Should the Monk be a PrC?

[Michael Tree]

The more and more I look at the Monk class, the more it looks like a fairly specialized prestige class. The concept of a martial artist who is fast, acrobatic, and fights unarmed is a fairly generic one, but the more esoteric aspects of the monk class are much more suited to a prestige class, particularly since a character has to have been trained by a specialized order or organization to gain them.

Attaining bodily perfection and falling well are all well and good, but what is so generic about the ability to turn etherial, gain spell resistance, turn into an outsider, or speak with any living thing? Those abilities are much more suited to a PrC that could be reached from a more general Martial Artist core class.

In other threads others have complained that monks aren't great in combat, and have suggested that they take a prestige class if they want to be better in combat but not have the mystic powers. That seems backwards to me. Prestige classes are supposed to represent specialized training and the esoteric powers of in-world organizations (such as monk monasteries), not general training that anyone could pick up.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm asking if the Monk should be replaced with a more generic Martial Artist class, with the more esoteric/mystical/monkish aspects made into one or more prestige classes.

 

[KDLadage]

{pulls out the folding chair, nachos and salsa to watch the ebate on core-class-versus-prestige-class again}

I would say: yes. The Monk, the Bard, the Ranger, the Barbarian, and the Paladin should all be prestige classes, in my opinion. And, in the default D&D setting, I would say that most campaigns should select either the Sorcerer or the Wizard -- and thus should not have both in the same campaign.

Thus, your core classes would be:

FIGHTER -- if you concentrate on combat, you are a fighter. The NPC version is the warrior. As a prestige class, you can take Barbarian (savage-warrior), Ranger (a rogue-fighter naturalist warrior), Paladin (a cleric-fighter holy warrior), or any of a host of others.

ROGUE -- if you concentrate on skills, you are a rogue. The NPC versions is the expert and the thug. As a prestige class you can take Ranger (a fighter-rogue naturalist warrior), Bard (a wizard-rogue information trixter), Monk (an internally focused spiritualist), or any of a host of others.

CLERIC -- if you concentrate of spirituality, you are a cleric. The NPC version should be better defined. I would modify the class, removing much of its front-line combat capabilities. As a prestige class you can take Paladin (a fighter-cleric holy warrior), Monk (an internally focussed spiritualist), or a host of others -- including many that are church specific.

WIZARD -- if you concentrate on scholarly magic, you are a wizard. The DM should select at the time of campaign creation whether magic works like the WIZARD or the SORCERER of the core books (or if both are available). As a prestige class you can take Bard (a rogue-wizard information trixter), or a host of others.

But . . . in setting books, I think the classes should be tweaked to fit the setting as well. In some worlds, perhaps Monks are non-Prestige Classes. Anyone that has read the UMBRAGIA work knows that I would re-define much of the classes to suit the setting any day of the week.

 

[Sejs]

My oppinion: No, it should not. While I in part agree with you on the more open Martial-Artist type class (and to that end I allow both the Monk from the PHB and the Martial Artist from Beyond Monks as core classes in games I run), there just isn't really a normal core class, or combinations of core classes, that simulate a person working toward physical and spiritual enlightenment while at the same time not resorting to spellcasting.

There's also notes in the DMG, in the Modifying Classes section (right before the PrCs) that talk about swapping class abilities for other comparable, balanced abilities. I use those if someone wants to take their monking in a different direction from the standard Etherial/Dimention Door/Tongue of the Sun and Moon route. One monk is a game I ran chose to swap out Tongue of the Sun and Moon for a Speak With Dead-like ability, for instance.

 

[Henry]

In my humble opinion: ICK!

The ultimate extension of this is to just have one class, and have every thing be a feat, a skill, or a prestige class. It's too skill and prerequisite-based for me.

 

[Dinkeldog]

There's no way to be an effective unarmed fighter unless you take the monk. If you think the monk as-is is too specialized, my recommendation would be to start looking at multiple monk-ish prestige classes that give the player the type of ability progression that she's looking for.

 

[Devilkiller]

Kung Fu

I personally don't like the fact that the very restrictive monk class is the only really viable option for unarmored martial artists in the 3e core rules. Nevertheless, making monk into a prestige class without creating a generic martial artist core class or at least making unarmed and unarmored combat more viable for fighters seems even worse to me.

I mean, in the movies and on TV monks often, in fact usually, train in their discipline from the time they are children. Kwai Chang didn't walk in off the street and grab that ring, and nobody had to tell him "Grasshopper, it is time to put away your greatsword and full plate armor and fight like Jet Li". Why is it that characters only develop an interest in philosophical reflection and martial arts when they hit 7th level? Hmm...

Of course some of the same indictments could be made of many other PrCs I suppose. I'm sure that monks seem like misfits in many pseudo-European homebrew worlds, so I could see DMs houseruling the class out of their game, but assuming you're going to allow monks at all they might as well be core IMO.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I don't think so only because I reckon that players who are used to core monks won't accept prc monks.

Better to check with the monk players first.

 

[Aaron L]

No.

 

[Sejs]

In my humble opinion: ICK!

The ultimate extension of this is to just have one class, and have every thing be a feat, a skill, or a prestige class. It's too skill and prerequisite-based for me.

Why stop there? Balance all HP by making it an extension of the Con attribute.. put in the point-buy for stats system for everything, so if you want to have a character that doesn't have impressive stats, but is a skill god, you can do that. Make weapon damage based off the str of the user, rather than inherrant to the weapon..

Bring all dice rolling probabilities against one another by just rolling everything on d6....


Oh crap! You'll be playing GURPS!

 

[Michael Tree]

Re: Kung Fu

I personally don't like the fact that the very restrictive monk class is the only really viable option for unarmored martial artists in the 3e core rules. Nevertheless, making monk into a prestige class without creating a generic martial artist core class or at least making unarmed and unarmored combat more viable for fighters seems even worse to me.

I completely agree, on both counts. I'll modify the question above to make it more clear that I'm talking about replacing the monk with a more generic Martial Artist core class, with the more esoteric or mystical aspects being covered by a prestige class.