-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Do we really need Monks?
- Thread starter martynq
- Start date
Samuel Leming
First Post
Heh. I started a thread like this one about two months ago, only this one's nastier. 
Yeah, the monk is optional. Optional just like the paladin, bard & ranger. There are some settings where you'd have to use a shoehorn to fit the monk in and others where you'd have to use a jackhammer. In other settings you could have the same problems introducing the paladin.
When I run a game again the monk will be based on the cloistered cleric from Unearthed Arcana with the spontaneous caster option. I'll allow the existing monk for anyone who REALLY wants to play it(see below), but I'll change its name. Maybe something like the pugilist monk. No, I'll mash that together and call the class the punk! Let's see if anyone wants to play a punk.
Really, other than its name, I don't have anything against allowing monks in a western style game. People can travel. What I don't like is that the class is the only source of proficient unarmed combat in the core game. I've seen too many people want to play the monk just for the unarmed combat when their character concepts contain none of the other bagage that comes along with the class. Fighters, swashbucklers & rogues will be able to take additional feats to improve their unarmed combat options. In my experience those are the kinds of characters people really want to play when they choose monk.
Really just a repeat from the last monk thread.
Sam
Yeah, the monk is optional. Optional just like the paladin, bard & ranger. There are some settings where you'd have to use a shoehorn to fit the monk in and others where you'd have to use a jackhammer. In other settings you could have the same problems introducing the paladin.
When I run a game again the monk will be based on the cloistered cleric from Unearthed Arcana with the spontaneous caster option. I'll allow the existing monk for anyone who REALLY wants to play it(see below), but I'll change its name. Maybe something like the pugilist monk. No, I'll mash that together and call the class the punk! Let's see if anyone wants to play a punk.
Really, other than its name, I don't have anything against allowing monks in a western style game. People can travel. What I don't like is that the class is the only source of proficient unarmed combat in the core game. I've seen too many people want to play the monk just for the unarmed combat when their character concepts contain none of the other bagage that comes along with the class. Fighters, swashbucklers & rogues will be able to take additional feats to improve their unarmed combat options. In my experience those are the kinds of characters people really want to play when they choose monk.
Really just a repeat from the last monk thread.
Sam
hero4hire
Explorer
I think D&D went more "Anime" when 3rd edition came along. Not a bad thing necessarily. Movies have too. My group's style of play has gravitated towards that feel. It seems inevitable after a certain point, when a player pulls off a certain combo of Feats or gets that crunchy Prestige Class he's been striving for.
At least IMHO.
At least IMHO.
drnuncheon
Explorer
Speaking of non-Oriental-styled monk replacements, the Midnight setting from FFG has the Defender, which makes for an excellent one. (It's also got the Wildlander, an excellent non-spellcasting ranger.)
The defender takes the monk back to its basic origin - someone who has learned to fight unarmored and with both their body and the various tools and weapons of the peasantry, because actual weapons are outlawed. Since it loses all the wacky Shaolin-inspired special powers, it's actually far more combat-focused than the D&D monk - almost more of a fighter variant - and much more customizable.
J
The defender takes the monk back to its basic origin - someone who has learned to fight unarmored and with both their body and the various tools and weapons of the peasantry, because actual weapons are outlawed. Since it loses all the wacky Shaolin-inspired special powers, it's actually far more combat-focused than the D&D monk - almost more of a fighter variant - and much more customizable.
J
Arcane Runes Press said:
How is this the case? Would Batman be appropriate for D&D if he had a sword?
Besides, almost none of the magic items listed in the DMG are even useable by monks, another indicator of how out of place they are.
Djinni et al are a great example of what I am talking about. D&D largely taps into crusades-era Europe, when cultural exchange with Islam was at its heaviest and most extreme. Thus, there is penetration of Persian and Arabian myth into Europe in this period, forming, for instance, our present-day ideas about faeries. By the same token, there was no equivalent penetration of Indian or Chinese mythology into European culture and again, D&D reflects this.
