Paladin.. monk?
- Thread starter Arrgh! Mark!
- Start date
Arkhandus
First Post
Disclaimer: rampant sarcasm follows
Sorry, I didn't feel like reading much of the posts in this thread beyond the first one, for some reason I was feeling lazy in that regard. }:^( Perhaps if I could have somehow managed to overcome my insomnia this past week enough to get more than 3-4 hours of sleep each night, I might not have felt so dis-inclined to reading a long page of posts. Then I wouldn't have accidentally mimicked stuff already mentioned, and wouldn't be badmouthed for incidentally restating what's already said, because lord only knows nobody ever happens to, on rare occasions, post to a thread without reading all the posts beyond the first, least of all someone so meticulous in habit as myself. Because, y'know sleep is for the weak.
People who get hung up on D&D Monks being too orientally-exclusive are akin to those who get hung up on how D&D psionics are so "totally and undeniably" sci-fi (or since the XPH, "crystal-punk") for any good roleplayer to ever be comfortable having them in a nice, traditional D&D campaign. You'd think they'd rant about the punkish and newb-ish atmosphere much of 3.x D&D portrays, or the liberal modern ethics and pop culture that some D&D designers nowadays seem to try slipping into the products without portraying more traditional medieval-style pseudo-historical stuff. But nooooooo, monks and psions and anything smacking of non-traditional-western-European-flavor/legend are the bugbears that assail their minds.
I prefer to think positively when allowed the opportunity, and work up a solution that fits the game. Open your minds to more possibilities and you won't be stressed so much by life's little idiosyncracies and such. Stress is bad for your health, y'know.
Sorry, I didn't feel like reading much of the posts in this thread beyond the first one, for some reason I was feeling lazy in that regard. }:^( Perhaps if I could have somehow managed to overcome my insomnia this past week enough to get more than 3-4 hours of sleep each night, I might not have felt so dis-inclined to reading a long page of posts. Then I wouldn't have accidentally mimicked stuff already mentioned, and wouldn't be badmouthed for incidentally restating what's already said, because lord only knows nobody ever happens to, on rare occasions, post to a thread without reading all the posts beyond the first, least of all someone so meticulous in habit as myself. Because, y'know sleep is for the weak.
People who get hung up on D&D Monks being too orientally-exclusive are akin to those who get hung up on how D&D psionics are so "totally and undeniably" sci-fi (or since the XPH, "crystal-punk") for any good roleplayer to ever be comfortable having them in a nice, traditional D&D campaign. You'd think they'd rant about the punkish and newb-ish atmosphere much of 3.x D&D portrays, or the liberal modern ethics and pop culture that some D&D designers nowadays seem to try slipping into the products without portraying more traditional medieval-style pseudo-historical stuff. But nooooooo, monks and psions and anything smacking of non-traditional-western-European-flavor/legend are the bugbears that assail their minds.
I prefer to think positively when allowed the opportunity, and work up a solution that fits the game. Open your minds to more possibilities and you won't be stressed so much by life's little idiosyncracies and such. Stress is bad for your health, y'know.
Last edited:
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
I think a lot comes down to the campaign setting that people choose to use. I personally probably wouldn't use a fantasy medieval europe setting (too much of that in the 70's for me!) but if I did I wouldn't use monks.
What I've done for my most recent campaigns (and I'm likely to do for any new campaigns in the future) is produce a composite fantasy world which isn't closely associated with any particular earth cultures (as far as I can do so... impossible to remove all cultural referents of course!)
One of the things that I like about the avowed design of the Eberron setting is that it provides a reasonable place or rationale for all the stuff in standard D&D (including monks, clerics and if you really want them, ninja).
So to answer ArghMarks original question:
Yes, I think the Monk class is suitable for a standard fantasy game
and
No, I don't think the Monk class is suitable for a medieval europe fantasy game
All standard disclaimers apply!
What I've done for my most recent campaigns (and I'm likely to do for any new campaigns in the future) is produce a composite fantasy world which isn't closely associated with any particular earth cultures (as far as I can do so... impossible to remove all cultural referents of course!)
One of the things that I like about the avowed design of the Eberron setting is that it provides a reasonable place or rationale for all the stuff in standard D&D (including monks, clerics and if you really want them, ninja).
So to answer ArghMarks original question:
Yes, I think the Monk class is suitable for a standard fantasy game
and
No, I don't think the Monk class is suitable for a medieval europe fantasy game
All standard disclaimers apply!
Agreed. I don't allow psionics in my campaigns either for precisely the reasons you articulate here. And I think monks should be treated like psionics -- placed outside of the core and consigned to supplementary material that actually provides sufficient support for them. The big problem with the monk is that the PHB doesn't provide sufficient resources to run a proper Asian-themed world and so the monk limps along as a core class that is pigeon-holed, in most game worlds, into being an outsider.Arkhandus said:
Actually, I complain about those things a lot too. Don't fault me for being inconsistent here.
