Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Pendragon" data-source="post: 2107554" data-attributes="member: 707">Sure, but I'm guessing all three types would have been handily chopped to pieces by the Roman Legionnaires, which was a part of fusangite's point.  That Western unarmed combatants are generally considered inferior to their armed opponents, whereas Eastern culture has a tradition of unarmed combatants which can transcend their armed adversaries.  The monk as written is patterned on that Eastern wuxia philosophy, where an unarmed combatant develops mystical powers that allow him to do greater-than-weapon damage with his bare hands, move faster than the eye, and eventually transcend mortality altogether.It isn't that there weren't unarmed combatants in the Western medieval world.  It's that they weren't effective, they aren't archtypes of the period, and they aren't represented in the D&D monk class.This is a strawman argument.  Yes, of course, a DM can create a world that incorporates anything and everything in a hodgepodge of elements under the blanket explanation that "it's fantasy" and be done with it.However, the fact that anything can exist in an "unreality" doesn't mean that everything should or must.  Many DMs aim for a campaign setting with a certain degree of internal consistancy, some of them by patterning their world after a certain real-world time period and location.  In the case of the OP, it seems the DM has decided to aim for a medieval European setting, at least as a base upon which to build.  Therefore, there will be elements that won't fit in the campaign.  An Asian/Shao-lin monk is certainly something that a DM might decide doesn't fit regularly into his Western medieval campaign, since such individuals didn't roam Western Europe.As I stated before, it wouldn't be too difficult to insert a Quai Chang Kane -type "wandering Asian monk" into such a campaign, but that is a matter of DM's preroggative and player negotiation.I'm not sure what "proper fantasy" you're referencing, but to me "proper" fantasy has a bit more consistancy than merely throwing elements of a dozen different sources together and mixing vigorously.  Jedi fighting Vikings fighting Samurai fighting Saruman can work in the proper venue (Planescape comes to mind, or Dragonstar, though I've never actually used that setting,) but it's certainly not the only "proper" fantasy.  And it's certainly not the only type of campaign that uses the imagination.  Indeed, I'd assert that it takes less imagination to simply throw every possible fictional character/concept into a single campaign, than to generate a cohesive, believable world that only embraces elements consistant with the campaign's nature.Perhaps I wasn't clear in my previous post, but I agree with you here.  The Monk class as written definitely embraces the Eastern concept of unarmed combat, both in the flavor text, and the abilities themselves.Well, I did mention that you'd have to rework some things.  From what I understand, the Knights Templar were very much Western-style monks most of the time, living apart, wearing the brown robes, etc.  Though they did fight with sword and shield.  So the Knight Templar example itself would be a better fit for the OP's paladin, as you point out.But I do think it possible to create a similar order, based on unarmed combat and speed, that could also present itself as a tonsured monk that would fit more cleanly into a Western european setting.  Basically, I'm suggesting that one need not bar the Monk class from a Western european setting, if a player truly has his heart set on the class abilities.  You merely need to rework the flavor to fit into the setting.I don't particularly find it important that every archtype fit into every game.  Indeed, I don't assume that in my own campaign.  But I am the sort of DM who tries to give the players as much freedom to play what they wish as possible.  So whenever I have a player who comes to me with a concept that's inspired him, I want to give him the chance to play that, if possible.  At that point, we come down to the nitty-gritty of the player getting to play what he wants, while at the same time fitting into my campaign smoothly.  That's where my suggestions are coming from.  An attempt to provide ways for the player to play his Monk class, while at the same time not invalidate the DM's chosen campaign world. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification