Do we really need Monks?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

JVisgaitis, are you publishing your martial artist sometime?

 

[vulcan_idic]

I happen to really like monks. They're my favorite class to play. I searched high and low in 2nd Ed for something in this vein with out a real idea for what such a think would be called (not having been around in 1st Ed to know) - I wasn't thinking of it from an kung-fu artist perspective, I just love the self sufficiency of it. He's the one who you take all his fancy magic items away from him... and he's still amazingly capable.

Now that my personal bias has been revealed... Yes, I think Monks should remain core. To me, D&D at it's core, especially in 3.X, is about options. I'm all for increasing the number of core options available. The art of DMing a campaign setting for me is tailoring what subset of the huge number of options exist in the shared world of the DM and their players. Perhaps a monk doesn't fit into a stereotypical western type sword and sorcery setting - tailor it out. Just because an option doesn't fit with a given vision for what a setting is about doesn't mean that the option should be removed from the pool from which all players everywhere draw.

It's much easier to tailor things out than to tailor them in, so by all means leave the option in - but feel free to disallow it in your setting or your instance of a standard setting if that feels right to you and the others playing at your table.

Have fun!

 

[fusangite]

I never said that the monk's noncombat abilities were irrelevant. I said that for many people, the defining characteristic of the monk was the unarmed combat schtick. When they talk about what their monk character does, it generally starts off with "he doesn't use weapons". Another defining characteristic is self-sufficiency: "he doesn't need items".

That's interesting. You see when I talk with people about a class, typically the shorthand we use is: what real-world thing is the class like? The people I'm around would describe a paladin as "kind of like a grail knight," or a barbarian as "like a Norse berserker." I think most people who play D&D use archetypal rather than technical descriptions when explaining a class to people who do not already play the game.

Neither of these concepts is particularly out of place for your typical D&D campaign, even one that self-consciously emulates medieval Europe.

Actually, the not using weapons and armour is. There is a distinct lack of European myth that depicts heroes who do not use weapons. In my view, that's significant. Just as, even though there were Christians in medieval China, there is a distinct lack of Oriental myths of Christian saints, the simple fact that by scouring the historical record one can find unarmed fighting disciplines outside of East Asia does not mean that the heroic unarmed fighter is part of the European mythic tradition.

Yes, because on the one hand, you have said that it's not geographical separation that counts, it's mythic theme; then when people have mentioned how D&D draws from myths as disparate as Arab, ancient Greek and African, you say it's because these Europeans had heard of these places. Like Europeans had never heard of Cathay before 1975.... or was it because these places weren't too far away from Europe? But I thought it wasn't geography that was your beef?

I have explained this a couple of times before but why not do it again: if you look at European myth, it is very easy to see what things are in it and what things are not. You can make whatever arguments you want based on geography. But those arguments will not change which things are actually in the mythology (and literature based on it) that we can read. Persian Peris are in these stories. Japanese Oni and Tengu are not.

Yes. Regular trade between Europe and China began in the 2nd century AD but this trade was mediated through Middle Eastern states. Direct trade did not commence until the middle of the 15th century. And even then, cultural exchange did not begin immediately. Thus, we were already in the Early Modern period before any significant cultural exchange took place with China or Japan. On the other hand, we were in direct contact (and thereby, cultural exchange) with the Arab, Greek and North African worlds starting in the time of the Phonecians. It is then understandable that our myth system would include things originating in these areas and not things originating in areas with which we did not commence cultural exchange until over 2000 years later at the dawn of the modern period.

There is no point in speculating about what might or might not be in European myth. You can just look at European mythic traditions and say "What is here?" Are there unarmed fighters who wield nunchaku and run incredibly fast? No. Are there gryphons? Yes. The fact that both things originate in non-European places is irrelevant.

By your argument, Buddhism is exactly and European as Christianity because both are religions that are not from Europe. But a cursory look at European myth and history will tell you that Christianity is European and Buddhism is not.

Hercules killed the Nemean lion with bare hands. There is an Olympic sport called "Greco-Roman wrestling", even.

