Do we really need Monks?

[Henry]

And the faster they can run around and punch and kick things...?

I could see this as being trained to use God's (of their god's) greatest gifts to their fullest advantage. As the denial of worldliness continues, they gain the powers of the heroes of old who used to fight for the god's calling.

Flavor can be modified for most any setting; the mechanics are the most relevant thing to whether it really fits or not. Though I wouldn't want to for personal reasons, I could fit sorcerers in Athas, guns in Eberron, or swords and sorcery in a Victorian England Holmsian crime drama. If FASA can make Trolls, Orcs, Elves, and Magic fit in a cyberpunk setting, surely monks can fit in a western European model.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

No, they're not needed. Unfortunately the monk stole several niches, and isn't good at any of them. By "stealing" I mean I doubt WotC will ever make a class devoted to unarmed combat, and despite the glut of feats will never make useful unarmed combat feats, either, that don't require you to take monk levels in the first place.

I've only seen martial artists done well twice in D20 - D20 Modern, and Midnight's Defender. That's it. I am not surprised - the first is a no magic or low-magic rules system, and the latter is low-magic.

I don't really care if it has Oriental flavor or not ... it's not particularly accurate flavor. (If you don't believe me, watch a bunch of martial arts films. They're not all lawful, they can use decent weapons, and they don't always miss.)

 

[fusangite]

Flavor can be modified for most any setting; the mechanics are the most relevant thing to whether it really fits or not. Though I wouldn't want to for personal reasons, I could fit sorcerers in Athas, guns in Eberron, or swords and sorcery in a Victorian England Holmsian crime drama. If FASA can make Trolls, Orcs, Elves, and Magic fit in a cyberpunk setting, surely monks can fit in a western European model.

I think it may be that you build different kinds of worlds than I do that cohere for different reasons than mine. The things you describe as fitting here wouldn't really fit for me or my usual gaming associates.

Also, I'd be pretty reluctant to alter the structure of my planned universe to fit in a particular player choice.

 

[Henry]

I think it may be that you build different kinds of worlds than I do that cohere for different reasons than mine. The things you describe as fitting here wouldn't really fit for me or my usual gaming associates.

Also, I'd be pretty reluctant to alter the structure of my planned universe to fit in a particular player choice.

Exactly; but my point is that personal preference is a world of difference from "It can't be done sensibly." For personal reasons, I WOULDN'T put Sorcerers in Dark Sun, nor half-orcs in Dragonlance; but it doesn't mean that a DM can't find a way to include them plausibly. For monks, the name, the historical baggage, and the flavor text in the PHB conjures a mental picture that blindsides us as DM's to how they COULD be employed in a setting that would contradict that flavor text. If people took the idea that a cross-genre element could not be incorporated in a milieu successfully, things like Final Fantasy, Shadowrun or Eberron would never have been attempted - and you have people that will defend their continuities with dying breath.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Exactly; but my point is that personal preference is a world of difference from "It can't be done sensibly." For personal reasons, I WOULDN'T put Sorcerers in Dark Sun, nor half-orcs in Dragonlance; but it doesn't mean that a DM can't find a way to include them plausibly.

I run a Dragonlance(ish) game and it does have half-orcs because, well, I forgot. When someone caught my snafu I declared them to be a creation of the Grey Gem (from ogres) but of so few numbers that they have never been able to achieve orc-horde status.

As for monks in my DL game, I set them in that little strip of former-ergoth west of the mountains from Solamnia. The mountains are difficult to cross and the people had no skill with boats, isolating the region for centuries after the Cataclysm. With supplies (especially metal) in short order, make-do weaponry became the norm. Simple fortresses were built to protect against the pirates that raid the coast and your monastic foundation solidifies.

Of course "East Ergoth" considers the kama to be a simple weapon (being a low-metal sickle), shuriken simple (aka dart), nunchuks to be martial (the low-metal flail), and sai to be martial (parrying dagger). (I'm still a little confused about what to do with the siangham; see <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=114372">this thread</a> for why).

To be honest, I hadn't planned that. Someone joined the game and wanted to play a monk. I didn't want them to be from some "far, far away land" so I hunted for some area that the books I had neglected to detail. (This game started when 3.0e came out, long before the DLCS and is based on the 1e/2e supplements) A little logical extrapolation and *poof* monks became logical. Rare, since they'd have to travel a lot, but logical.

So it isn't that difficult to rationalize or incorporate; you just have to *want* to.

 

[Psion]

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.).

The apparent answer is that there are people who are running a game based on their view of fantasy, not yours.

Despite what some would have you think D&D is not exclusive to a culture that is strongly based on Western europe. Non-Asian fantasy has included characters that are very like monks, and the cultural differences between medieval Europe and a typical D&D setting with magic is major compared to the cultural shift that would result in a figure like the monk.

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]

I have traditionally been of the mindset that said Monks have no place in a standard D&D game. Recently however, when designing my new Talyr setting, I managed to fit in both Monks and Psionics in one package! I simply make ki powers a form of Psychic power, and thus related the Monk to the Psychic Warrior.

Did that too. Just made too much sense aside the physiological psionics.

 

[Darkness]

<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=114372">this thread</a>

HTML is turned off but you can do this instead.

 

[Ranger REG]

I don't really care if it has Oriental flavor or not ... it's not particularly accurate flavor. (If you don't believe me, watch a bunch of martial arts films. They're not all lawful, they can use decent weapons, and they don't always miss.)

Well, I wouldn't use the word "accurate" when it comes to D&D. And as many people would attest, lawful does not always mean good or obsessively organized.

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).

That still does not mean the monk should not be part of the core D&D.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I've never understood the aversion to monks, or oriental culture for that matter. I find it bizarre that someone can so readily mesh all the "western" worlds together with little or no provocation, but anything remotely "oriental" is suddenly earth-shattering in concept and flavor.

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.

If you don't like the monk in your campaign, drop them out. Personally, I find it a bit odd placing the monk in a variety of fantasy settings. Not every campaign has the mysterious far east. Try fitting a monk into say a Dark Fantasy setting without them feeling bolted on. Not like you can't find a way to work them in, but with flurry of blows and such being based off of oriental weapons its hard to do without making rules tweaks.

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.