Of course not everything in D&D is derived from the mythological beliefs of Europeans and Middle Easterners people in the 13th century. But, of the monsters drawn from mythology, the vast vast majority are. In the Monster Manual, for instance, there is the Naga (India) and the Ogra Mage (Japan); aside from that, there are, as far as I can tell, no other references to mythology east of Persia.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that D&D shouldn't have south and east asian classes and creatures in it. What I am saying is that with so little other Asian stuff, the Monk does not belong in the core rules. He belongs in a rules set that properly supports the class, with other Asian classes, an Asian physics and Asian monsters. But right now, the monk sticks out like a sore thumb and undermines what faint suspension of disbelief we manage to hold onto.
Remathilis
Legend
I gotta agree with the opinions of some... D&D is not very cultural specific. Its BASED in a mostly westernized world, but lots of other culture's have permiated: djinni, naga, metalic dragons, ogre-magi, golems, raksasha, yuan-ti, etc.
Even its Euro culture is amalgamed: celtic druids, saxon bards, norse fire-giants, greek centaurs, etc,
Lastly, lets not EVEN get into the pseudo-sci-fi elements: Mind Flayers, Psionics, beholders...
D&D draws on too many literary and cultural aspects to really try and weed it out to JUST euro. However, if you want to, I wish you the best of luck.
I like my kung-fu mystics.
Even its Euro culture is amalgamed: celtic druids, saxon bards, norse fire-giants, greek centaurs, etc,
Lastly, lets not EVEN get into the pseudo-sci-fi elements: Mind Flayers, Psionics, beholders...
D&D draws on too many literary and cultural aspects to really try and weed it out to JUST euro. However, if you want to, I wish you the best of luck.
I like my kung-fu mystics.
Last edited:
Doctor Shaft
First Post
Bah, you people like Western Europe too much. 
I get so bored with "I like swords" class and "I shoot fireballs and fly and teleport" class. The monk is the only refreshing breath of air sometimes when it comes to D&D from all the Robin Hood-esque classes out there.
And whacky Shaolin-style powers? Hm.. I'd say wizards and sorcerors are more whacky than any monk build you could crop up.
The monk fills a nitch that says "Asian" on it, but I don't think it entirely breaks the suspension of disbelief. The difficulty of the class really only comes in integrating the culture of the classes... but don't most parties already suffer from that? If not, I think they should.
For instance. I hear too many stories about campaigns involving neutral evil rogues and some shining paladin all travelling together. And meanwhile the rogues are out having a good time causing mischief under the paladin's nose. Or about the party wizards, who probably shouldn't really be interested in fighting anyway, that commonly travels with their buddies, the Fighters and Barbarians. But the game still works because, at least sometimes, the group decides that they'll roleplay how these weird characters manage to put up with each other. I don't see how the monk can be much different, other than it's Asian.
And the fighting stuff... to me that's no more wild than armored paladins fighting dragons, and fighters some how defeating armored opponents with razor sharp swords, with fire I might add. It all doesn't make much sense to begin with. Or the rogue who uses a dagger to beat the most dangerous opponents all the time. That's pretty whacky too. Do you house-rule that a halfing rogue must use a larger blade or heavy club when fighting an ogre? And if not, do you just pretend then that he somehow leaps in the air and stabs the guy's eyes out all the time? Sounds like he's doing whacky shaolin stuff to me then.
And swashbucklers.... that's one of the most "whacky" classes I've seen. In fact, their not much different from a monk in concept. Except the personality. They're "adventurers" yet they're also able to do near super-natural things with their flimsy swords. Intelligence modifier to AC? Sneak attack damage. And there's more. It's all based on doing whacky things with a sword. I guess you could argue that it's okay because it's "western," but when you pit these guys against some of the creatures or people they face... that's really pushing the suspension there. At least for me. "I fly up and, put my rapier into the dragon's... uh.... eye!"
I would make a case that something like the Wu Jen is probably a bit too culture specific (i.e. not vague enough). But the monk seems generic enough to me along with the other classes in terms of "what it's all about." A fighter could be as North England as possible, or Arabian in nature, or Egyptian, or even Greek or Roman. A monk, likewise, could simply be a man in the same area or culture, that had no access to weapons and armor. Just because he's learned to leap in the air and kick doesn't mean he's Asian. They're not the only people that could ever figure out how to kick or punch. Just the most widespread and tradition-oriented. Why not have a character who starts such a movement in your world?
