/asset to D&D play/development.

"Soulblade"? Please, anyone see the 90's iteration of the X-Men's character Psylocke? Before that, the relatively passive telepath.

"Shadow-dancers...or -casters" or whatever its called rising out of numerous DC and/or Marvel heroes.

The sudden rise/introduction of "Assassin" as a preferable character class due to the immense success of "Assassin's Creed" video game.

Vampires and vampire hunter PCs rising out of "Van Helsing" (the film) and "Buffy" (the tv series moreso than the film).

"Half-demon" and/or "redeemed demon/vampire" archetype arose from Angel the tv series.

The need for Lycanthropic AND vampire PCs resulting, somewhat immediately, after the Underworld films...and continues today via Twilight and True Blood.

D&D draws it's "classes" nowadays (and by "nowadays", I mean the last 10 years or more), no less so than the original introduction of "Monk", from popular culture moreso than fictional/traditional mythic "archetype".

And I am sorry about that.

The days of "A Barbarian being Conan-esque" or a wizard/magic-user being a "Merlin-esque" archetype are far behind us.

Does that make it ok? Not necessarily in my book. But it makes it understandable....Assassin, Monk, half-vampire, non-blood thirsty werewolf...what have you.

As for the asked about archetypes/classes. Everyone's said it. Monk didn't mesh well with the originally presented classes. Assassin is an unnecessary distinction from "thief/rogue".

Have fun and happy gaming, no matter what classes you include.
--SD

 

[the Jester]

To show that, even then, catering to the popular culture was an element/asset to D&D play/development.

I mostly agree with your assessment- especially Psylocke as an extremely obvious origin point for the soulblade- but I have to quibble:

The sudden rise/introduction of "Assassin" as a preferable character class due to the immense success of "Assassin's Creed" video game.

IME the height of assassin popularity was in the 1e days.

Personally, I like both the monk and the assassin, but understand the dislike of either or both that many feel.

 

[steeldragons]

IME the height of assassin popularity was in the 1e days.

Personally, I like both the monk and the assassin, but understand the dislike of either or both that many feel.

Oh. I know that the assassin was a "core" class of 1e. But I wouldn't/couldn't say, from my gaming experience, that the "height of its popularity" was in the 1e days.

I never had a player or was in a group (I DMed and played back then) that had an Assassin PC.

It seems, with the introduction of the 4e (or is it Essentials?) Assassin class, they are much more popular now...I think/it seems to me.

I really can't speak to how assassins, if any, worked or were popular in the 3.x days.

And I attribute that [the current "buzz"] to Assassin's Creed, first and foremost. If you ask me, it's just a white-cloaked version of Batman, anyway...Which works (if you take away Batman's code against actively killing) just as well. And who doesn't want to play "Batman"?

With deference and appreciation to Jester (I love his stuff!)
--SD

 

[1Mac]

There's certainly room for a Western-style unarmed brawler class in 3e/PF, but the Monk isn't it. It's got too many supernatural powers and Eastern-themed mojo to convincingly occupy that niche. Fezzik the Giant doesn't know Quivering Palm!

 

[Wiseblood]

I dislike both. Not very much, mind you, but dislike is the word for it. An assassin is a murderer for hire. The whole skulking in the shadows thing is covered by the rogue. It's class redundancy.

The monk is class redundancy again. It is a poor substitute for one of the four but with cheesy bits of flair. They are a vehicle for nonsensical mechanics. Monks stepped from the pages of a low powered supers game. It does not deserve it's own class. Heroic martial artists don't punch monsters unless they're all out of weapons or they have magic punches in which case spell caster works better.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

"These monks (so called because they adhere to ancient philosophies and strict martial disciplines) elevate their bodies to become weapons of war, from battle-minded ascetics to self-taught brawlers."

The flavor of self-taught brawlers doesn't match. You don't become immune to poison and gain spell resistance by learning streetfighting.

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

The flavor of self-taught brawlers doesn't match. You don't become immune to poison and gain spell resistance by learning streetfighting.

And you do by learning kung fu? My entire gaming group, except for me, is made up of people are students of or student instructors of kung fu, and I have yet to see one of them be immune to diseases or poison. Maybe I'm hanging out with the wrong people or something.

I guess for me, when things like spells and magic weapons and extraordinary and supernatural powers and things like that are involved, pigeonholing a particular class to one particular flavor doesn't make any sense. I have absolutely zero problem not playing an Eastern martial artist when I play my Monk because that's not the style I wanted him to be when I created him. We play with only the Core Rulebook, so I haven't taken any of the forms or stances or whatever else nonsense there is. He's good at grappling, tripping, and punching people in the face, which is exactly what I wanted him to do. If he happens to be able to standing long jump 50 ft. and slide down the side of a building for 40 ft. before taking damage, great. That means I don't have to worry about taking the stairs before punching someone in the head.

 

[aj3ai]

I'm probably biased because I have no love for eastern mythos or styling generally, but I generally can't stand seeing a player roll up a Monk for one of my games. In my opinion it takes a very skilled player to make a Monk fit snugly with the decidedly western (and near-eastern) cultural backdrop of Faerun (which is the setting I run usually).

 

[gamerprinter]

The flavor of self-taught brawlers doesn't match. You don't become immune to poison and gain spell resistance by learning streetfighting.

No, you use the Monk as template and build an archetype for brawler that has no immune to poison, etc, rather replace with appropriate class features - and is rather simple to do. Of course that only works in Pathfinder.

 

[gamerprinter]

I'm probably biased because I have no love for eastern mythos or styling generally, but I generally can't stand seeing a player roll up a Monk for one of my games. In my opinion it takes a very skilled player to make a Monk fit snugly with the decidedly western (and near-eastern) cultural backdrop of Faerun (which is the setting I run usually).

Its a very simple thing to add a 'China Town' to Waterdeep - I did in our old campaign. It worked well for introducing eastern styled classes such monk, ninja, samurai without getting weird.