How, Krieg, do any of the statements on your list invalidate the point I'm making? Nobody. I repeat: NOBODY whatsoever on this thread is saying that there are not stories about feats of unarmed combat. But none of these stories involve people being better at fighting without weapons than with them. None of these stories involve the heroes deliberately eschewing arms and armour in order to make themselves more effective combatants. NOBODY I repeat: NOBODY is taking the position that Western hero narratives don't involve scenes with unarmed combat. A person who can wrestle well is modeled perfectly well with a Fighter with Improved Grapple. A person who can kill people with his fists is modeled perfectly well with a Fighter with Improved Unarmed Strike.Krieg said:
Jacob and Odysseus are not modeled well with the Monk class. While it is clear that these characters have Improved Unarmed Strike and Improved Grapple, they also clearly aren't becoming ever lighter. They don't have to avoid armour because using it would screw up their mojo. They aren't blindingly fast either. They didn't learn to do these things well because they grew up as part of ascetic orders that study the perfection of the body.
What I am saying here is that the Western tradition lacks stories of characters who are better without weapons and armour than with them. So stop telling me that the Western tradition includes people who can fight unarmed. Every single poster here already knows that. That's not what we're arguing about.
Whoa! Stop right there. Are you really stating that the Monk class more closely resembles Hercules than the Fighter class does?Tonguez said:
While we're at it, Hercules is not a "wrestler" -- he slays the Nemean Lion with his bare hands because it is invulnerable to his weapons of choice: bow and club. Hercules' weapons of choice are not his bare hands. Like Beowulf, he resorts to wrestling only when the weapons fail him. When he fights the Lernaean Hydra, he ends up chopping off its final head with a weapon. He the goes on to shoot Ceryneian Deer...
You miss my point here Ace. I'm stating that there is no such PrC because the fact that something is an Olympic event does not mean that (a) it can become a full-time occupation or (b) that a Western heroic archetype will arise from said occupation.Ace said:
Sounds like a fine idea for your character. However, this does not mean that one can make up archetypes. An archetype is an archetype because of its universality. You can't make specialist unarmed fighters a universal in Western literature and myth by fiat. They are or they aren't and you can know whether they are by reading the corpus of literature. Also, on that front, the Olympian ideal was resurrected by the European haute bourgeoisie of the late 19th century because it prized the ideal of amateurism -- the pre-1980s modern Olympics and the Greek Olympics were ideologically hostile to the idea of professional specialist athletes who made their living at it. That's why the idea of Greek wrestler as monk equivalent does a disservice to both Asian and European traditions.
So, I ask you guys again: why won't you answer my question and explain why it is so important that you have to find an equivalent to the monk class in the Western tradition. Why does it matter so much?
If you want to put a monk in your campaign, just design a setting where the monk makes sense instead of trying to shoehorn this poor nunchuk wielding, shuriken throwing practitioner of Eastern asceticism into a Clunyesque monastery or a Mediterranean gymnasium.
EDIT: PS. Plane Sailing's got it right.
Last edited:
And by the same token, Fusangnite, why are you so concerned with what other people do with monks in their games? Seriously, relax. I can see the monk as an outsider, and I can see tweaking them to pseudo-greek athletes/divine hermits/whatever. It's no crime against nature.
Furthermore, you keep ignoring people that point out that pretty much no one willingly cast off armor or weapons in eastern mythology, either. The Shaolin Monks might have been infamous for the unarmed fighting techniques, but they went into battle with arms and armor like everyone else. At the same time, it's expected that a skilled fighter is deadly in bare-handed combat even when he doesn't have a weapon on hand...you know, like Beowulf or Hercules. I'm not seeing this great chasm you suggest. The Monk excells in hand-to-hand combat because that's the niche it is built around. No point in having such a class if it was better off using weapons all the time, despite that being closer to any mythology.
Edit: Just to clarify on the weapons and eastern mythology bit...
The fact is, every serious martial art out there teaches weapons, and even gave them higher priority than they do today. The archtype of the unarmed fighter exists for the same reason why Katana fighting 101 isn't a high priority survival skill these days--you can't count on always count on having such a weapon on hand, or even legally being able to use or carry it. The "humble, wandering monk" isn't going to draw attention to himself by strutting around with a broadsword. But he'll be trained in it's use, and given the oppourtnity, fight with one.
Furthermore, you keep ignoring people that point out that pretty much no one willingly cast off armor or weapons in eastern mythology, either. The Shaolin Monks might have been infamous for the unarmed fighting techniques, but they went into battle with arms and armor like everyone else. At the same time, it's expected that a skilled fighter is deadly in bare-handed combat even when he doesn't have a weapon on hand...you know, like Beowulf or Hercules. I'm not seeing this great chasm you suggest. The Monk excells in hand-to-hand combat because that's the niche it is built around. No point in having such a class if it was better off using weapons all the time, despite that being closer to any mythology.
