Do we really need Monks?

[Aaron L]

But it isn't indisputable that the monk is culturally out of place. The culture presented in the Handbook is the culture of Greyhawk, in which the monk is well in place.



Additionally, monks fit very well as Greco-Roman style philosophers seeking self perfection in my campaign world without a hint of Asian flavor to be found among them.

 

[Seeten]

Alternately, make every single monk class power a feat, with these pre-reqs: Must be a monk, and then tree em from 1-20 as they stand currently.

Make alternate Monkish feats, and then go 1-20 with a bonus feat or 2 every level, and the ability to tree up all the current feats, or the above stealthy ninja-ish ones, or even go nuts with short sword and all the attack feats. Bonus feats must be selected from the monk list, as the fighter is, but the monk list has all the applicable current monk powers, + all the new ones, which in theory must be equally powerful, but different entirely in flavor.

I actually like this idea.

 

[Mad Mac]

But it isn't indisputable that the monk is culturally out of place. The culture presented in the Handbook is the culture of Greyhawk, in which the monk is well in place

.

This is an important point, and one I meant to get to. While the inspiration for the Monk may have been derived largely from eastern mythology, there is nothing in the core rules to suggest that the monk is intended as an asian class. Which is exactly why calling for the Samurai and Ninja to be included beside the monk is so silly, because the monk is not designated by the default flavor text as an asian class, or even a class from far away lands.

The default campaign setting for core D&D is still Greyhawk, a setting where monks play a prominent role. Every other campaign setting has it's own explanations or interpretations of Monks. Midnight, then, replaces the Monk with the defender, while Eberron presents a variety of Monk orders with different customs, beliefs, and even feats associated with them.

In Eberron, a Monk may be an Aesthetic Warrior Priest, (A real priest, because spell-casting is divorced from ministry in the setting) armed with a longsword. A wild, acrobatic, Valenar swordancer with a double scimitar, a mysterious goblin assassin, a member of a creepy, skin-flaying cult, or a reclusive, psionic, mystic from Sarlona.

If you're playing your own setting, either you work them in and alter them as you see fit, or you house-rule them out, simple as that. I see no reason for so much anguish over a single class.

 

[Doctor Shaft]

You know, Seeten, that is rather clever idea.

Actually, if I recall, somoene had gone somewhat in that direction when modding a CRPG. I know CRPG's aren't exactly what's being talked about around these boards, but that's besides the point.

The mod was supposed to allow players to play with 3.5 D&D rules as opposed to the games 3.0 base. But, the creator took an extra creative step and allowed monk players to select the feats they wanted when they got to level 2, 6, 12, 13. He even accounted for some of the feats that the game simply didn't actually include mechanically, like Tongue of the Sun and the Moon, and Abundant Step, and just kind of said "here, pick a feat that YOU want."

It was a very interesting concept. Of course, since it's a computer game, you can't modify the thing completely willy nilly, so you still had to have the unarmed damage progression, and you still had to have Wholeness of Body, and all the Souls. But it was ten times better with free feat selection.

So you didn't have to have either Deflect Arrows or Combat Reflexes at level 2. Or disarm or knockdown at 6.

 

[BryonD]

Why should our personal experiences match? There are a lot of D&D players out there with a lot of different tastes. The core rules should serve all of us.

They do.

You pointed out your experience and I pointed out mine. I didn't claim they need match.

It is true that the monk is culturally out of place. That's indisputable.

Actually, that has been well and thoroughly disputed throughout this thread.
Do you use the Christian monotheism in your campaigns?
If yes, you have changed the base assumptions in a way that WotC may not reasonably be expected to cater to.
If no, you have already completely overwhelmed any cultural significance in the historic monk.

However, that flaw only matters to a particular subset of players that you are not part of. Similarly, the monk has narrow advancement options and cannot multiclass. That's also indisputable. However, again, that flaw only matters to a particular subset of players that I am not part of.

In my view, classes in the core rules should meet the standards of all of D&D's major constituencies, including mine. For this reason, I think the monk is an inappropriate choice for the core rules without additional Oriental material added to them.

Wow! So you really are saying that unless they cater to you they should take away from me. And that is based on the de-bunked claim that the Monk is exclusively Oriental.

The boundary you posit between mechanics and flavour is not the clear boundary you imagine it to be for people who share my gaming priorities. For instance, D&D uses the European system of elements: Earth/Air/Water/Fire. An Oriental campaign needs to use a five-element system: Earth/Water/Fire/Metal/Wood. Is that mechanics or flavour? Seems to me that in order to maintain a sense of Oriental flavour, mechanics adjustments must be made.

I can't see how I can even begin to accept that. It is all simply a matter of putting your imagination to work.

While for you and your players, these things are "a piece of cake." Many of these things would not work at all amongst the people with whom I game. Your idea of an equivalency between spell books and fetishes/totems is a huge problem. Are you suggesting that a shaman-wizard who lost his equipment would lose the capacity to recall/cast his spells? How would a class like that retain the flavour of a shaman?

If the shaman required a fetish to cast spells and he lost it then he wouldn't be able to cast spells. If (and when) I do shaman who do not require such, then I use sorcerers. Piece of cake.

Actually, it kind of does. Some cultures have big fire evocations in their myths; others do not.

That TOTALLY misses the point. The mechanics do not have any nagtional identity. If the FLAVOR doesn't fit a given idea than don't pick that spell. How hard is that?

I would agree. But the point I was making was not just about the Samurai: my point was: what is a paladin in feudal Japan? A paladin in feudal Japan is about as reasonable as a Monk in feudal Europe.

In a D&D version of fuedal Japan a holy chosen warrior (who may or may not formally be a Samurai) could easily have the powers equivalent to a paladin. You will just need to use some imagination to change the flavor of those abilities so that they fit. I've never seen the need to do so. But I don't see why it could not be done.

I'm wrong about what my friends and I enjoy? Neat. I had no idea you were qualified to determine that.

Misrepresenting what I said doesn't get you anywhere. It just makes you look desparate. You said that the archetypes are to rooted in Europe to model other cultures. That is what I called out as wrong. I did not say a single word about your enjoyment. Claiming that I did is nothing less than dishonest.

The fact that a few cursory name changes are enough to give you and your players a sense of cultural flavour does not mean that these cursory name changes are sufficient for everyone else. I really take exception to your view that non-European cultures can be represented by giving European things different names and leaving it at that. But I'm not going to tell you to play your game differently.

Simply proclaiming the mechanics to be "European things" doesn't make it true.
If you want to try to convince yourself that I can't provide the level of cultural feel that you can then knock yourself out. It doesn't change reality.

As you yourself point out, Oriental Adventures and Nyambe are available resources. And they are there for good reason.

So, the absence of rules for spirit possession in the core doesn't really trouble you? Given that fighting spirits is the main thing, by definition, that a shaman does, I would think someone wanting to represent a shaman would find it problematic that the class they were using didn't interact with spirits at all. I also happen to use the SHB, a book whose purchase I endorse.

Nope, not at all. Not all wizards are clones, nor are all Shaman. Are you now claiming culturals are monolithic?

I think you're unnecessarily distinguishing between these two things.

No, just pointing out that you were.

At what point did you see me denying this? Howard's North Africa and Near East come from European myth. My whole case has been that the core represents the European myth tradition.

It seems to me that you and your players can happily feel that a campaign has a particular cultural flavour as long as the names of things in that culture are affixed to their closest approximation in the core rules. I'm glad you can enjoy the game that way. But many people can't. And that's okay. You can't "prove" to us that we will enjoy playing D&D your way. Most of us have interacted with campaigns like yours at one time or another and not especially enjoyed them.

Again, misrepresenting what I do doesn't have any bearing on reality.
If thats all you got then you don't have much to offer.

It is my view that the core rules should work both for people with your style and people with mine; and they generally do. The Monk, sadly, is a bit of an exception.

And back to the beginning we go.....

 

[kigmatzomat]

Having seen what Klaus did I thought I'd do something similar for a radically different culture.

Native American Spirit Warrior
No particular name given since there's so much variation from tribe to tribe. This is naturally genericized and being a shameless white american I'm going to refer to them as Indians from now on. The spirit warrior is somewhere between shaman and fighter that deals best with the monsters and spirits that can plague a tribe.

