I hate monks

[tetsujin28]

I don't think that the core game is so rigidly European-inspired any longer, nor should it be going forward.

Agreed.

 

[ForceUser]

The problem is that right now, the monk is offered-up as a class without enough to support it doing anything other than sticking out like a sore thumb. Basically, all there is to back it up are some exotic weapon descriptions and, basically, that's it. I'm not against including the monk on principle; what I'm against is including the monk in a world where he doesn't make sense.

I love Euro-centric homebrew campaigns; in fact, I'm running one. Yet never since the first time I cracked open the 3.0 PHB in August of 2000 have I thought, "Hey, this monk doesn't belong!" It never crossed my mind that it was an issue for some people until I read this thread, and I'm as white as white boys get, and I do love my knights and dragons. For me, having a core monk was always about "Where can I put this guy?" rather than "He doesn't belong." But, hey, I'm biased--I've always loved monks.

I agree that the monk as written is clearly influenced by wire-fu, and while I appreciate the offering, I do agree that he needs more support in core rules. Hmm. Maybe 4E should head toward "d20 GURPS." A toolkit, vice a setting.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

My preference would be to include Paladin, Druid, Bard, Monk, Samurai, and Ninja. They would however all include this proviso in their class description:

This class mat not be available in more parochial campaign settings. Consult with your DM before taking this class.

 

[Staffan]

What upsets me is that I loved the 2E monk. Maybe it's nostalgia, but I feel that the old monk wasn't as strait-jacketed into a cliched Jet Li/David Carradine/Shaolin temple flavour.

Which 2e monk?

The PHB didn't have any monk class. As for supplemental rules, I can recall these monk-like things:
Fighting-monk kit from the Complete Priest's Handbook (cleric with some martial arts stuff, basically a slightly improved version of the punching rules from the PHB).
Sensei kit from The Will & The Way (psionicist using the same martial arts rules)
Pugilist kit from Skills & Powers.
Monk class from Faiths & Avatars and Spells & Magic (also a priest variant using "normal" martial arts rules). There may have been minor differences between these two, but that's on the level of access to one or two spheres of priest magic.
Monk class from the Scarlet Brotherhood (one of the last 2e products released), this being the closest to the 1e and 3e monk.

There were also expanded rules for unarmed combat in Combat & Tactics, but no class for using them, other than the monk-priest in Spells & Magic which allowed for the use of either these rules or the ones in the PHB.

There were probably martial arts rules in the Complete Ninja's Handbook too, but since that's one of the books I don't have I can't really say anything about those.

 

[Darkness]

A-hA! I've found it!

Here, I have taken the monk and renamed it Pankrationist. I also renamed the class abilities that had too much shaolin flavor.

...

That was a beautiful post.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I am NOT an anti-asian euro-purist - I am someone who thinks that on many levels the monk shouldn't have been included in the PHB and that it should become a class in OA.

The problem is that right now, the monk is offered-up as a class without enough to support it doing anything other than sticking out like a sore thumb. Basically, all there is to back it up are some exotic weapon descriptions and, basically, that's it. I'm not against including the monk on principle; what I'm against is including the monk in a world where he doesn't make sense.

All quoted for truth.

Tell me, when you're striving for that historical actuality, do you allow magic? Medusas? Centaurs? Gorgons? (Greek critters, not Western European.) Do paladins and druids exist in the same campaign world? If so, there goes historical accuracy--the timeframes are a few hundred years apart. For that matter, do you allow plate armor with chainmail? Because chain preceded plate by a few hundred years. Don't fool yourself regarding the historical accuracy of your games. If you're running D&D, it ain't historically accurate by any stretch of the definition.

Greek culture is one of the wellsprings of Western culture, and you can find tales of such creatures reiterated and re-imagined hundreds of years later, and as far away as the Atlantic coastline. The mythology of the Greeks was appropriated as a touchstone by the Romans, who spread those legends along with their empire. As such, its as appropriate for a Western D&D campaign as Fey.

I reiterate- I LOVE THE MONK. I just think it 1) doesn't belong in the core PHB, and/or 2) that a non-Eastern themed archetypal unarmed combat specialist IS needed in the PHB.

 

[fusangite]

I love Euro-centric homebrew campaigns; in fact, I'm running one. Yet never since the first time I cracked open the 3.0 PHB in August of 2000 have I thought, "Hey, this monk doesn't belong!" It never crossed my mind that it was an issue for some people until I read this thread, and I'm as white as white boys get, and I do love my knights and dragons. For me, having a core monk was always about "Where can I put this guy?" rather than "He doesn't belong." But, hey, I'm biased--I've always loved monks.

I agree that the monk as written is clearly influenced by wire-fu, and while I appreciate the offering, I do agree that he needs more support in core rules. Hmm. Maybe 4E should head toward "d20 GURPS." A toolkit, vice a setting.

I reiterate- I LOVE THE MONK. I just think it 1) doesn't belong in the core PHB, and/or 2) that a non-Eastern themed archetypal unarmed combat specialist IS needed in the PHB.

Dammit! It's that Christmas spirit -- we're all getting along!

 

[Stalker0]

that a non-Eastern themed archetypal unarmed combat specialist IS needed in the PHB.

Its not needed, but it was greatly wanted. There are lots of people that want to play kung fu masters, ninjas, and the like. As I mentioned earlier, the dmg II mentions that one of the most popular archetypes for people to play is a ninja.

So WOTC gave it to them. Take them out if you don't want them, but lots of people do.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, bring on the machine guns, mutants, cowboys, costumed superheroes, Victorian mad scientists and lasers then!

NOW you're talkin'! Where do I plunk down $40 for THAT wellspring of awesome?

(a) provide enough material ie. classes, races, flavour, rules, magic, etc. that supports an Asian-style campaign so that the monk isn't out of place; or
(b) exclude the monk from the core rules and consign it to the Oriental Adventures book, which does contain enough material to support Asian-style classes

This seems unessecarily exclusionary to me. Unless you're trying for some ideal of European homogeneity (which isn't something I think D&D should or is trying for), what's wrong with the bastard-child of the East being there? They don't stick out as a sore thumb any more than technicolor dragons or "player economy" or squid-headed psychics or six different species of fiends or the Great Wheel or dragon-blooded sorcerers or shape-shifting druids.

So, having laid to rest the idea that Eurocentric D&D is a worthy goal, what purpose does excluding the monk serve? Anymore than excluding the Elves to some tome of Elvish history, or excluding Paladins for some Crusades-style campaign, or reserving gnomes for a supplemental book on Fey serve?

The monk is like everything else in D&D: a bastardized take on myth and faith and history made manifest as something fun to pretend to be or be against on a weekly basis. Why should we limit the core rules to mutliating Tolkein and Le Mort D'Arthur and reserve the Monk for some specially formatted setting to mutilate?

 

[Afrodyte]

It should also be noted that for thousands of years, Europeans and Asians didn't mix bloodlines. It is generally accepted that ther are three main "races" of humans (and remember: that is to be read main races) - that would be Caucasion, Mongoloid and Negroid. Only Now-a-days that cultures are becoming more intergrated are issues such as the ones we are debating

This is complete and utter poppycock and has been debunked by science decades ago.