Do we really need Monks?

[wingsandsword]

Wingsandsword is very much pro-monk, so he may object to these quotes being attributed to him.

Yeah, I noticed some quotes that I didn't agree with misattributed to me there. I wasn't quite sure about bringing it up (and trying to be polite about it), so thanks for pointing it out for me.

There is a reason why people make weapons, it's a lot easier to hurt people with weapons than with your bare hands. From a game standpoint, monks can do it well by trading off armor, most weapons, and a rigid program of training (i.e. alignment/multiclassing restrictions), and that's only the game-mechanical reflection of mental, spiritual and physical training. Fighters get to wear big heavy armor, use just about any weapon, learn a lot more techniques and styles (i.e. feats). and get more HP.

I am pro-monk, but I do think that if people want to play a non monastic unarmed combattant, you should be able to do it, but monks do it better. That's an entire core class that at least from a rules standpoint is built to excel at that. A fighter-brawler has a lot more going for him than just his fists, like his armor, that sword he's got strapped to his back he might not use that often, the big piles of HP on his character sheet, and while he might not be able to Flurry of Blows, it's a lot easier for him to Whirlwind Attack or Great Cleave when faced with hoardes of weak opponents.

Personally, I wouldn't have any problem letting the Improved Unarmed Strike feat do 1d4 or even 1d6 points of damage, since Monks still get it best, preserving their dedicated niche (and they get even better than 1d6 fairly quickly), and Fighters can improve their unarmed attacks with Weapon Focus/Specialization, Improved Critical, and huge feat trees. Even 1d3 lethal doesn't sound like a lot, but that's the same as coming at you with a pocketknife (small dagger), and has a fair chance of dropping the average guy on the street (Com 1) in one hit. Letting them have 1d4 means that your fists are as deadly as daggers, 1d6 means your punch is as lethal as a 2 foot long sword! Monks only get that because that's all they get really, and mechanically, monks are typically terrible at ranged combat too.

Although roleplaying a monk's spiritual growth and philosophy probably doesn't come up in most games, since the person playing a monk in my own campaign is generally in agreement with me on my attitudes on D&D monks, the roleplaying and character development of an ascetic spiritual warrior definitely comes up in my games, being more than just hack n' slash. To me, the Monk class is more than just a fighter/martial-artist/pugilist who is optimized towards unarmed combat, it's represents a philosophy and way of life, much like the Paladin.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

But, at the end of the day, unless of course you "bend the rules to your imagination" a core Unfettered is a wild, seat-by-the-pants swashbuckler that enjoys treasure and adventure, and generally avoids the more retrospective, internal natures of some of the other classes. In essensce - Unfettered is not generic.

This causes me to wonder if one of the big problems with the monk (and paaladin) is that retrospective, self-absorbed characters rarely have a good reason to adventure.

I am pro-monk, but I do think that if people want to play a non monastic unarmed combattant, you should be able to do it, but monks do it better. That's an entire core class that at least from a rules standpoint is built to excel at that.

It's going to be next to impossible to arrange that, seeing how monks aren't that good at unarmed combat. They only have high damage going for them. Otherwise, they have a low BAB, no reasonable method to boost their attack rolls (too expensive, takes up Wisdom-boosting slot which is required)... the former is especially a problem, since anything that makes it possible for another unarmoed combatant to boost thier attack rolls will help monks at least a little bit.

If a new class is created that's all about unarmed combat, then it will be better than the monk at unarmed combat ... or it will suck, and there's no point of printing a sucky class.

After all, the monk has a whole slew of non-combat things going for him. Getting rid of them in favor of unarmed combat abilities will certainly result in a class that's better than the monk at unarmed combat.

 

[Doctor Shaft]

Well, maybe it's the lack of unarmed feats that exist that makes the monk so poor at what it's supposed to excel at in the first place. Or, the fact that there are few feats that actually help an unarmed combatant.