Weapon Proficiency: A weapon by any other name... Just change the name and appearance of the monk weapons, and keep them stats. Staff can remain, kama can become tomahawk, etc.
Armour Class Bonus: Hunter's Awareness
Flurry of Blows: Storm of Fists
Unarmed Strike: Remains the same, many Indians wrestled and fought barehanded.
Stunning blow: remains same, some heroes & great hunters were said to fell even the mighty buffalo with a single strike.
Evasion: This can remain the same since they were unarmored and learned to dodge
Fast Movement: Foot races were popular and many indians could run horses into the ground.
Still Mind: Shaman's Shield. The spirit warrior would fight many monsters and spirits that could charm or beguile and resisting that would be paramount.
Ki Strike: Spirit Strike. Not only does it hurt monsters but even spirits and the incorporeal can be injured.
Slow Fall: Many tribes lived in mountainous terrain our would go on quests to the highest trees or mountain tops.
Purity of Body: This is self-explanatory. The warrior becomes immune to the spirits that cause disease.
Wholeness of Body: again, self explanatory. They master the magic required to heal.
Diamond Body: Snake's Gift. Either through great fortitude or a spirit quest to befriend or defeat Snake the warrior becomes immune to all poisons.
Abundant Step: Trickster's Stride. Like Trickster you can pass through solid objects and appear anywhere without warning.
Diamond Soul: Shaman's Bane. Magic may have no affect on you.
Quivering Palm: Count Coup.
Timeless Body: Same as Purity.
Tongue of Sun and Moon: Ancestor's Voice. The warrior's link to his ancestor's gives him the knowledge of all languages.
Empty Body: Spirit Travel. The warrior can enter the spirit realm.
Perfect Self: True Spirit Warrior. The warrior has become part spirt with much of their strengths and weaknesses.

 

[fusangite]

That is simply ridiculous. If one group has a problem with the monk, (or any other class) Wizards must yank it from the core rules? That sounds fair...NOT!

Based on your reading of this thread, what on earth gives you the sense that my opinion about the monk is isolated in my gaming group? If this thread is anything to go by, my problems with the monk are anything but unique. I have just moved cities and met members of three local gaming groups here; in all three cases, the GM does not allow monks.

Obviously, without market research, neither of us can know how large a constituency my group represents but, from my own experience both in meeting other gamers in person and interacting with other gamers online, there seems to be a pretty high level of disapproval for this class's presence in the core rules.

I'm willing to bet that the number of people who like or are at least indifferent to the monk vastly outnumber those who can't imagine playing D&D outside of some home-brewed, Europeon setting that doesn't resemble any published Campaign Setting.

You are free to bet. I would bet the opposite way but that's in part because both of our samples are self-selecting. However, the reason I clipped this part of your response is because of your opinion that Kingdoms of Kalamar, Greyhawk and the like don't have a European flavour. These settings clearly do. If you think a campaign can only have a European flavour if it has a neon sign on the front of its books saying THIS IS EUROPE then I suppose they don't but by any other reasonable standard, they do.

The Monk also fills a niche no other class does, currently.

In part, that's because nowhere outside of East Asia is there any tradition of a type of warrior who is more effective without weapons than with.

It also has a long history with the game, and is really the only "Asian" class that even requires new mechanics to justify. Creating new Samurai, Ninja, Wu-jen, Shaman, ect

How, exactly, can a shaman be created using the core rules?

Overall, I think the Monk(while it can be improved as a class) adds more to the game than it takes away,

If the class were properly supported with sufficient resources in the core rules, I might well agree with you. Remember: my argument is not that the monk should be stricken from the core; my argument is that unless WOTC puts other East Asian things in the core, the monk doesn't belong there.

But it isn't indisputable that the monk is culturally out of place. The culture presented in the Handbook is the culture of Greyhawk, in which the monk is well in place.

Just because the creators of Greyhawk think the monk fits in their setting does not mean it does. It just results in Greyhawk being a flawed setting. The fact is that the monk's prominence is one of the things that makes the setting unattractive because the setting ends up feeling culturally incoherent.

It is true that the monk is culturally out of place. That's indisputable.

Actually, that has been well and thoroughly disputed throughout this thread.

I guess I'm using the term "indisputable" in the wrong way. If I am wearing a green sweater and because you are colour blind you see it as red, I suppose that it is no longer indisputable that my sweater is green. Failing to comprehend my arguments is not the same as effectively disputing them.

Wow! So you really are saying that unless they cater to you they should take away from me. And that is based on the de-bunked claim that the Monk is exclusively Oriental.

Surely if you can turn a sorceror into a shaman without changing a single rule, making an unarmed fighter with fighter and rogue levels should be a piece of cake for you. Better still, why not just rename the fighter "monk"? -- piece of cake!