Is there any way in which your two examples are more like the monk class than they are like a fighter with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat? (In the case of the wrestlers, I would suggest that Improved Grapple might also be necessary.) Let's interrogate your examples:

Weapon Proficiency: It appears that the monk does not have weapon proficiencies for all of the weapons used by ancient Greek heroes. We would have to change that.
Armour Class Bonus: It appears that Greek heroes did not have a special spiritual art that made them especially hard to hit. While Achiles had magical armour, there is no record of Greeks who were spiritually trained to avoid attacks.
Flurry of Blows: Are the unarmed attacks by Hercules or Greek wrestlers especially damaging because they are faster than everyone else's attacks?
Unarmed Strike: Yep. It appears that the people you are describing have this class ability.
Evasion: While Hercules appears to have Evasion, this is not an argument one could make about the wrestlers.
Fast Movement: Clearly not something we can apply to wrestlers. However, it's been too long since I've read about Hercules so I can't pronounce definitely here.
Still Mind: Hercules and gymnasium wrestlers show no apparent extraordinary resistance to enchantment.
Ki Strike: Nope.
Slow Fall: Nope.
Purity of Body: One could definitely make this case for Hercules but not for gymnasium wrestlers.
Wholeness of Body: Nope.
Diamond Body: Yes for Hercules. No for gymnasium wrestlers.
Abundant Step: Nope.
Diamond Soul: Nope.
Quivering Palm: Nope.
Timeless Body: Nope.
Tongue of Sun and Moon: Nope.
Empty Body: Nope.
Perfect Self: Nope.

Now let's try this with a 4th level fighter: how would adopting the feats Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, Weapon Focus (Unarmed), Weapon Specialization (Unarmed), Power Attack and Cleave be less effective in representing what you want?

Of course, here's the bigger problem with your example. The unarmed fighting that so impressed the Mediterranean world and resulted in the widespread construction of trendy gynmasiums did not really survive the conversion to Christianity and the collapse of the empire in the West. So, in order to really make these Greek character archetypes work, one couldn't use D&D from the book anyway. Plate and chain armour would have to be abolished, the Paladin class removed, etc.

Furthermore, gymnasium/Olympic wrestling was a leisure activity of the very rich -- like most Olympic events were until the 1960s. Thus, the idea of a professional wrestler in the the classical or Roman periods would be anathema culturally.

I suppose now you'll be saying that ancient Greece doesn't count as European or something.

I don't need to because based on the other things that Hercules could do, it is perfectly clear that he is far better represented by the fighter class than the monk class. While to represent Hercules as a monk, one must change over 70% of the monk's class features, one can represent his unarmed fighting by the addition of 2-4 feats, feats it is perfectly legal for a fighter to obtain.

Then you're not trying hard enough. What exactly is mythic European about shapeshifting priests of "nature"?

While I agree that D&D conflates two "nature" traditions to produce the druid, the idea of European priests who had an affinity for animals for whom holiness centred on sacred groves and pools is well-known. I agree that the wild-shaping is a bit of an imposition but it certainly does not violate the spirit of the class. And certainly shape-shifting into animals is a legitimate mythic tradition.

How about pseudo-kenderish halflings who don't share anything with the Tolkien original except the name and the height?

I'm not a fan of halflings for other reasons but certainly not because nimble little mischevious people don't appear in European myth.

How about (hoary old example follows -->) flying, teleporting, blasting wizards?

All three of these are common forms of magic in European tradition. While saints were as, or more likely, to pull these things off, many of these things were indeed things Europeans imagined people versed in magic could do. Flight, bilocation and fiery evocations are all things that crop up again and again in European mythology, as does the idea of the mage.

And I haven't even got to the funky creatures in the MM. After all that, a guy with the ability to punch people to death should be easy-peasy. I do hope you're not implying that white men never figured out how to punch people to death.

