Do we really need Monks?

[Doctor Shaft]

Unarmed combatants can be traced back to any culture. The problem with the monk is their abilities which pigeon hole them into one particular breed of unarmed combatant.

Hm. You know, I had always had this thought in the back of my mind, but never considered it as one of the reasons people may not like it so much. I will agree that the current monk is a very "specific" class, and to go on what someone has said, it's very non-generic.

I enjoy many of the basic features of the monk, like the save progressions... but in the end, it's combat options, and what feats you can take really can be stifling.

I guess that idea would be more to just create a "martial artist" or "unarmed combatant" basic class, and then introduce 10 level or 5 level prestige classes that offer different themese. So the basic guy would be a non-descript unarmed fighter, and prestige classes would then build on the theme. Like a pugilist, a street thug, a tricker rogue/assassin type, or the the skillful monk itself.

 

[JVisgaitis]

Classes have vibes? If D&D co-creator Gygax and Arneson (as well as Kuntz) can integrate monk into their own "classic" campaigns long before 2e and 3e, I'm sure anyone else can.

They don't have vibes, but the monk is the only class that comes complete with excess baggage and needing a niche in a campaign background to fit into. Granted they don't need to be from the far east, but working them in as is with their core abilities is difficult in some settings. The fact that so many of us are having this discussion is evidence of that. If you don't have those problems that's great, but some people feel there is just something missing the target with the monk and I am one of those people.

IMO there needs to be a more generic unarmed fighter that people can use to customize into the type of combatant they want. If you want crazy ki powers, diamond soul, timeless body, perfect self, etc. then take it as a Shaolin Warrior prestige class. Monks seem far too specific to be a base class as is, and there are a lot of prestige classes out there that are less focused then the current Monk is.

 

[ForceUser]

This is a general response to all posters who've delcared that "monks don't fit," and not a specific rebuttal against the following quote.

They don't have vibes, but the monk is the only class that comes complete with excess baggage and needing a niche in a campaign background to fit into. Granted they don't need to be from the far east, but working them in as is with their core abilities is difficult in some settings.

Perhaps this is true if your campaign is Euro-centric. I hate to break it to you, but D&D RAW is not necessarily European. It draws heavily on those elements, sure, but if you look at the three supported settings - Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and Greyhawk - none of them conform to a strictly European style. Instead, they homogenize many different cultural fantasies into a patchwork whole. So for RAW, monks fit just fine. Obviously a lot of you out there are stuck in the Tolkien rut, and in such a setting I agree it's hard to rationalize a monk. There's no wrong way to play the game, if that's how you like your fantasy, fine, whatever. But it's egotistical to unilaterally declare that monks have no place in D&D just because they have no place in your D&D. I like monks, I find them to be superb at their role (caster-killers), and they have a place in my world.

 

[wingsandsword]

Monks are no more specific in terms of powers and cultural baggage than Druids, and I never see people wanting Druids taken out of the core. In fact, Monks are actually less culturally specific, because the physically adept holy man is found in lore by various names from everywhere from India to Japan for well over a thousand years, while the Druid was unique to western Europe in and were generally extinct by Christian times, and completely out of the picture by the middle ages.

 

[Klaus]

Some may have missed, but in the Fiery Dragon setting there is a monastic order called the Brotherhood of Form. They have a mindset very much like the architects of medieval and gothic churches, i.e. a building (specially a church) is a parallell to the human body, itself a living temple shaped by God.

So they engage in physical activity, rebuilding and restoring temples and churches (and converting other buildings to temples of their order), seeing the flow of the architecture as a symbol of the flow of divine breath within the human(oid) body. As both a cause and a result of this, their own bodies are shaped to resemble the divine perfection they see in them (outsider type at level 20th).

Ryan Nock, aka RangerWickett, wrote a Prestige Class for the Brotherhood of Form Idealist, who sees the making and undoing of objects as a means of self-perfection, in Counter Collection 2.

 

[Tonguez]

In one setting (actually generated by EnWorld) the Monk class was envisaged as the elite body guard of the Dragon-Kings of Ausel, mighty scrocerers on their way to becoming Dragon-gods. The whole culture was focussed on gaining perfection - some physically and others mentally and in the case of Monks both. Bull jumping was practiced by young athletes the best of whom became monks (others dextrous rogues and/or fighters). Monks - the Elite Dragon Guard - who would eventually become the immortal defenders of the Dragon-Kings (their very own flesh-made-gods)

 

[Samuel Leming]

Eberron, Midnight, and Scarred Lands all did a good job including monks, IMO. (Midnight calls them Defenders, of course) and FR and Dragonlance do not. I wouldnt force a monk into the settings they dont work well in, but in FR a monk from Kara-Tur accidentally teleported to the characters location or whatever else you contrive may work even then. YMMV IYC IMC THC ETC and such.

I don't think Midnight's Defenders are monks. They use the fighter's BAB progression rather than the cleric's. Only their ref save is good rather than all three. The Defender gets a wide range of options for their special abilities rather than a set path and all the options are combat rather than mystical.