In response to my statement that the Orient has 5 elements and the Occident has 4 (in the sublunar sphere), and that therefore adapting D&D to an oriental setting should include mechanical modifications to deal with the addition of wood and metal and the deletion of air you state that no mechanical adjustments are required:

I can't see how I can even begin to accept that. It is all simply a matter of putting your imagination to work.

Do you mean here that I should imagine 4=5? What am I supposed to be imagine?

It seems to me that the main way you "use your imagination" is that imagine all non-European cultures in exclusively European terms -- the Conan phenomenon.

If the shaman required a fetish to cast spells and he lost it then he wouldn't be able to cast spells. If (and when) I do shaman who do not require such, then I use sorcerers. Piece of cake.

So it doesn't bother you that making a shaman powerless without fetish objects doesn't really fit with anybody's idea of how shamans work?

In a D&D version of fuedal Japan a holy chosen warrior (who may or may not formally be a Samurai) could easily have the powers equivalent to a paladin.

What a shame that there are no holy warriors in Japanese Buddhism or Shintoism because Japanese culture does not conceive of religious affiliation as exclusive. This is what I'm talking about -- sure, if you make Japanese culture identical to European culture except with everything renamed, you don't have a problem. But then you don't have Japanese culture either.

You will just need to use some imagination to change the flavor of those abilities so that they fit. I've never seen the need to do so. But I don't see why it could not be done.

So, for you, "use your imagination" means "imagine that things that are actually different are really the same." That's one way to use one's imagination but I have to say it's my least favourite way of using mine.

Simply proclaiming the mechanics to be "European things" doesn't make it true.

So far, I've given a lot of examples and if you've read my posts to other threads, you can see that I'm positively dripping with them. Perahps, without citing the monk, you would like to pick something in the mechanics that you think isn't either newly made-up or of European origin, aside from the monk and the dozen or so non-European monsters we have managed to list.

I asked how you have shamans without interaction with spirits. You replied,

Nope, not at all. Not all wizards are clones, nor are all Shaman. Are you now claiming culturals are monolithic?

No. I'm claiming that when a word is used it should mean what it means. A shaman is someone who interacts with spirits by definition in that that is what the word "shaman" means. I realize now that I should have dealt with this more completely when dealing with hong on the question of what "monk" means so I think I'll roll these two together and remind people of the following:

sha·man n. A member of certain tribal societies who acts as a medium between the visible world and an invisible spirit world and who practices magic or sorcery for purposes of healing, divination, and control over natural events.

shaman n : in societies practicing shamanism: one acting as a medium between the visible and spirit worlds; practices sorcery for healing or divination

monk n. A man who is a member of a brotherhood living in a monastery and devoted to a discipline prescribed by his order: a Carthusian monk; a Buddhist monk.

monk n 1: a male religious living in a cloister and devoting himself to contemplation and prayer and work

 

[Mad Mac]

Just because the creators of Greyhawk think the monk fits in their setting does not mean it does. It just results in Greyhawk being a flawed setting. The fact is that the monk's prominence is one of the things that makes the setting unattractive because the setting ends up feeling culturally incoherent.

*Stifles urge to scream*

How familiar are you with Greyhawk? I wouldn't exactly call it a strictly western setting, for starters. FR has an analogue of almost every culture. Eberron avoids copying any culture, and has a number of useful backgrounds for Monks. How many published settings are strictly western?

Which is also besides the point, regardless, because the Monk in the PHB is not presented as the product of an asian culture. If your own hang-ups prevent you from using the Monk in any setting that isn't an exact model of feudal Japan, I can't help you. But that's an absurdly flimsy pretext for trying to remove the Monk from the core rules of the game.

 

[fusangite]

Which is also besides the point, regardless, because the Monk in the PHB is not presented as the product of an asian culture.

So, no other class has proficiency with the following East Asian weapons: Kama, Nunchaku, Sai, Siangham and Shuriken. The monk, on the other hand, lacks proficiency with every specifically European weapon. No other class uses a magical power called ki and yet the monk's magical powers come from ki. Is it just a coincidence that all of the words I have just used to describe the monk are in an Asian language and that these Asian things are not used by any other character class?

 

[Ranger REG]

If you guys don't like monk class in the D&D core ruleset, fine. I'll just stop playing D&D.