Do we really need Monks?

[Tellerve]

http://www.tibetankungfu.com/pankration.htm

'nuff said...

Tellerve

 

[Terath Ninir]

The reason everyone thinks Oriental when they look at monks is because it *is* Oriental. Westerners are mostly interested in martial arts to be able to kick someone's behind all over the place. A Western-based martial art would focus only on the physical martial arts (a hard style) and ignore the mystical side.

Personally, I'd much rather have a class oriented strictly to butt-kicking that has few (if any) mystic abilities. It'd be a lot less attractive to cherry pickers, but it would be useful for a lot more character concepts.

 

[Spatula]

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.).

In that case you need to get rid of a lot more than just monks. Clerics, for example, are hardly Tolkien-ish.

Do we really need monks? No. But... do we need sorcerers? No. Do we really need rangers, barbarbians, bards, or druids? Not at all. But they are nice options to have.

For one example of non-Asian fantasy unarmed warriors, see the Bloodguard in the Thomas Covenant books.

 

[Pozatronic]

For one example of non-Asian fantasy unarmed warriors, see the Bloodguard in the Thomas Covenant books.

They inspired the Oathsworn Class from Monte Cooks Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, and they make a pretty good monk replacement.

I have two homebrew worlds....one is heavily inspired from medieval europe (surprise) and the monk class is not an option. The other world is a "everything plus the kitchen sink" type of world, which includes the oathsworn as an option, but no monks.

Just my two copper pieces.

 

[dcollins]

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.

No, it's not needed, but players have desired it ever since it first introduced. The history of D&D has gone back-and-forth about having monks in the core rules, but every time they're left out, it feels like a loss and players demand bringing them back.

- In AD&D 1st Ed. PHB (~1980), monks were listed last, not associated with any primary class, and insinuated that they might be optional.
- Later, in the 1st Ed. Oriental Adventures (1985), Gygax wrote in the preface (p. 3) that he would prefer to not have the monk in core AD&D, and he hoped that it would henceforth only be used in oriental settings.
- AD&D 2nd Ed. (~1990) removed them from the core rules.
- And then they came back in some 2nd Ed. supplement book (~1995, probably in the cleric class kit book).

So removal has been tried before, and it didn't stick.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Personally, I'd much rather have a class oriented strictly to butt-kicking that has few (if any) mystic abilities. It'd be a lot less attractive to cherry pickers, but it would be useful for a lot more character concepts.

Good point.

More generally speaking, we could use a customizable class that makes focusing on buttkicking with a mechanically suboptimal weapon to be viable for PCs.

Monks do so for the fist (unarmed) in its odd Kwai Chang Kane way. How about the whip? Staff? Spear? Frying pan?

 

[Darkness]

Dear All,

Hope this isn't viewed as terribly rude of me

Nah, I'm sure you simply made an honest mistake.

Wait - you were talking about starting this thread in the wrong forum (Rules), weren't you?

 

[ForceUser]

Monks are cool and are no more necessary than any class that is not one of the core four (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard). But players like variety, be it achieved through feats, prestige classes, or altnernate base classes, and monk is therefore simply another option. Monks have it rough at lower levels, being highly stat-dependent, but at higher-levels they are scary caster-killers (high touch ACs, rocking saving throws, spell resistance, high mobility, stunning attacks which force Fortitude saves, etc.), so I'd argue that they have their niche in the standard campaign.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Good point.

More generally speaking, we could use a customizable class that makes focusing on buttkicking with a mechanically suboptimal weapon to be viable for PCs.

Monks do so for the fist (unarmed) in its odd Kwai Chang Kane way. How about the whip? Staff? Spear? Frying pan?

Drunken Master PrC, in Complete Warrior makes a frying pan a quite impressive option.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I've never cared for monks ... the eastern mysticness never really felt at home with the rest of D&D (like psionics never felt like they fit, either, but that's another topic).

I tolerate them only because of nostalgia.