I hate monks

[Dannyalcatraz]

But that's the underlying issue--culture. This thread is a skirmish between those who believe that the core game is multicultural enough to allow other-than-European material, and those who believe that it shouldn't. It is, at its core, an ethnic issue with a scope far beyond D&D.

1) Culture≠ethnicity. Culturally, I'm an American or Westerner. Ethnically, I'm black, Eastern European Jewish, French, Native American, Italian, German, Moroccan, Mongolian, Puerto Rican...and more. (I am human gumbo.)

2) Including the monk in the PHB leads down the slippery slope. If the monk is allowed, why not the Samurai or the Ninja? Why isn't there a core Witch class? Whale Rider? Voodoo priest? Native American Shaman?

Or to state the problem more generally: Given that the rest of the PHB classes are Western/Acultural (and ignoring the question of which classes were designed when), what is it about the Eastern archetypal monk that makes it rate inclusion in the PHB above all other Non-Western/Acultural classes published/potentially published by WOTC?

The answer: nothing.

To include non-Euro stuff like the monk in the Core book is fine...but it violates the sense of internal consistenc, and does so in a particularly arbitrary fashion.

 

[el-remmen]

Great. So don't use them.

Next question.

Preach it, brother.

I don't get what this long-assed debate is about.

If the monk is incongruous to you and your group drop them.

If you feel like they work in the context of your setting, either "as is" or with changes in so-called "fluff" then do so.

As to the question of whether they belong in the core books - well, they aren't going anywhere it seems (I gues we'll have to wait for 4E to see if they disappear ) - and personally, I like to have the option there.

 

[el-remmen]

and does so in a particularly arbitrary fashion.

So?

I mean, in some ways it might seem arbitrary - or it might just be something along the lines of,

Designer #1: "Hmmm, we need a unarmed combatant type for the game that people will recognize to go along with the sword-wielding fighters, the rampaging barbarians, the spell-shooting wizards, the nature-loving druids, etc. . ."

Designer #2: "How about monks who get all kung-fu crazy? People know and recognize them as an archetype these days and they are really cool!"

Designer #1: "Hmmm, well that doesn't exactly go with the western European flavor of the other classes. . ."

Designer #2: "So? Greyhawk ain't Europe, and it makes sense from a design point of view if you look at it in terms of easily recognizable archetypes in pop culture today being the base classes - so 'western' or not people can relate to it."

Designer #1: "You've convinced me."


Makes sense to me. . .

 

[Krieg]

My issue with the Monk is just that it isn't generic enough. IMO the core classes should be just that "core"...Fighting Man, Magic User, Man of God & Jack of All Trades (skill dude, rogue whatever)....everything else should be a subset of that, INCLUDING the Monk.

To me including the Monk was a step backwards from what the 3E designers set out to accomplish.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So?

If that's your attitude, then give my core psionic classes, and Incarnum stuff as well. Add my Voudoun, Houngans, & Shamen. While you're at it, add my Artificer, Alchemist, & Hedge Wizard.

Give me my 400+ core classes in the PHB...for $40.

Or give me a PHB with some internal consistency.

Monks are tasty, Monks are great, but as a core class, they just don't rate.

Looking at it from the designer side of things, you could just as easily ask, why, since Psionics have been around since 1Ed (p110, the first Appendix of that PHB), weren't THEY made core?

Lets be honest, you CAN use a core Fighter to model an unarmed martial artist (albeit not NEARLY as well as the Monk does), but you absolutely cannot do a Psionic PC with the core 3 rulebooks. Where is the love for THAT kewlness? Instead, you had to wait months and months before the first Psionics book hit the shelves.

Psionics isn't included in the PHB because Psionics violates the internal consistency of a lot of fantasy tropes.

 

[el-remmen]

Psionics isn't included in the PHB because Psionics violates the internal consistency of a lot of fantasy tropes.

Or because psionic classes introduce what is basically a third form of magic that works very differently from the other two which would bog down the book and confuse new players.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You think flurry of blows, or unarmed attacks that count as natural or manufactured weapons don't confuse noobs?

Having seen that it does in my own campaigns, I can safely say that there are all kinds of elements to the core game that confuse new players- like Attacks of Opportunity. You can't justify exclusion/inclusion decisions based on that.

 

[el-remmen]

You think flurry of blows, or unarmed attacks that count as natural or manufactured weapons don't confuse noobs?

Having seen that it does in my own campaigns, I can safely say that there are all kinds of elements to the core game that confuse new players- like Attacks of Opportunity. You can't justify exclusion/inclusion decisions based on that.

Hmm, I should I have said "bog down the book and/or confuse new players". . .? How's that?

The monk is one class, psionics is a whole new set of powers (i.e. spells) from 1st to 9th level - you really can't compare the two in terms of the amount of space and energy to include them in the core book. Well, you can, but it doesn't help your point.

Can psionicists and monks both be considered "incongruous"? Yes.

Can they both be considered as easily introduced in a core product? No.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Except that 1) the psionic Soulknife class doesn't require anything outside of the core rules. It has no access to the rest of the psi system at all. The same could be said of the Pyrokineticist PrCl.

Essentially, that class has an inherent magic weapon that improves over time.

Arguably much easier to introduce than the monk, less complicated than the Warlock.

And 2) considering it was part of the 1st Ed PHB, it can't be THAT confusing and didn't bog things down THAT much.

 

[el-remmen]

Except that 1) the psionic Soulknife class doesn't require anything outside of the core rules. It has no access to the rest of the psi system at all. The same could be said of the Pyrokineticist PrCl.

Essentially, that class has an inherent magic weapon that improves over time.

Arguably much easier to introduce than the monk, less complicated than the Warlock.

I'm not sure the Warlock or Soul Knife existed when 3E came out. . And I am not all that familiar with either so I really cannot say.

And 2) considering it was part of the 1st Ed PHB, it can't be THAT confusing and didn't bog things down THAT much.

Another pointless argument. 1E Psionics was in an appendix and not nearly the well-thought out, integrated and extensive system we have in 3E - and it sure as hell confused a lot of people.