[D&D3] The discussion about a DM disallowing dragonborn PCs, in another thread, made me think of this right now. Although I have never disallowed them, I have a real, gut-level problem with monks and halflings. In our current campaign, there is a halfling monk PC.
My problem with monks only comes up when the monk is fighting a monster -- something bigger than a man. Ogres, giants, dragons, aboleths, elementals, etc. I have a hard time picturing the empty-hand blows on the monster.
I have a gut level problem with many things in D&D.
It's worth nothing that in 1st edition AD&D there was a size limit on how large of a target the monk could effect with open hand attacks. As for the monk making bare handed attacks on something that is on fire, well I for one would rule that would cause burn damage, but I don't know if that is official or not.
My problem with halflings (and gnomes) is how everyone at the table -- DM, other Players -- forget, or don't realize to begin with, how truly small these characters are. Several years ago, when my oldest son was around 3-4 years old, my group had a dinner get together. At this gathering, I pointed out to the players that my little son was within an inch and two pounds of the size of the PC halfling rogue. This illustration shocked them. It was especially interesting because the Player of the halfling is 6' tall.
Yeah, it helps to have a 3 or 4 year old around as a frame of reference. But I don't really have a problem with the size issue. Humans aren't really heavily built for our size. I just assume that a halfling is, and that there proportionate strength is something closer to Chimpanzee than human. Keep in mind that this is a 'three year old' that can bend steel bars with his bare hands.
Of course, the problem with being built like a brick is you sink like one in water, but then halflings are notoriously afraid of the water...
Still, I concur that when halflings are in the game, far too little attention is paid to their size. When the halflings wants to search the desk, remind him that he has to actually climb up on the desk to do so. When the players are looking at something on a table, remind him that he can't actually see without pulling himself up on his tip toes.
Still, I'm narrating a halfling monk killing a human with his bare hands...
"You smash the bandits kneecap with a well place elbow, causing the bandit to stumble forward in pain. Taking advantage of the oppurtunity, you jab your fingers straight up in the man's neck, smashing the larnyx with a crunch. The bandit begins to make a gurgling weezing sound, his scream dead in his throat even as he made it. Finally you plunge your fingers up the bandits nostrils, dragging his limp body downward and with a circular motion propel his skull into the stone wall using all of your strength and all of the man's weight. There is a nasty cracking sound and a smear of blood on the stone. The head of the bandit assumes a very unnatural shape."
Bigger targets work basically the same with just more jumping and climbing narration. Think 'God of War II'.
For my part, the problem with hobbits is that they are too specific to the world of Tolkien to feel at home to me anywhere else. I think its a sign of low creativity to have hobbits. Elves and dwarves are suspect, but acceptible because they have such deep roots in Western mythology. But the presence of Hobbits is just a gross lack of imagination.
I feel the same about 'Rangers', although the D&D 'Ranger' has evolved very very far from the Tolkien inspiration. I likewise feel the 'Druid' is far too specific to one particular culture of Northern Europe, and tend to feel that the Barbarian is a little too Northern European at least in sterotype as well. I'd very much prefer that the Barbarian and the Druid were derived from much more general base classes - whether 'fanatic' or 'primitive' in the case of the barbarian (depending on what you feel the critical feature is) or shaman in the case of the druid.
My problem with Monk is two fold. First, that it doesn't seem general enough to me, being a class seemingly more suited to an exclusively Eastern themed setting. And secondly, I also have a problem envisioning the Monk, but not because I have a problem envisioning little things killing big things with their bare hands, but because I have a hard time imagining unarmed people - however skillful - fighting armed people on an equal basis. That is just nuts. I can accept that their might be people extremely skilled at unarmed combat, so much so that perhaps they might be able to overwhelm an armed opponent of no particular skill. What I can't imagine is them doing this without great risk or as a preferred mode of attacking. I've not spent a whole lot of time practicing with a sword, and have never been a particularly natural athelete, but not only do I think that with a sword in hand I could hold my own against Bruce Lee, but Bruce Lee thinks so too and said so.
I just don't see how a Monk can fit into the sort of casual realism that I'm going for. I have an easier time believing 3' tall 30 pound humanoids are scary and dangerous than I have believing that some skill exists that makes human hands more deadly weapons than actual weapons.
