I hate monks

[tetsujin28]

Yikes. This thread had become really, really silly.

 

[Staffan]

Yikes. This thread had become really, really silly.

You don't say?

 

[Storm Raven]

Savate is from the 1800s, not exactly middle ages. Well, you can of course have such a thing in your D&D settings (it's not strictly forbidden to add something from AFTER the middle ages ), but it's also a street-fighting thing IIRC that sounds to me extremely far from cloistered people who meditate about the cosmos and gain supernatural abilities... A Rogue with Improved Unarmed Attack would fit a hundred times better.

Even still, savate is about 100 years older than most modern Asian martial arts. Some have their roots deeper, but many styles are quite young. Besides, how many things are featured in the standard D&D books that don't crop up until the Renaissance (or later) in the real world? If you look at the books, lots. Incorporating a western martial art that has Savate's pedigree would not really be anachronistic given the wide range of sources the standard D&D settings draw from.

Pankration is the greek wrestling I had in mind. In D&D it would be grappling, definitely not the Monk mechanic which is based on speed and mobility.

Pankaration is far more than wrestling - it involved punches, kicks, throws, locks, and so on. It was wrestling with boxing and foot techniques thrown in for good measure. It is probably more strength based than the standard D&D monk, but a grappling monk would model this sort of practitioner fairly well.

 

[Afrodyte]

I'm probably way off the mark here, but sometimes I wonder if the only reason people think that normal D&D is particularly medieval and European lies in the fact that "Oriental Adventures" exists as a separate supplement. There are plenty of things in the PHB and DMG that indicate that how things look matter less than how they work. Of course, I could be wrong.

 

[Nyaricus]

All quoted for Truth

If all the classes are applicable cross-genre, why does Oriental Adventures remove the bard, druid, cleric, and paladin? Why are monks the only ones who get proficiency with asian-origin weapons at 1st level without expending feats? Why are all the options for monks, the least-customizable class until then, in Oriental Adventures? Why does the PHB, with a handful of exceptions, contain only weapons, armor, and equipment from European origin or straight out of fantasy?

No one up to this point had mentioned that Oriental Adevnetures had removed those classes; I myself had infact . But that raises a very good point. Why does core D&D have to strive to make us believe that Shaolin Monastic Orders are all over a European-Inspired setting when OA says that "none of [those guys are here; they all belong in the Occidental lands, where they can have Occidental Adventures. La di da. That's bull. They should have stried to suspend our disbelief and included the Pally, the cleric, the druid and the bard in OA. Otherwise, it's just blatant racism, right? (i don't back that up however - the OA wants to fit a certain theme, an that is what Core D&D should have done before included a "cool class") . . .

A cool class. That is the answer to all the above questions.

You can argue for the modern, all-inclusive, politically acceptable, "stop being narrowminded" approach all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the monk is included in the PHB for the single, solitary reason of the designers of D&D 3.x wanted it there. Not because it was a critical party role, not because it meshes well with the rest of the game, not even because it's mechanically very good and has abilities that work well together (IMO, neither is true). It's there because white kids like to play ninja, because wuxia films are popular, and because eleven classes sounds better than ten.

Eleven class sounded better then ten. Something weird like that i would guess, has to be true. *ugh*

I'm not saying the monk shouldn't be there. I'm saying with his abilities (and their names), his weapon proficiencies, the implications of calling an unarmed fighter with mystical powers a monk, the PHB monk is an unagi roll on the burger platter of the PHB. I've got nothing against sushi, but it's not even related to hamburgers.

Seconded for Truth

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Its really baffling to me that many people cant imagine a euroflavored martial artist, or that having monks could ruin suspension of disbelief.

Its not that we can't imagine a euroflavored martial artist- we can. Our point is that the monk as written (from 1Ed-3.5Ed) isn't one, and that it is incongrous in the context of the other classes in the PHB.

Example: Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel series features just such a martial artist. While trained in the traditional western weapons, including the archetypal large sword, the Casseline Brothers specialize in fighting with daggers and fighting unarmed.

Plain, non-exotic, non-magical daggers.

While deflecting missiles may be part of their repetoir, you don't see them falling 200' without a scratch, running 60', killing with a touch or most of the Monk's abilities.

Essentially, these guys are just as dangerous with a pair of daggers as a typical warrior is with a longsword & shield. In game terms, you'd keep the martial arts skills and drop just about everything else. They'd use light armor, even when doing martial arts. You'd probably have to give them supernatural abilities that pump damage dice and crit threat ranges...maybe even crit multipliers with their daggers, and they'd be as good at 2WF as any ranger and would also get the neccessary ranged weapon feats, but once again, only for use with daggers.