I'll repeat this for emphasis: How do Improved Unarmed Strike, Weapon Focus (Unarmed), Weapon Specialization (Unarmed), Greater Weapon Focus (Unarmed) and Greater Weapon Specialization (Unarmed) not get the job done? If you do that, then when one reads about Beowulf or Hercules wrestling some horrible creature, him picking up a sword in the next scene makes a whole lot more sense than if one depicts this person as a monk who doesn't have proficiency in that weapon.

Yes, the monk is based on (movies of) Asian stories of martial artists doing crazy kung fu things. But who gives a damn what it's based on?

People who have different gaming priorities than you do. Remember, I'm making the case that the monk does not belong in the core rules, not that we shouldn't have them.

The important thing is what it represents in-game,

I agree. But for many people, what something represents is the archetype to which it refers. What do you mean by "represent"?

whatever may have caused some designer somewhere to think of it in the first place. There's nothing stopping you redefining the monk's backstory to be whatever you please, whether it's for one PC or the class as a whole.

Nor is there anything to prevent me from telling people who want to play unarmed combatants that there are feats available for doing what they want to do.

The ability to distinguish flavour text from mechanics is considered a prerequisite to discussing classes in a sensible manner, yes. Notice that I said that the flavour text involving ki could be ignored. I didn't say anything about ignoring the _mechanics_ themselves.

Actually, both things are part of the rules. But regardless of how much you circumscribe your definition of what "the rules" actually are, the monk class remains problematic.

So, please post your marvellous demonstration that colour-reversed, spider-worshipping elves

The idea of evil or dark elves is represented in Norse myth. Change their god and you're good to go.

(or floating eyeballs of destruction, or flying rainbow serpents, or brain-eating, squid-headed people)

Well, (a) I don't use those things, (b) I agree that the Ogre Mage, Couatl and about a half-dozen other monsters, again, should not appear in the core but instead show up in books for alternative settings but these monsters comprise about the same proportion of those in the manual as monks do of the core classes, (c) while I don't use beholders or mind flayers, the situation is not analogous because they don't refer to any mythic tradition; they're just made up. I don't have any special problem with things from outside European culture in D&D, provided that they don't strongly refer to another incompatible culture/myth system.

People can be stupid. It's not a crime.

Thanks hong. I'm glad to know that there are legions of us you deem to be idiots.

That was fast. I wasn't expecting the obfuscation to come in for another six posts.

How does suggesting that what a monk is could be informed by the dictionary's opinion "obfuscating"?

No. And D&D defines multiplication as addition. Your point is what, exactly?

This is true in the game's mechanics, not in its setting. 2x2x100gp=400gp not 300gp. The fact that multiplication works that way in the mechanics has no implications for setting.

Ah, right. So your real beef with the class is not its weird abilities, or its lack of options, or even its flavour text, but its name.

Actually, I think I can have a problem with all of the above. My problem is that the class screams "Hi! I'm a Shaolin Monk!" the fact that the class is refered to as a "monk" is one of the pieces of evidence that makes my case.

You make a case in defense of the monk class on the grounds that nearly everything about the class including its name, the names of all of its powers and many of those powers themselves have nothing to do with the class.

My case is: the monk class does not fit in games consistent with European mythic tradition. The fact that "monk" means something in European tradition that is radically unlike the monk presented in the rules mean that yes, the name of the class is relevant.

It's good to see such substantive issues being debated in depth on this here mailing list. Perhaps we could rename the class "George" and we could get back to arguing about how rangers got teh shaft.

Do a little experiment for me. Pick random words from the dictionary and replace the names of all the classes in the core rules with them. For instance, you could call Fighters Tea-Cozies; you could call Rangers Pustules; you could call Rogues Knurls. What the heck, you could even do it with monsters; you could call that weird golem you invented a few weeks ago an Armchair. Let me know if this has any impact on your players' enjoyment of the game.

 

[Aaron L]

Wow, are you peoples campaign worlds COMPLETELY European flavored from pole to pole?


It just seems kinda... limiting to me. I try to include as much diversity as I can in my games.

 

[fusangite]

Wow, are you peoples campaign worlds COMPLETELY European flavored from pole to pole?

It just seems kinda... limiting to me. I try to include as much diversity as I can in my games.

