Do we really need Monks?

[martynq]

Dear All,

Hope this isn't viewed as terribly rude of me, but I really don't see what a campaign would need monks. They don't really seem to fit with my view of fantasy (my view being based in the books of Tolkien, etc.). I'm quite happy for them to occur in an Oriental setting, but for a typical fantasy setting I am sorely tempted to get rid of them as an option.

What do others think? Am I missing something? Has anybody run a campaign (3e) without monks as a permitted option?

Martyn

 

[TheEvil]

What about the people who dip? What are they supposed to do?
Show me another class which will give you +3 on all saves, virtual improved unarmed strike, two bonus feats and evasion in the first two levels!
Think of the poor dippers!

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

No, we do not need them. But some people really like them, and they do not adversely affect the campaign (anymore).

I have played in campaigns where they were not played, either by player choice or DM fiat, and there were no bad side effects.

My personal opinion is that the 3.0 Monk class was severely sucky enough at low levels to create "can't pull his own weight" issues. The 3.5 Monk is fine.

Flavorwise, I mostly agree. It does not bother me to have Monks around. But now that we have some decently designed psionic classes the niche of mystical warrior is adequately fufilled without them.

 

[drunkmoogle]

Well, we need monks because the demand for a martial arts type character is high enough. And an unarmored class that doesn't rely on spells. That is why they're in the core books.

But since this is posted in the Rules forum... [points to TheEvil's post]

If you get rid of them, odds are no one will really notice. I'd much rather have a bard in the group.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

For some reason the default monk is an asian stereotype (right down to the name, which suggests Shaolin monks). I think it would have been better named "pugilist" or something like that, and just been a generic "I beat people up" class. This is, however, easily accomplished. You could have an Irish tape-knuckle boxer, a savat fighter, or just a big thuggy bruiser, all based on the same set of class abilities. The major difference is the special effects of the fighting style. Of course, some of the abilities (slow fall, empty body, tongue of the sun and moon, etc.) are genre-specific. But these could be replaced with some more generic abilities or just more bonus feats.

I don't see any reason to drop the monk just because it doesn't fit with Tolkeinesque fantasy. But it should be a more genre-independent class. Of course, the cleric, wizard, sorcerer, barbarian, and bard also don't really fit with the Tolkein genre either. It's basically all fighters, rangers, and rogues in Tolkien, and the Wizards are demigods rather than spellcasters. Perhaps you should be playing Grim Tales?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I find that getting the notion that "martial arts" are a necessarily Oriental thing out of your head tends to make accepting monks in a campaign much, much easier.

After all, why is it that only someone born in an Asiatic culture can learn to hit things real hard?

 

[beeber]

it doesn't really fit in with the rest of western-stereotyped fantasy and should be removed from the core books. in an asian/eastern fantasy core book, yes. even if you just renamed it the "brawler" class or whatever, it would require a big rewrite to fit. i haven't removed it from my homebrew but then again no one has asked to play one, so it hasn't been an issue.

 

[Klaus]

For those who claim monks are "too Oriental" or "have no place in a straight fantasy", I wrote this article: http://www.fierydragon.com/DB/DB_OCT27_2004.htm

Just a little fluff here, a little crunch there and presto!, a role for monks!

 

[micromaximum]

I don't think there's a problem with removing monks from your game. It's not going to affect balance. However, there are quite a few things included in the core rules that don't exactly fit the mold of popular western fantasy or at least western european themed fantasy. Flying carpets, mummies, dinosaurs, and a plethora of monsters created solely for D&D are just a few things I can think of. Of course, removing those sorts of things from the core rules wouldn't affect balance either but that doesn't necessarily mean the core rules would be better off if they were removed. Then there are things like the consistent use of widely available healing magic that don't fit the mold that would affect the way the game is played if removed. The monks don't seem as out of place when you consider the entire core rules as a whole.

 

[taliesin15]

maybe an Irish brawler might be interesting but then again there's those Unarmed Strike feats, right?

IMC (3.0) the only Monks (i.e.no PCs) are Gold and Silver Dragons polymorphed into human form, while there are some Blue and Red Dragons who polymorph into humans but are essentially Sorcerors.

IMHO, the Monks and many other new classes seem awfully extraneous considering anyone can trick out the four basic classes with any number of skills and feats...it seems to me to reflect an awful lack of imagination of players, who seem to me aren't all that interested in role-playing, more interested in buy the D&D equivalent of tricked-out hubcaps for their characters--sure, it makes it fun, but as someone who has played these kinds of games for almost 30 years off and on, I should attest that the more I put into a game personally the more I get out of it