Do we really need Monks?

[Samuel Leming]

Is EN World always this dog-slow in the morning? I'm getting tired of being locked out for ten or twenty minutes a time.

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.

It's unfortunate for the rest of us. As this thread shows, it's hindering us in playing the characterw we want.

Without the 'frill' what gives the monk its monkiness?

Sam

 

[fusangite]

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.

I must agree here. Druids, paladins, even bards have as much cultural baggage as the monk class. The difference is that their cultural baggage is supported in the core rules because they all reference a shared European mythic past based on how people in the later Middle Ages conceived of the early Middle Ages. It is this mythic past constructed by people like Geoffery of Monmouth, Chretien of Troyes, Thomas Mallory, etc. that D&D generally represents. Granted, some classes like the Rogue don't especially draw from this mythic past but, unlike the monk, they don't draw from some incompatible mythic past.

 

[hong]

I must agree here. Druids, paladins, even bards have as much cultural baggage as the monk class. The difference is that their cultural baggage is supported in the core rules because they all reference a shared European mythic past based on how people in the later Middle Ages conceived of the early Middle Ages. It is this mythic past constructed by people like Geoffery of Monmouth, Chretien of Troyes, Thomas Mallory, etc. that D&D generally represents.

Geoffrey of Monmouth believed that druids could turn into fire elementals?

 

[fusangite]

Geoffrey of Monmouth believed that druids could turn into fire elementals?

Of course not. You might want to brush up on what "generally represents" usually means in a context like this, compared to, say, "specifically represents."

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Is EN World always this dog-slow in the morning? I'm getting tired of being locked out for ten or twenty minutes a time.

It happens when three people post at the same time

It's unfortunate for the rest of us. As this thread shows, it's hindering us in playing the characterw we want.

Without the 'frill' what gives the monk its monkiness?

Sam

Nothing. It wouldn't be a monk, it would be a martial artist. It would be up to the player (or DM) to turn the character into a monk if they so choose. There could even be a raft of ki feats if the player chooses to use them.

 

[hong]

It's unfortunate for the rest of us. As this thread shows, it's hindering us in playing the characterw we want.

http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/martialartist.htm

Without the 'frill' what gives the monk its monkiness?

Anything you want. Monkiness is a state of mind. There is a certain "default" state of mind as represented in the PHB flavour text, but just as not every sorcerer is descended from dragons, not every monk has to be a wandering ascetic searching for perfection.

 

[hong]

Of course not. You might want to brush up on what "generally represents" usually means in a context like this, compared to, say, "specifically represents."

D00d, you're babbling. Take away the specifics, and the monk is simply an unarmed combatant with a bunch of super powers. It may have a bunch of flavour text dealing with ki and oddball names for its powers, but hey, if "a thousand faces" doesn't bother you when it comes to the druid, I'm sure it won't bother you when it comes to the monk. The class is no more (or less) out of place in the D&D context than a druid, drow, beholder, or any other of a ton of other D&Disms.

Now why don't you start talking about D&D, and stop talking about some strange pseudo-medieval-European game that you've cooked up in your mind? The only thing authentically medieval European about D&D is that they all speak English.


Hong "and they pronounce it funny" Ooi

 

[Samuel Leming]

Nothing. It wouldn't be a monk, it would be a martial artist.

That's what I was saying in my response about the Defender.

It would be up to the player (or DM) to turn the character into a monk if they so choose. There could even be a raft of ki feats if the player chooses to use them.

This is why I favor opening up unarmed combat for the other classes, particularly the fighter, by adding new feats.

I'll be using a set of 'mystic' classes for various kinds of monks.

Now I'm just repeating myself.


This should be my 100th post! Look out Crothian, I'm catching up with you...

Sam

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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

It does, however, satisfy people who want a martial artist, and not a monk. Err... I think you think agreed with this statement already

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

That's not going to happen. WotC doesn't do unarmed combat feats or make light fighters viable. Any time they do, it's always a new prestige class, never a feat. Someone else is going to have to do it, and make it widely available.

 

[Samuel Leming]

http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/martialartist.htm

This is better than most attempts I've seen. It also looks to be contrary to your initial response to my post. Your martial artist is just as unmonky as the Defender. Better balanced though.

Why didn't you list weapon specialization as a martial arts feat or allow it in the general list?

I think I can make the fighter class work for unarmed combat though. If I can't, then I'll take a similar approach.

D00d, you're babbling.

Tell him to stop! That's my job.

Sam