The Defender is not a monk. Unarmed combat is NOT what makes the monk a monk.

Sam

 

[hong]

The Defender is not a monk. Unarmed combat is NOT what makes the monk a monk.

Could have fooled me.

For very many people, unarmed combat IS what makes the monk a monk. The mystical mumbo-jumbo is just a frill. This is reinforced by how monks are lumped in with fighters in terms of splatbook treatment, and how monk PrCs tend to advance damage dice, flurrying and AC bonus.

 

[Samuel Leming]

I was worried that nobody was understanding the point I was trying to make.

That said, I find the monk to be a rather specific class. I would like the capability to create martial artists that aren't mystical in nature, and the monk is too specific a tool for that job, and makes a poor core class because of it (IMADO, I feel that a good core class is very general in nature.)

Psion gets it.

If possible, there may be a "blackguard" version of the monk, though we have not yet seen it. There may be more combat-oriented feats that focuses on unarmed combat (as well as swordfighting, axefighting, archery, polefighting, etc.) but we have not yet seen much of them (at least for the the feat-dependent fighter class).

Exactly. Let fighters take feats to improve their unarmed combat.

I don't think its so much of an aversion to monks as it is to the abilities that they have. Unarmed combatants can be traced back to any culture. The problem with the monk is their abilities which pigeon hole them into one particular breed of unarmed combatant.

To me, the monk is like playing a fighter with all of my feats already picked out. I'd prefer to customize them my own way just like I can a fighter. I think this theory holds considerable weight since so many other companies have attempted to introduce monk fighting styles, but the problem with that is those usually spend your feat choices further limiting options.

JVisgaitis gets it, but disagrees with me. I can't win them all.

We're working on a new base class to address these issues, but it has been a tough egg to crack. In the end I want the same class able to create Jackie Chan, Mike Tyson, Bruce Lee, the current Monk as is, or a Wrestler focused on grappling attacks. Possible? I think so, but it isn't easy.

Wouldn't this class have to have variable BAB, HD & saving throw progressions based upon what was being modelled? Why would Mike Tyson and the wrestler be good at all three saves? Why wouldn't Bruce Lee & Jackie Chan get the fighter's bab progression?

It may help to look at it this way. You don't have separate classes for using swords, maces or bows, so why have a separate class just to get effective unarmed combat? An unarmed combatant isn't really anymore of an archetype than a swordsman or a bowman. I think creating new feats so the fighter and any other class can gain these abilities if the player wants them bad enough would be a more productive route.

Here's the way I see your example list:

• Jackie Chan == Swashbucker class with unarmed combat feats and good ref save rather than fort.
• Mike Tyson == NPC Warrior class with really high stats(D&D already handles this guy).
• Bruce Lee == Fighter class with lots of unarmed combat feats.
• Monk as is == Monk as is.
• Wrestler == Fighter with unarmed combat and grappling feats.

The monk is the odd one out due to it's mystical abilities.

I envision monks that follow different paths from the standard core monk. Disciplines based on weapons work or even athletics rather than unarmed combat. I'll even include mystic monks that follow divine, arcane or psionic disciplines rather than the physical on their quest for perfection.

IMO there needs to be a more generic unarmed fighter that people can use to customize into the type of combatant they want. If you want crazy ki powers, diamond soul, timeless body, perfect self, etc. then take it as a Shaolin Warrior prestige class. Monks seem far too specific to be a base class as is, and there are a lot of prestige classes out there that are less focused then the current Monk is.

Part of the background history of the monk class is that many of them are bastards and orphans left on the monastery steps. Starting out in the class is part of the monk's base archetype.

Sam

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Monks are no more specific in terms of powers and cultural baggage than Druids, and I never see people wanting Druids taken out of the core. In fact, Monks are actually less culturally specific, because the physically adept holy man is found in lore by various names from everywhere from India to Japan for well over a thousand years, while the Druid was unique to western Europe in and were generally extinct by Christian times, and completely out of the picture by the middle ages.

Fewer people know about real druids than about real monks, so there's a smaller flavor base to upset. The druids existed in their heyday a long time ago, while you can read books about Japanese monks and samurai written from the 1100s to beyond the 1600s. While I've read a few samurai stories (never seen any of the movies, though) I've yet to see a book, comic, movie, show or any kind of media about druids, bards or Indian holy men other than some vague historical work and DnD.

Even so, people did complain about the flavor of the 2e druid. Anyone remember the stupidity of 2e's neutral alignment? Even in 3.0, people complained until WotC fixed the weapon oath rules.

Druids have spells. While their spell list is pretty small, it does mean any two druids could use different spellcasting combinations. Druids have a good "replay" value.

Druids aren't designed as front-line fighters, but they can do it - indeed, while their wildshape can make a druid really good at front-lining anyway, they get special attacks (pounce! trip! etc) and high ability scores contribute to a front-liner who doesn't ... suck.

Monk players often try to be front-line fighters because they really want to play a martial artist, and there's no way to play one in DnD, only to find that they can't hit anything (low BAB, low if any enhancement bonus, and spread out stats).

Plus, greater magic fang (the 3.5 version) can enhance all of a druid's natural attacks at +1, or several at +x, whichever you choose. If you were to cast this spell on a monk, you would need to cast it once for his forehead, once for each knee, each elbow, each hand, each foot... Druids have the means to enhance their own combat ability without resorting to an overpriced magic item* and don't need another party member's help to do this, and the flavor is accurate too (since most animals don't have an unlimited number of natural attack areas, unlike a monk).

* Not only is the amulet of mighty fists overpriced (it is for monks, it's practically broken in the "hands" of a thri-kreen), but it takes up the same slot your periapt of Wisdom takes up.

Similar items include the bracers of striking, which turn your hands (and only your hands) into magic weapons. Uh huh. Right. Your monk is a boxer, or he shouldn't be using this item.

There was a necklace of something or other which was pretty balanced for thri-kreen It enhances a certain number of natural weapons, based on it's price. How many natural weapons does a monk have again?

The only successful ways I have seen of doing this in 3.5 or a similar high-magic setting is either to use the Hands as Weapons* feat from AU (be prepared for your oathsworn to sit for months as his body gets enhanced) or perhaps a better ki strike (one that lasts a shorter period of time but gives an actual enhancement bonus to attack and damage). Alas, the latter contributes to magic bloat. WotC has done neither.

* It should be called "Body as Weapon".

Monks do too much unarmed damage. I can hear the hissing already. If you compare the damage a high-level monk does to a high-level fighter, the fighter does more, but I have a reason for saying this. Their unarmed base damage is too high. It's difficult for WotC to balance this. If they make a decent amulet of mighty fists it will simply push monk damage so high it's not balanced. (Instead of 2d10 + Strength it's not 2d10 + 1d6 fire + 5 enhancement plus Strength...) IMO their base damage should be cut, to a max of 1d10 damage, and then given an actual enhancement bonus to attack as well as damage roles, in a manner which is balanced, cost-effective, flavorful, and doesn't take away from any other essential magic items.

Monks are meditative and lawful! As I said before, the monks have stolen the unarmed combat niche. Since WotC hasn't done unarmed combat very well (unlike D20 Modern) it's next to impossible for another class to take the role, or for a new class to take the role. A lot of people don't like this aspect of the monk.

To build on this meditative aspect, monks get really good saves and a bunch of magic-bloat and/or nearly useless abilities which people didn't ask for. Yes, I can definitely see the value of hardly ever failing saving throws, and having my worst save (probably Fortitude) being protected since I'm immune to poison and stuff like that, and SR on top of that, plus the ability to dimension door and run three times faster than most of the other party members but I didn't ask for it. The abilities are simply spoon-fed to the player of the monk.

In D20 Modern there's a wonderful feat called Combat Martial Arts. It's a bit stronger than Improved Unarmed Strike - it does 1d4 base lethal damage, does not draw AoOs and lets you threaten an area. It has a BAB pre-requisite of +1 and no Dex pre-requisite. Not that powerful, being literally weaker than a dagger. Yet I find it being used all the time (including by myself when I'm running a Modern game).

Part of the secret is that "light fighters" in D20 Modern aren't weak. Your class bonus to Defense lets you survive without using armor. The Melee Smash talent (any light fighter will probably take levels of Fast and Strong) really shores up the damage inflicted. Finally, in most D20 Modern campaigns you can't walk down the street with a greatsword without being arrested

To help with the low damage, D20 Modern has the Martial Artist advanced class. The best way to take it (not the fastest, but the best) is to take a combo of 4 levels divided among Fast and Strong. This will easily net you all the pre-requisites for the class. The class itself gives you a full BAB, the best class Defense bonus for an advanced class, a reasonable damage progression, has no lawful pre-requisite, has not even a scrap of magic, and doesn't even have Concentration as a class skill! For a BAB loss of a measly one point (rather than, say, 5 points) you get a character you can build yourself. You can even take Archaic Weapons Proficiency (basically making you proficient with all martial weapons for only one feat) if you choose. (A lot of those movie martial artists will use swords and spears, too, and real-life martial arts monks often did this as well.)

Of course, it only works because you're not supposed to use FX. There's no magic weapons to make the Strong/Tough Hero flat-out better than you. That guy also had to pay feats for his armor proficiencies, too.

The Game Mechanics (a company owned by some of the people who wrote D20 Modern) expanded on this just a little. They have a feat called Martial Arts Weapons Proficiency which makes you proficient with three weapons from a list (basically the monk weapons, with a few additions and subtractions). Take it twice, and you're a ninja

They also have a prestige class based on the Martial Artist which has some limited FX-like abilities, but you don't have to take it, and of course it's not stronger than the Martial Artist, just different.

Monks are really weak at low level, and it's asking a bit much for the 1st-level wizard with only 2 or 3 spell slots to cast mage armor on you. Until Eberron came out, I never saw a 1st-level monk who didn't plain suck. With Eberron, there's a Mark of the Sentinel dragonmark that lets you cast mage armor on yourself 1/day, which is pretty good at low-level. Of course, it means you must be a member of House Deneith, or you're going to be quite weak.