Just looking through the core books alone in terms of feat trees, etc., even the rogue, which can be looked at from a statistical standpoint as a class that is generally "weaker" in terms of combat ability when compared to other classes, can make better use of a majority of the feats.

Fighters, paladins, rogues, rangers, and barbarians can all make at least "some" good use with their combat feats. And rangers and paladins can make up for any shortcomings with cunning use of magic. (Spellcasting classes don't really need anything).

But the monk, when going up to the plate to choose feats, finds itself at a real dilmena. What feats, besides Improved Trip, really help unarmed combat. Disarm is weapon dependant (in terms of getting the most out of it). Power Attack is weapon dependant. Grapple is a very specialized and circumstantial ability that relies on BAB (not for monks). Dodge... sucks (but I take it anyway almost all the time when playing a monk).

There's no denying that a monk is a very solid defensive character, especially if pitted against the spellcaster. And at high levels, you can do some "tricks", but that all involves doing something really whacky, like maxing out your jump, balance, and tumble skills and walloping people before everyone else can act.

So a monk has immunities, speed, and high damage. Immunities are really good... but speed and high damage can all be be made up for or made irrelevant by a majority of the other classes' abilities.

And... monks are mystic ascetics that not everyone likes.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Well, maybe it's the lack of unarmed feats that exist that makes the monk so poor at what it's supposed to excel at in the first place. Or, the fact that there are few feats that actually help an unarmed combatant.

New unarmed feats won't help the monk much, since he's still got that low BAB and enhancement bonus issues crippling him. (The latter, of course, cripples everybody but the druid and psychic warrior.)

 

[vulcan_idic]

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.

Thanks Klaus!! This is the coolest thing I've seen in ages!!!! Consider it yoinked!!

 

[Klaus]

Thanks Klaus!! This is the coolest thing I've seen in ages!!!! Consider it yoinked!!

Yoink away! That's the whole point!

 

[BryonD]

I'm not demanding that anyone do anything. What I am saying is this: I know that a significant portion of people who play D&D share my priorities to a greater or lesser degree. For those people who share my priorities, the core rules are deficient in how they deal with Oriental material. People who share my priorities need more Oriental material in the core before the monk class is useable by us as a core class.

It must be a geographic thing or something then, because my personal experience doesn't match yours at all. And I've certainly not been aware of any great and wide concerns regarding monks in FR and Greyhawk.

Demanding may have been to strong a word. But you seem to be clearly indicating that the game would be better without the monk resident in the core rules. Seems a shame that you would advocate limiting other players Core options.

I'm not saying that people who don't share my approach and priorities are playing the game wrong when they include monks as written in the core rules, unsupplemented by other materials. What I am saying is that they have an opportunity that the rules do not provide people who share my priorities.

You are suddenly throwing around this "priorities" word in a distinctly vague manner. You have been claiming that monks don't fit. Your prior claims certainly came off as much stronger then simple priorities. Obviously it would be absurd to claim that using monks as in the rules is against the RAW. But at its base, claiming that monks are wrong to be in the core RAW is fundamentally the same.

If you mean that the core rules do not limit people from adding material that lets their game be Oriental, African or Mesoamerican in character, I am in full agreement with you. But if you are saying that the core rules, by themselves provide sufficient material for people to run Oriental, African or Mesoamerican campaigns without either purchasing or generating large amounts of additional material, I must disagree with you. The archetypes provided are too rooted in Europe -- Samurai and Paladins might both be code-bound fighters but things break down after that. A dozen or so specifically non-European monsters and one specifically non-European class are insufficient resources by themselves.

Perhaps you should come try my game some time.
Modeling those areas isn't simply, a theory. It is a piece of cake. All you have to do is recognize the difference between mechanics and flavor.
Sorcerers and wizards both make excellent American Indian Shamans, African Witch Doctors or Japanese Wu-Jens. Just replace scrolls and spellbooks with fetishes and totems, or whatever fits the flavor you are going for. Same with virtually any other class. The only thing rooted in Europe is the surface flavor. A Congo jungle druid and a Himilayan mountain druid would each be vastly different flavor from a European druid, without the slightest hint of celtic basis, but nearly identical mechanical abilities.