Campaigns that rely exclusively on the core rules tend to be that way because the core rules are overwhelmingly European-flavoured. My argument is not that I don't want to use D&D to do Asian-style stuff but that in order to do that stuff, additional materials beyond the core rules are required. This puts the monk in a crappy position: listed in the core rules but not supported with enough relevant material. There are two solutions to this: eliminate the monk from the core rules or add more Asian stuff to the core rules so the monk fits in. Either solution would be equally valid.

 

[BryonD]

Campaigns that rely exclusively on the core rules tend to be that way because the core rules are overwhelmingly European-flavoured.

I think that there is a deep flaw in demanding this personal interpretation be submitted to by everyone else.

The core rules easily encompass a European flavor. But they are not remotely limited to that.

I've got areas in my current home brew that are based on Egypt, Incas, Central and West Africa, pre-colonial North America, China, and India among others, in addition to the "classic" European area. And in not one of those areas did I ever feel even a slight need to convert the core rules to get the right feel.

D&D is not designed to be a Tolkein simulation exculsively. I received a bunch of new editions of Robert E. Howard stuff for Christmas. There seems to be more East Africa / Mid-East flavor going on there than Europe. But I've never heard anyone complain that D&D can't do Howard.

You appear to be limiting D&D by choice rather than it limiting you by rules.

 

[hong]

That's interesting. You see when I talk with people about a class, typically the shorthand we use is: what real-world thing is the class like? The people I'm around would describe a paladin as "kind of like a grail knight," or a barbarian as "like a Norse berserker." I think most people who play D&D use archetypal rather than technical descriptions when explaining a class to people who do not already play the game.

Who cares about people who don't play the game? The interaction of interest is what goes on around the table, not elsewhere.

Actually, the not using weapons and armour is. There is a distinct lack of European myth that depicts heroes who do not use weapons. In my view, that's significant. Just as, even though there were Christians in medieval China, there is a distinct lack of Oriental myths of Christian saints, the simple fact that by scouring the historical record one can find unarmed fighting disciplines outside of East Asia does not mean that the heroic unarmed fighter is part of the European mythic tradition.

D00d, I just gave you an example of a heroic fighter who fought one of his most famous battles unarmed. Here's another: Beowulf killing Grendel's mother. How much longer are you going to continue redefining this thing into oblivion?

Is there any way in which your two examples are more like the monk class than they are like a fighter with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat? (In the case of the wrestlers, I would suggest that Improved Grapple might also be necessary.)

Irrelevant. You said that unarmed combatants with superhuman abilities were not part of European tradition. I gave a counterexample.

Now let's try this with a 4th level fighter: how would adopting the feats Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, Weapon Focus (Unarmed), Weapon Specialization (Unarmed), Power Attack and Cleave be less effective in representing what you want?

Irrelevant. The point is that it _can_ be represented using a monk, without requiring any oriental mysticism or similar out-of-area handwaving. That _was_ your primary beef, was it not?

Of course, here's the bigger problem with your example. The unarmed fighting that so impressed the Mediterranean world and resulted in the widespread construction of trendy gynmasiums did not really survive the conversion to Christianity and the collapse of the empire in the West. So, in order to really make these Greek character archetypes work, one couldn't use D&D from the book anyway. Plate and chain armour would have to be abolished, the Paladin class removed, etc.

D00d, you have to rework D&D wholesale to make it emulate _any_ specific culture rigorously. The same applies to oddities like druids, sorcs, drow, etc. To that extent, I fail to see the distinction between monks and any other anachronism in the game. The point is that since you seem willing to use Celtic precedents to justify including druids in the game (despite actual druids being a few centuries out of time relative to a pseudo-medieval setting), there should be no problem in using Greek precedents to justify unarmed fighters as well. And it's not a huge step from unarmed fighter -> monk.

Furthermore, gymnasium/Olympic wrestling was a leisure activity of the very rich -- like most Olympic events were until the 1960s. Thus, the idea of a professional wrestler in the the classical or Roman periods would be anathema culturally.