I just find it humorous that there are so many threads that crop up here that talk about "breaking stereotypes" and playing "interesting characters" or making "unorthodox paladins." And yet once a character throws a punch instead of using his equally cheap dagger, the whole fantasy is shattered. But that's not a fair judgement on my part. D&D was meant to be played the way we like it.
But, just one more thought. Is a monk really that far out when put along side a Wizard, with his 120-page spellbook sitting on the table that basically says "Wizard's can do anything, if only they put their mind to it?" There's something about flying wizards that breaks the suspension of disbelief for me all the time.
Plus, I don't see how the wizard or sorceror of third edition matches up to any of the Western concepts much anymore, aside from the ability to cast magic. Which again, other cultures, like Asian, had similar concepts. The 3.0 wizard is so generic and "all-purpose" that he hardly retains any kind of 'culture' at all. But I guess that's why he fits in so well...
I get so bored with "I like swords" class and "I shoot fireballs and fly and teleport" class. The monk is the only refreshing breath of air sometimes when it comes to D&D from all the Robin Hood-esque classes out there.
And whacky Shaolin-style powers? Hm.. I'd say wizards and sorcerors are more whacky than any monk build you could crop up.
The monk fills a nitch that says "Asian" on it, but I don't think it entirely breaks the suspension of disbelief. The difficulty of the class really only comes in integrating the culture of the classes... but don't most parties already suffer from that? If not, I think they should.
For instance. I hear too many stories about campaigns involving neutral evil rogues and some shining paladin all travelling together. And meanwhile the rogues are out having a good time causing mischief under the paladin's nose. Or about the party wizards, who probably shouldn't really be interested in fighting anyway, that commonly travels with their buddies, the Fighters and Barbarians. But the game still works because, at least sometimes, the group decides that they'll roleplay how these weird characters manage to put up with each other. I don't see how the monk can be much different, other than it's Asian.
And the fighting stuff... to me that's no more wild than armored paladins fighting dragons, and fighters some how defeating armored opponents with razor sharp swords, with fire I might add. It all doesn't make much sense to begin with. Or the rogue who uses a dagger to beat the most dangerous opponents all the time. That's pretty whacky too. Do you house-rule that a halfing rogue must use a larger blade or heavy club when fighting an ogre? And if not, do you just pretend then that he somehow leaps in the air and stabs the guy's eyes out all the time? Sounds like he's doing whacky shaolin stuff to me then.
And swashbucklers.... that's one of the most "whacky" classes I've seen. In fact, their not much different from a monk in concept. Except the personality. They're "adventurers" yet they're also able to do near super-natural things with their flimsy swords. Intelligence modifier to AC? Sneak attack damage. And there's more. It's all based on doing whacky things with a sword. I guess you could argue that it's okay because it's "western," but when you pit these guys against some of the creatures or people they face... that's really pushing the suspension there. At least for me. "I fly up and, put my rapier into the dragon's... uh.... eye!"
I would make a case that something like the Wu Jen is probably a bit too culture specific (i.e. not vague enough). But the monk seems generic enough to me along with the other classes in terms of "what it's all about." A fighter could be as North England as possible, or Arabian in nature, or Egyptian, or even Greek or Roman. A monk, likewise, could simply be a man in the same area or culture, that had no access to weapons and armor. Just because he's learned to leap in the air and kick doesn't mean he's Asian. They're not the only people that could ever figure out how to kick or punch.
Just the most widespread and tradition-oriented. Why not have a character who starts such a movement in your world? I just find it humorous that there are so many threads that crop up here that talk about "breaking stereotypes" and playing "interesting characters" or making "unorthodox paladins." And yet once a character throws a punch instead of using his equally cheap dagger, the whole fantasy is shattered. But that's not a fair judgement on my part. D&D was meant to be played the way we like it.
But, just one more thought. Is a monk really that far out when put along side a Wizard, with his 120-page spellbook sitting on the table that basically says "Wizard's can do anything, if only they put their mind to it?" There's something about flying wizards that breaks the suspension of disbelief for me all the time.
Plus, I don't see how the wizard or sorceror of third edition matches up to any of the Western concepts much anymore, aside from the ability to cast magic. Which again, other cultures, like Asian, had similar concepts. The 3.0 wizard is so generic and "all-purpose" that he hardly retains any kind of 'culture' at all. But I guess that's why he fits in so well...Similar Threads