10d6 fire damage in a 20 ft burst with a range of 800 feet doesn't have a national identity.

Also, the paladin-samurai thing is a bad straw man arguement. Who says that there is any connection? I don't see why fighters don't make perfectly valid samurai. Sure, some minor tweaks in class skills would be good for getting the social aspects. And maybe expand the bonus feat selection. But certainly nothing major.

On that point, I do the same thing within European settings. I have an order of paladins. Not all of them have levels in paladin. Must they?
For example, Howard the Holy (Ftr7) is just as chosen and true as Paul the Paladin (Pal7).
Richard the Gargantuan may have Wpn Spec: Greatsword because he has been training with it for years and is simply an expert. Howard has Wpn Spec: Greatsword because his god guides his sword with every stroke. Same feat, same mechanics, completely different flavor.

So I'd have to say you are wrong and my campaign is proof. Everything you need for any of the settings you mentioned is in the core rules and a decent imagination.

Certainly I'm happy to use supplements as needed. I specifically did not mention Japan in the prior post because there is plenty of good Japan stuff out there and I do use it. I do use core stuff as well. Some of my samurai are fighters, but most are OA Samurai (probably to upgrade to Legends of Samurai very soon). More options is better, but that in no way implies that the core is not enough. I understand that Nyambia (sp??) is a great Africa setting. My own Africa gets the job done for me so I didn't bother. Hamunaptra is a very good Egypt setting. I did buy and enjoy reading it. But I decided it was to specific overall and I'll stay with my core adaptation, with a few stolen ideas here and there. So just the same, because I choose to use some good Japan supplements does not mean than I'm not 100% confident that I could adapt Japan from the core if I wanted to.

I also use Green Ronins Shaman for many America Indian styled shaman. But I also use sorcerers with tweaked flavor. Green Ronins book make it better. But it would still be every bit good enough if I didn't have that.

Everything I need is in the core.

I'm not suggesting D&D is meant to be a Tolkien simulation. If it were, it would be awful. Robert E Howard is, in fact, a perfect example of what I'm talking about. His world is Europe, North Africa and the Near East as viewed through European mythic history. His Near Eastern and African places and cultures are not based on how people in those places saw themselves; they are based on how Europeans imagined them.

Right.....

Just to point out the obvious, the core flavor is not how western Europeans saw themselves but how modern Tolkien-geeks imagined them. So I don't see the relevance of agreeing that these are fantasy adaptation based on popular myth from afar.

However, at least we have gotten you to (it appears) agree that core CAN handle Howard style North Africa and Near East as viewed by Europeans. Which is progress.

 

[fusangite]

It must be a geographic thing or something then, because my personal experience doesn't match yours at all.

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.

You are suddenly throwing around this "priorities" word in a distinctly vague manner. You have been claiming that monks don't fit. Your prior claims certainly came off as much stronger then simple priorities.

I had assumed that my particular gaming priorities were self-evident from my posts. I didn't expect that I would have to clarify that my problems with the rules are only problems for people who care about what I care about. Isn't this the point of view of everyone on the thread? Others are complaining that the monk is inflexible in its advancement and multiclassing rules; while, like my statement about culture, this is objectively true, this is obviously only a problem for people who care about a particular kind of mechanical flexibility.

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

Perhaps you should come try my game some time.
Modeling those areas isn't simply, a theory. It is a piece of cake. All you have to do is recognize the difference between mechanics and flavor.

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.

Sorcerers and wizards both make excellent American Indian Shamans, African Witch Doctors or Japanese Wu-Jens. Just replace scrolls and spellbooks with fetishes and totems, or whatever fits the flavor you are going for. Same with virtually any other class. The only thing rooted in Europe is the surface flavor. A Congo jungle druid and a Himilayan mountain druid would each be vastly different flavor from a European druid, without the slightest hint of celtic basis, but nearly identical mechanical abilities.