Also, as Imret and Nyaricus bluntly but eloquently pointed out, the flipside situation is utterly absent from Oriental Adventures. There is no overtly "Gaijin" class included in its pages, gaining proficiencies with "exotic weapons" or armors that come only from the West.

Given that (in the real world) there were Christian missionaries wandering in the East, wouldn't including Clerics or Paladins into Oriental Adventures have been a good idea? Yes...but they were rare in real life.. Instead, they were eliminated because they would have been too jarring for the continuity of the setting.

 

[I'm A Banana]

the OA wants to fit a certain theme, an that is what Core D&D should have done before included a "cool class"

I don't think Core D&D should try to fit a certain theme.

In an Occidental-flavored theme, yes, the monk would be odd. But I don't think Core D&D is, or should be, or would benefit from being, Western-themed. Rather, taking a diverse selection and puttting it together is perfect for the Core Game. Because it fuels the imagination and lets you change how things look and it wants you to come up with new ideas and hybridize and bastardize every legendary source out there.

Core D&D should focus on including cool classes. Screw theme. Theme is for campaign settings (like OA). Not for the Core.

 

[fnork de sporg]

Just because the setting is Europian based doesn't mean it is entirely spawned from those concepts. I would expect exceptions.

This sounds like a good argument in favor of monks to me.

Let's not forget that there are laser guns in the DMs guide. Sure they're optional, but so is leadership. D&D can and should contain multitudes.

Unless your game is actually set in some mythic version of europe. Though even then with higher level forms of magical travel it seems like the two cultures would inevitably make contact at some point.

 

[Kichwas]

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 in this very thread becoming apparent > that would be either saysing "meh, shaolin monks could have a spot in Europe" and "ummm, why is Jackie Chan chillin with Arthur and Beowulf?". So, back to the bloodlines bit,and the theme of the monk, i have to say that Monks have NO place in a European-Inspired setting such as D&D. This makes sense from many POV's - including the evidence from human bloodlines that it would be Inpossible to have a Europe with Asian influences. The closest thing we got IRL was Middle-east and Northern Africa stuff.

This hasn't been accepted for decades. The last serious attempt to push this 'scientific ideology' upon the world was in Europe in the late 30s, early 40s...

Not only that, but you have the number of races wrong.

If there were races that differed beyond phenotype, there would be 6 or more - for the 6 major groups that split in pre-history according to modern DNA tracing, and maybe more for the later splits from them.

Roughly 80k years ago a group left Africa, and their only surviving descendants are the people who settled Australia and thereabouts.

Roughly 40k years ago a second wave that survives into the modern left, and they settled in Central Asia. Around where Iran to Afganistan are today.

At about -the same time- this band split into 4 factions, one went to Europe, one to Asia, one to North America, and one stayed put.

Despite looking phenotypically similar, Asians and Native Americans are as close to each other as each is to Europeans.

We've only known that for a few years though.

Finally, there are the people who never left Africa. This gives 6 basic groups from which modern humans descend. Other waves of advanced primates and humans both left Africa, but all of them were wiped out (Homo Erectus which is identical to modern humanity, Neandertal which new DNA shows never interbred with humans, and those newfound 'hobbits' of Indonesia are the best known examples).

All that said, what has generally come out is that among the races there is less difference than there is between members. Generally speaking, beyond phenotype, there are no recordable differences in the so-called 'races'. Phenotype however (meaning appearance), dictates cultural alliances quite strongly, and has worked to shape 'us v them' tensions throughout history. That however does not say actual differences might exist, but history, as I will show below, has been working against this differentiation much more than racists presume.



Finally, just to b--ch slap you around a bit for your racial presumptiveness...

Guns are an example of a Europe influenced by Asia. An Asian invasion in fact. Gengis Khan's army used lines of riflemen when they swept down into what is today known as GERMANY.

When his people fell back due to problems at home (the old man died and the sons all had to return if I recall correctly), they left behind many people and a lot of new technology, and they took many people and a lot of technology with them.

Thus you have everynow and then a blond Mongolian, and you have people like my NCOIC when I was in the Air Force who was a big burly former biker-gangster white guy with a Mongolian last name because his great-[etc]-great grand pappy was part of the Khan's army and decided to stay in Europe when the others went home - something which is not uncommon to find in central European families.

In fact, 1 in 4 males alive today have DNA in them from not just the Mongols, but the Khan himself.

 

[Kichwas]

A last little note - The -unarmed martial art- of Pankration was introduced to the 'Olympic Games' in 648 B.C.