Well, maybe those fireball-hurling wizards could sponsor them to provide half-time entertainment during their mage duels.

Make up your mind. Are we talking myth, or history? Because I couldn't give a stuff about the latter, and plenty of unarmed combatants with superhuman abilities appear in the former.

I don't need to because based on the other things that Hercules could do, it is perfectly clear that he is far better represented by the fighter class than the monk class.

Next thing you know, you'll be banning sorcs.

All three of these are common forms of magic in European tradition. While saints were as, or more likely, to pull these things off, many of these things were indeed things Europeans imagined people versed in magic could do. Flight, bilocation and fiery evocations are all things that crop up again and again in European mythology, as does the idea of the mage.

I'll remember this the next time someone starts a l*w m*gic thread.

Do you know where you can regularly find accounts of flying, teleporting, blasting mages? Wuxia (and some of them even use material components!). By contrast, I am failing to find regular accounts of Gandalf, Roger Bacon, Thomas a Becket, or Thoth-Amon flying around, fireballing their enemies. Next thing you know, you'll be banning wizards.

I'll repeat this for emphasis: How do Improved Unarmed Strike, Weapon Focus (Unarmed), Weapon Specialization (Unarmed), Greater Weapon Focus (Unarmed) and Greater Weapon Specialization (Unarmed) not get the job done? If you do that, then when one reads about Beowulf or Hercules wrestling some horrible creature, him picking up a sword in the next scene makes a whole lot more sense than if one depicts this person as a monk who doesn't have proficiency in that weapon.

Irrelevant.

People who have different gaming priorities than you do. Remember, I'm making the case that the monk does not belong in the core rules, not that we shouldn't have them.

There are many things that shouldn't belong in the core rules. However, the monk is not exactly top of my list of things to remove (wizards would be it). Certainly just because the monk's origin is at odds with much of the general setting is not a great reason for removing it. A VAST amount of content in the core rules is out of place or time; to be consistent in applying this rule, you'd end up having to dike out huge chunks of material, some of which is as "core" D&D as you can get.

I agree. But for many people, what something represents is the archetype to which it refers. What do you mean by "represent"?

What can be modelled by its class abilities. What in-game rationale can be thought up for the class. What cool powers it brings to the character-creation toolkit. Etcetera; pick the answer that suits you best. Narrow concerns about historicity are not particularly important to me.

Actually, both things are part of the rules.

But some parts are more important than others.

But regardless of how much you circumscribe your definition of what "the rules" actually are, the monk class remains problematic.

... for you, maybe. But then it appears you don't really want to play D&D (see below).

The idea of evil or dark elves is represented in Norse myth. Change their god and you're good to go.

You seem to have either forgotten the colour reversal, or confused metaphorical "dark" with literal "dark". Oh, and throw in the adamantine armour, crossbows and matriarchal society while you're at it too. A drow is a lot more than just an evil elf.

Well, (a) I don't use those things, (b) I agree that the Ogre Mage, Couatl and about a half-dozen other monsters, again, should not appear in the core but instead show up in books for alternative settings but these monsters comprise about the same proportion of those in the manual as monks do of the core classes, (c) while I don't use beholders or mind flayers, the situation is not analogous because they don't refer to any mythic tradition; they're just made up. I don't have any special problem with things from outside European culture in D&D, provided that they don't strongly refer to another incompatible culture/myth system.

1) IOW: you basically don't want to play D&D. Didn't I say this before?

2) The fact that you consider Asian myth FROM THE SAME GENERAL TIME PERIOD to be "incompatible" strikes me as rather myopic.

3) I look forward to seeing laser guns in your next game. After all, they don't appear in any incompatible culture/myth system.

This is true in the game's mechanics, not in its setting. 2x2x100gp=400gp not 300gp. The fact that multiplication works that way in the mechanics has no implications for setting.

Exactly. Just as the fact that a dictionary defines the word "monk" in a particular way has no implications for setting.

Actually, I think I can have a problem with all of the above. My problem is that the class screams "Hi! I'm a Shaolin Monk!" the fact that the class is refered to as a "monk" is one of the pieces of evidence that makes my case.

