Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 1970265" data-attributes="member: 7240">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. 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.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.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 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.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. I'm not a fan of halflings for other reasons but certainly not because nimble little mischevious people don't appear in European myth. 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 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. 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. I agree. But for many people, what something represents is the archetype to which it refers. What do you mean by "represent"?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.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.The idea of evil or dark elves is represented in Norse myth. Change their god and you're good to go.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.Thanks hong. I'm glad to know that there are legions of us you deem to be idiots.How does suggesting that what a monk is could be informed by the dictionary's opinion "obfuscating"?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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification