I hate monks

[Nyaricus]

Here are a few of my thoughts on the (shaolin) monk which made its way into 3e core.

D&D is assumed to be European Inspired. Now what this means is that stuff like aliens with tentacles for faces and three fingers make cults all over an underground realm and suck out brains for "enlightenment" for a living. So, where does European history come into that? I don't know

D&D is not only European-Inspired, but has a life all it's own as well. It creates it's own archetypes for many things - In Europe, "chromatic" dragons were not all evil, while "metallic" dragons were goodly - that is something which i am pretty sure Dragon Lance has done for D&D. Most of these things are not bad, but just deepen the mythos of D&D in and of itself. Tolkien took many different themes and also added in his own to create something completely original - D&D is a sorta half-bastard child with the "WTF" Template compared to Tolkiens' world. IE: Tolkien has Goblins (a Germanic mine-fairy) and Orcs (a made-up race) be brethren in his world - D&D makes them different races and adds in more "goblinoids."

D&D isn't real life - it is a made up game with some major influences of its authors - none of which include most of us EN Worlders. So what we are doing is pondering the written word of those authors and their intents behind it. Personally, I think that WotC should and should have done some *major* surveying to see what D&D players really want and base the game off those results. That said, look at the other side and realise just how popular D&D has became again in recent years and you could say with confidence that most of what they did wasn't half-assed - maybe a little far fetched, but not bad.

So there's most of my neutral responses to this issue of the (shaolin) monk in the D&D game. Here are some of my biased, more down to earth opinions on the monk.

***

IMHO, the monk doesn't fit in with the core rulebook. It should not have been there. It is obviously a Shaolin Monk archetype; a martial artist who uses fist and finesse to overcome foes. I personally do not feature them in my homebrew campaign - which is end-of-the-darkages/tolkien-esque world. if i had a choice, i wouldn't allow them in my Forgotten Realms games, either. They are an Oriental-concept, and should have been in Oriental Adventures. D&D is European-inspired, but why did they have to make an Oriental book? Because standard D&D is assumed to be set in a European-ish setting. Monks don't fit that, with a name change or minor ability changes - and for them, major changes aren't even really worth it. Rather a fresh build for the archetye you want makes a helluva better choice; that way you won't get held back by Oriental themes when you wanted Occidental.

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.

So, in conclusion, the monk is not an archetype that is appropriate in a European-Inspired game. As previous posters ahve offered up - there are many different unarmed/unarmoured fighting styles to choose from - a simple google search could do wonders for inspirations for this. As i said, if i had a choice, the (shaolin) monk would be out of all of my games, but one of my players has an anime-affixiation, and he jumped on the monk class for that. There is a balance point which any GM or DM must bow to.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

As a different kind of approach to using Monks in a Eurocentric game - have each race tend towards a curltural group of classes. I did this for my last D&D game and it worked really well - bascially Elves were eastern. The defualt classes for elves were Monk, Samurai, Shukenja ect. The standard "Elven arrogence" ties in well with the classic "stupid Gaijin" approach of "arrogent easterners"* They had the cultural weapons (the Chinese and Japanese kind of swords bows ect). This makes for a really different kind of fantasy world, and gives you other races a strong social niche all thier own; it added a lot of depth to the game I ran.

* Note quotes here because I am using negative stereotyping used in fiction ect.

 

[Nyaricus]

People get too wrapped up in the names of things.

Quoted for Truth.

I think this is one of the biggest issues here - D&D is terrible for sticking names with very niche roles and characteristics. This is why i like AD&D's approach with Character Kits - they help customise a base class to get the theme you want. IMO, it is unfortunate that these were replaced with PrC's for 3e. And that is coming from a guy with zero experience in Character Kits and limited experience with AD&D - i became a player just before 3e came out, so we went for the new edition immediately. Now, lets go through the classes, just for fun:

Bard - IRL they were singers, storytellers and poets. In D&D, they are a rogue/sorcerer combo with some "song" powers
Barbarian - this is one of the worst classes for giving a bad name to. This class should be called Berserker, and cultural conentations should be thrown out the dorr, jumped on, burned and then sent to the nearest river to be thrown in with cinder-block wrapping paper
Cleric - this class is a more effective "holy-warrior" then the paladin ever will be, and nothing in the class suggests a person who stays around the church and hels with office work and stuff. The power boost from AD&D bto 3e was WAY too much, IMO.
Druid - a class that fails at being anything close to a nature priest. Then WotC throws us a
"shaman" class in Complete Divine which is mechanically closer to a Celtic Druid that the D&D druid ever will be. UGH.
Fighter - the only problem i have is the clunky name - call him a "warrior" and be done with it already!
Paladin - i think that generic Crusader class should replace the sickenly "goody-two-shoes" of a "holy-warrior" class that WotC spit out.
Monk - see above. They shoud be in OA
Ranger - This should be a PrC, and be replaced with a more generic "Woodsman" class (assuming enviroments come into play, you could make varients depending on them)
Rogue - I think that D&D needs to have both a theif class (dex/int/cha) based rogue type and an assassin-type base class - IMC i call the former the same and the latter a "Cut-throat." Irons Heroes does it well for a low magic system, but transfering it over to standard D&D would be tricky.
Sorcerer & Wizard - they use two names which nail into place certain conentations of certain "spellcasters". This is bad

All in all, D&D should put less focus on class names, and have lists of alternative names for the classes. IMC's that i play in, i always at least call myself a warrior rather than a fighter, if not somethng a bit more specific.

 

[Heckler]

IMHO, the monk doesn't fit in with the core rulebook. It should not have been there. It is obviously a Shaolin Monk archetype; a martial artist who uses fist and finesse to overcome foes. I personally do not feature them in my homebrew campaign - which is end-of-the-darkages/tolkien-esque world. if i had a choice, i wouldn't allow them in my Forgotten Realms games, either. They are an Oriental-concept, and should have been in Oriental Adventures. D&D is European-inspired, but why did they have to make an Oriental book? Because standard D&D is assumed to be set in a European-ish setting. Monks don't fit that, with a name change or minor ability changes - and for them, major changes aren't even really worth it. Rather a fresh build for the archetye you want makes a helluva better choice; that way you won't get held back by Oriental themes when you wanted Occidental.

So in keeping in the flavor of your game, have you also nixed all the other non-European game aspects like punching daggers, kukri, bolas, couatls, mummies, gold dragons, genies, yaun-ti, etc.

I don't think the problem is that the monk is "too Asian," I think the problem is that some people play the monk as "over-the-top Jackie Chanish," which I don't believe was the designers intent. Heck, just look at the picture of Ember in the monk description; if anything, she's African.

 

[el-remmen]

One of things I did with my monks was make them fit within the framework of my setting. I wanted an answer to the question, "yeah, but what do they do?"

So in Aquerra different order "do" different things, and woven into the fabric of the setting these ascetic martial artists make perfect sense.

Monks of the Order of Anubis guard tombs and fight undead.
Monks of the Order of the Silent Sisters resist magic well and guard priestesses of Isis.
Monks of the Order of the Sojourners travel around getting drunk and experiencing the world "fully"
Monks of the Order of the Way act as traveling judges and champions for the accused who cannot afford defense
etc. . .

The trick is, if they don't work for you either don't use them, or make them work by making them part of the setting. Aquerra is not Europe, but neither is Greyhawk really. . . and the Scarlett Brotherhood always seemed like a cool group of monks to me.

 

[MadMaxim]

Haven't seen that.

And in fact, I have a Battledancer PrClass, posted in the Fiery Dragon website. My version of a Bladesinger.

Actually, the Battle Dancer is a base class with good BAB, good Reflex saves, monk-like abilities and uses Tumble as the required skill for different abilities. And it uses Charisma for the Monk abilities (bonus to AC) but doesn't gain flurry of blows and some other abilities. It retains the d8 HD and 4 + Int modifier skill points.

 

[Nyaricus]

So in keeping in the flavor of your game, have you also nixed all the other non-European game aspects like punching daggers, kukri, bolas, couatls, mummies, gold dragons, genies, yaun-ti, etc.

Yes, actually

Actually, It's not that i have "nixed" them, but basically i have started from the ground up - -thus they do not apply. I go through books like Oxfords Celtic Dictionary and Western Civilization textbooks and get my concepts from there - all the time using d20 rules, of course. My Berserker class is mechanically close to the Barbarian, but he is a Nordic Berserker - and my Nordic people are called Tullans. My Dwarves are Tolkien-based; thus there is only one race of them, and they have different abilities than the PHB dwarves. My standard elves have a LA, because they are Tolkien elves. I don't have gnomes becasue they are a fey race, and i keep that that older definition rather than D&D.

basically in designing my world, i have slowly come up with this "game-plan", of a sort.

1) use Tolkien and middle-earth concepts - dwarves, elves, hobbits, orcs, trolls and low-magic lends itsef to my world, amoung many other things.
2) use real life mythology, folklore, religions, and history to define what is left over from Tolkien. Stuff like dragons, fairies, "charatcer classes" and PrC's i go to real-life examples of them and try to work them into my world - all to fit the theme of course. Also, since my world is set in the end of the dark ages, i don't have things like greataxes, or many of the heavy armours - so other things replace them. For equipemnt, i suggest From Stone to Steel for ANY game, not just mine
3) Disregard most other things. I don't have Illithids, Gnomes as a PC race, the Monk class or anything deemed inappropriate or disruptive in my campaign. etc etc etc

It is alot of work with few thanks (and most oftenly a few raised eyebrows like your own) but i like the creation process and i will be enjoying my game immensely when i have it closer to completion - but alas, a worldbuilders job is never done

Hope that helps you recover from shock




or . . . at least, give you a quick death




EDIT: i should add that this is for my homebrew only - in the Forgotten Realms games i DM, anything goes

 

[Heckler]

Obviously not the answer I was expecting, Nyaricus, but I am glad to see that you're being thorough.

 

[Samuel Leming]

The D&D monk is more mystic than warrior. The problem I've seen is that player after player interested in the monk really wants to play an unarmed frontline fighter, and the D&D monk with it's lower BAB and mystical special abilities just doesn't do that without unreasonably high stats. The way I would have handled this is to add unarmed and unarmored fighting feats so the warrior classes could fill those character concepts. The gung fu without the foo foo. Others have simply replaced the monk with other unarmed combatant classes. Good examples are Midnight's Defender and Hong's Martial Artist. A bad example would be Chainmail Bikini's Martial Artist.

I'm currently running a C&C game. One of my players has a monk character and I'm not going to have any of these expectation problems since the class if primarily a warrior. The C&C monk gets a d12 hit die, the same BtH progression as a ranger or barbarian and a primary stat of Con. That's more like how the D&D monk should have been.

Sam

 

[Nyaricus]

Obviously not the answer I was expecting, Nyaricus, but I am glad to see that you're being thorough.

Thanks for the compliment. My belief is that the real world has enough amazing mythology, folklore, history and other such things that i really don't need all those, well "made-up" or inappropriately themed additions that i so often see in new books, etc. I know D&D isn't supposed to be real life, and i know i may be coming off as a bit of a zealot/purist, but honestly that is my middle ground. Combineding the best elements of both help me be creative in coming up with explainations of all things, while still being rational. Ahem, you should see my giant family tree - HOLY F*** was that alot of work, but i managed to make everything from Frost Giants to Anakim related - thus explaining my giant race and all of it's real-workd varients.

The reason Tolkien comes first is that he really helped form modern fantasy - and since i grew up on all that and a barrel of monkeys, I figured out exactly how i wanted Middle Earth to fit into my world. Now that I have matured, i have cast off the barrel of monkeys and i have been left with Tolkien

Anyways, i need to do some cleaning and such, but I'll keep tabs on this thread