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?

10d6 fire damage in a 20 ft burst with a range of 800 feet doesn't have a national identity.

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

Also, the paladin-samurai thing is a bad straw man arguement. Who says that there is any connection? I don't see why fighters don't make perfectly valid samurai. Sure, some minor tweaks in class skills would be good for getting the social aspects. And maybe expand the bonus feat selection. But certainly nothing major.

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.

So I'd have to say you are wrong and my campaign is proof. Everything you need for any of the settings you mentioned is in the core rules and a decent imagination.

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

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

I also use Green Ronins Shaman for many America Indian styled shaman. But I also use sorcerers with tweaked flavor. Green Ronins book make it better. But it would still be every bit good enough if I didn't have that.

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.

Just to point out the obvious, the core flavor is not how western Europeans saw themselves but how modern Tolkien-geeks imagined them.

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

However, at least we have gotten you to (it appears) agree that core CAN handle Howard style North Africa and Near East as viewed by Europeans. Which is progress.

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.

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.

 

[Mad Mac]

What?

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.

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!

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.

The Monk also fills a niche no other class does, currently. Whether it does so well is debatable, but that's another discussion. 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 classes is fun, but all of these concepts can be played using the core rules just by tweaking flavor and building characters around those archtypes. The monk cannot.

Overall, I think the Monk(while it can be improved as a class) adds more to the game than it takes away, and if the only price to be paid is that a small number of gamers are tormented by horrific visions of the word "Monk" mentioned in the core rules once and a while...well...it's not going to keep me up at night. Not when anyone who seriously doesn't like the monk (Or any class!) can just houserule it out of existance, and never worry again about it tainting their setting with it's awful, asian, evilness.

 

[Seeten]

I agree with Fusangite in large degree. Although he is more concerned with feel, and I am more concerned with choices, the fact remains the monk sticks out like a sore thumb.

Yes, the monk gives you cool powers at every level. Unfortunately, it also strait jackets you into being just like every other monk. PrC's for monk make you an un-monk and are thus non-viable to me. But what it does not do is provide you with choices, and options, which is what everyone else seems to be clamoring for. Yes, it is a choice to make a bare fisted wandering ascetic, but its just as much a choice to make a fighter who looks like this:

BAB Full Fort Full Refl poor Will Poor Starting Proficiencies: All Armor Weapon: Broadsword, simple weapons
1: Power Attack
2: Cleave
4: Weapon Focus
6: Weapon Spec
8: Improved Critical
10: Power Critical
12: Greater Weapon Focus
14: Greater Weapon Spec
16: Great Fortitude
18: Improved Toughness
20: Iron Will

That makes a specific Character that might be cool to play. Hey, I am all for new options, lets make it a core class.

Here is the cool part tho: Lets call it a Fighter. Now, all fighters are this guy. You want to use a bow? Hey Cool, use your level 3 feat to select it, the base class only uses the Broadsword, sorry. Got a character idea for a guy who uses a sword, but isnt the above guy? Get ridiculed on the boards. This Fighter is fine. Swords are cool. You get cool powers. Whats wrong with you?

D&D Core is now supposed to be about options. So give me some. How about I can take Diamond Soul or New and Improved beat you up with my fist power.

Abundant Step or Kick you in the face?
Improved Movement, or improved hide/move silent?
one of a million other ideas I could easily come up with.

How about Monk as Ninja, where instead of all the ascetic "powers" you select stealthy ones. Monk as Pugilist, where you get additional punching skill in return for not getting your diamonds, and steps and dimdoors. All these things are legitimate unarmored fighter concepts. Ninja uses weapons and fists both. Just like monk, including many of the same weapons. The class isnt awful, its just a strait jacket. It would not be hard to give it choices tho.

How about something like 7 different monk special ability sets. This way, you can set them up from level 1-20 as current, for several different flavors? Ninja Set, Crouching Tiger Set, Monk Set, Mystic Set, Jet Li Set, Western Bare Knuckle Set, etc.