Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Telas" data-source="post: 2112828" data-attributes="member: 20934">Wow, this is like a thread on Fark.com....Recap:One group claims that since it's in the rules, it's law: Monks do weird stuff.&nbsp; This says nothing about all the House Rule documents out there.&nbsp;&nbsp; :\ One group claims that the Monk is derived entirely from Asian mythology, and doesn't fit most Western European-flavored campaigns.&nbsp; Which conveniently forgets the Scarlet Brotherhood in Greyhawk, one of the oldest campaign settings out there.&nbsp;&nbsp; :\ The Asian flavor can be overcome by renaming the skills/feats with something more in tune to the campaign setting.&nbsp; However, this isn't acceptable to some, who think the Monk is not a traditional fantasy archetype.&nbsp; &nbsp; :\ Of course, what you do in your campaign shouldn't matter one whit to what someone else does.&nbsp; So why are we so concerned with others' interpretations of the Monk?&nbsp; And then there's me, with my &quot;low-magic&quot; Greyhawk campaign.&nbsp; My problem with Monks is that they're damned powerful in a low-magic setting.&nbsp; Best saves in the game, the first to receive multiple attacks, the best movement in the game (a 6th level Monk can run a mile in just over 2.5 minutes), and immunities and feats out the wazoo.When WotC went a-nerfing, someone looked at the Monk and said, &quot;These guys are safe - no weapons or armor.&quot;&nbsp; Big mistake, IMHO.For what it's worth, my solution is to bind the Monk with a Code of Honor that addresses specific situations, such as prisoners, noncombatants, poisons, etc.&nbsp; Paladins get this, too.&nbsp; This keeps the munchkining down to an acceptable level, and puts a sign up saying &quot;You must be this much ---- of a roleplayer to play a Monk.&quot;Telas</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Telas, post: 2112828, member: 20934"] Wow, this is like a thread on Fark.com.... Recap: One group claims that since it's in the rules, it's law: Monks do weird stuff. This says nothing about all the House Rule documents out there. :\ One group claims that the Monk is derived entirely from Asian mythology, and doesn't fit most Western European-flavored campaigns. Which conveniently forgets the Scarlet Brotherhood in Greyhawk, one of the oldest campaign settings out there. :\ The Asian flavor can be overcome by renaming the skills/feats with something more in tune to the campaign setting. However, this isn't acceptable to some, who think the Monk is not a traditional fantasy archetype. :\ Of course, what you do in your campaign shouldn't matter one whit to what someone else does. So why are we so concerned with others' interpretations of the Monk? And then there's me, with my "low-magic" Greyhawk campaign. My problem with Monks is that they're damned powerful in a low-magic setting. Best saves in the game, the first to receive multiple attacks, the best movement in the game (a 6th level Monk can run a mile in just over 2.5 minutes), and immunities and feats out the wazoo. When WotC went a-nerfing, someone looked at the Monk and said, "These guys are safe - no weapons or armor." Big mistake, IMHO. For what it's worth, my solution is to bind the Monk with a Code of Honor that addresses specific situations, such as prisoners, noncombatants, poisons, etc. Paladins get this, too. This keeps the munchkining down to an acceptable level, and puts a sign up saying "You must be this much ---- of a roleplayer to play a Monk." Telas [/QUOTE]

Verification