So call it a martial artist and you're good to go.

... or have you said this before?

You make a case in defense of the monk class on the grounds that nearly everything about the class including its name, the names of all of its powers and many of those powers themselves have nothing to do with the class.

No. I make a case on the grounds that all these things are trivially fixable, and complaining about them is akin to complaining that going out in the rain without an umbrella gets you wet. Now if you'd said something about the monk's rigid class progression, or how you can't actually emulate a movie-style martial artist with it (try tanking with a monk and you'll generally get your butt kicked), or the silly multiclassing restriction, or the limited weapon selection, you might actually be on to something.

My case is: the monk class does not fit in games consistent with European mythic tradition. The fact that "monk" means something in European tradition that is radically unlike the monk presented in the rules mean that yes, the name of the class is relevant.

So call it a martial artist and you're good to go.

Do a little experiment for me. Pick random words from the dictionary and replace the names of all the classes in the core rules with them. For instance, you could call Fighters Tea-Cozies; you could call Rangers Pustules; you could call Rogues Knurls. What the heck, you could even do it with monsters; you could call that weird golem you invented a few weeks ago an Armchair. Let me know if this has any impact on your players' enjoyment of the game.

Not that that was the point I was making, but do continue anyway.

 

[hong]

Campaigns that rely exclusively on the core rules tend to be that way because the core rules are overwhelmingly European-flavoured. My argument is not that I don't want to use D&D to do Asian-style stuff but that in order to do that stuff, additional materials beyond the core rules are required. This puts the monk in a crappy position: listed in the core rules but not supported with enough relevant material. There are two solutions to this: eliminate the monk from the core rules or add more Asian stuff to the core rules so the monk fits in. Either solution would be equally valid.

Now this I can agree with: _if_ you want to run a game with strong emphasis on historical authenticity, the monk is caught in the middle. But such a game is going to have lots of problems to deal with anyway....

 

[Klaus]

I just need to tackle these...

Re: Pankrationist

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 griffon's claw, nunchaku can become Hera's Serpents (remember Hera sent two serpents to kill baby Herakles in his cradle), etc...
Armour Class Bonus: Hunter's Awareness (nod to Atalanta)
Flurry of Blows: Hecatoncheire's Hundred Blows.
Unarmed Strike: Remains the same, lots of Greek heroes killed with their bare hands.
Evasion: This can remain the same, as it's easy to visualize light-armored greek warriors dodging blows (pankrationists have to rely on their fleet feet).
Fast Movement: Like Atalanta the Huntress, pankrationists can outrun even the fastest horses in time.
Still Mind: Faith in Self. Pankration is Total Power, so no mind can be weak, specially if one must endure the warrior-training.
Ki Strike: Once again, it's Total Power. This gets renamed Pankration Strike.
Slow Fall: Greece is as mountainous as it gets. It's easy to say that Pankrationists must learn the way of the mountain goat and be as surefooted as the god Pan.
Purity of Body: This is self-explanatory. In a world where magic exists, seeking the perfectness of the human body can have Purity as a side effect.
Wholeness of Body: Same as Purity.
Diamond Body: Same as Purity.
Abundant Step: Hermes' Blessing. For a short moment, the pankrationist reaches the instant travel of Hermes, god of messengers.
Diamond Soul: Same as Purity.
Quivering Palm: Touch of Clothos. The pankrationist begins to understand the workings of Fate, and can work with the twines of life to kill someone from afar.
Timeless Body: Same as Purity. Several Greek heroes were shown to be formidable even in their old age.
Tongue of Sun and Moon: Tongue of the Children of Gaea. All beings are descended from Gaea, and the pankrationist can link to this primal connection.
Empty Body: Olympian Step. So perfect is the pankrationist's body that it begins to border the divine, including stepping into the realm of the gods.
Perfect Self: Olympian Self. The pankrationist finally reaches Total Power, and his mortal form becomes so perfect that it transcends humanity and becomes divine.

 

[BryonD]

I just need to tackle these...

Re: Pankrationist