Edit: Just to clarify on the weapons and eastern mythology bit...
The fact is, every serious martial art out there teaches weapons, and even gave them higher priority than they do today. The archtype of the unarmed fighter exists for the same reason why Katana fighting 101 isn't a high priority survival skill these days--you can't count on always count on having such a weapon on hand, or even legally being able to use or carry it. The "humble, wandering monk" isn't going to draw attention to himself by strutting around with a broadsword. But he'll be trained in it's use, and given the oppourtnity, fight with one.
Last edited:
Well, there wouldn't be much point in contributing to this forum if we didn't have some universal ideas about gaming. I guess I shouldn't care about the thread with the party with the Stone Golem Fighter with no ECL either then.Mad Mac said:
I'm pretty clear on what my position is here: I don't like the fact that the core rules contain a class they don't really support. This problem with the core rules results in the kind of situation the original poster was complaining of arising far more often than it should. I simply try to explain why these problems arise so frequently with monks.
Well, my knowledge is not as thorough as yours but my understanding was that in a number of types of Chi Gong and Tai Chi, it is disadvantageous to remain armoured while practicing the art.
However, what is much more relevant is not the historical Shaolin Monk but the great martial artists of Eastern mythology and literature. And my understanding is that the D&D monk both is and should be compatible with these traditions.
But of course, historical warriors are going to use armour when they can. This goes to my original point: the monk doesn't make any sense as a mundane fighter, only as a magical one. So, because Eastern magic isn't any more actually real than Western magic, I wouldn't expect the historical record to be full of unarmed batallions, any more than I would expect it to be full of batallions who were lighter than air.
Are you really asserting that the monk is also inconsistent with Eastern mythology? Where did it come from then? And why all the Eastern associations?
warlord
First Post
The Monk is medieval its just they way they fight thats different European monks were wrestlers so they would do alot more grappling,throwing and punches and the oriental ones would have the whole Bruce Lee thing just check out the different monk fighting styles in UA and change up the weapon proficiencies a bit and you got a European monk.
European monks were not martial characters. When you read hagiographies of European monks, there are no stories of them engaging in martial combats at all; they are good at completely different things: miracles, exorcisms, cures and all the other stuff that clerics do. One could base a character class on the medieval European monk or friar but it would look much like a Cleric minus the armour proficiency and with the addition of the Sorceror's spontaneous casting abilities, the Wizard's knowledge skills and some Bardic divination spells not possessed by the Cleric. It would bear essentially no resemblance whatsoever to the monk class except that it would probably have the same primary attribute.warlord said:
I think it would be interesting to design a Western style monk class but if I were to do so, the current monk class would not be my starting point.
Arrgh! Mark!
First Post
Wow, I actually foster discussion sometimes.
Anyway, a couple of posters have mentioned the DM as being slightly lacking. I would disagree; he worked with the (Experienced no less) player endlessly to get him to understand the world. Understand that while there is a Monk class in the game, it's referred to as something different and has a completely different tone. (basically a group of ascetics, inspired by god and granted their powers through relics. We use the Arcana Unearthed book version, whatever it's name is.)
Anyway, I think the discussion tends to agree with me - Monks are a distraction in Medieval Fantasy.
Not to say that I dislike Monks as a general thing. In other games I enjoy playing them. Anyway, the player finally got it through his skull that Monks were members of monastic religious orders, regardless of skills or abilities. He changed characters to a saxon-ish barbarian. Now all is good and roleplaying is back to where it was before the distraction of the monk
To refine the discussion somewhat - An interesting point was that the players handbook has a character class that it does not internally support with it's european-fantasy style. Is an unarmed fighter so neccesary it deserves its own class?
Anyway, a couple of posters have mentioned the DM as being slightly lacking. I would disagree; he worked with the (Experienced no less) player endlessly to get him to understand the world. Understand that while there is a Monk class in the game, it's referred to as something different and has a completely different tone. (basically a group of ascetics, inspired by god and granted their powers through relics. We use the Arcana Unearthed book version, whatever it's name is.)
Anyway, I think the discussion tends to agree with me - Monks are a distraction in Medieval Fantasy.
Not to say that I dislike Monks as a general thing. In other games I enjoy playing them. Anyway, the player finally got it through his skull that Monks were members of monastic religious orders, regardless of skills or abilities. He changed characters to a saxon-ish barbarian. Now all is good and roleplaying is back to where it was before the distraction of the monk
To refine the discussion somewhat - An interesting point was that the players handbook has a character class that it does not internally support with it's european-fantasy style. Is an unarmed fighter so neccesary it deserves its own class?
Similar Threads
