Should the Monk be a PrC?

[Dinkeldog]

Re: Re: Kung Fu

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.

Go for it. I'm sure you could get help at the House Rules forum, or examples of what others have already done.

 

[coyote6]

Didn't both Hong and James Garr do martial artist core classes (on his website, and in Beyond Monks, respectively)?

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Didn't both Hong and James Garr do martial artist core classes (on his website, and in Beyond Monks, respectively)?

Yep. Hong's stuff can be found in the pages of Asgard #7 or here: http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/

I have read nothing but good reviews of Beyond Monks though I have not had the chance to pick it up myself.

Now that we have all the niceness out of the way....

BAH!

Monks are great for a high-fantasy or oriental campaign. I don't think they fit well in a low or even average occidental campaign. I think kung-fu should be an "edge" for the east in East vs West campaigns (the West's edge would be better beer). Ban monks from the core rules! Muah-hah-hah!

Of course, alloys make for stronger metals. Diversity is strength. Whatever floats your boat. The game is all about fun. The world would be a dull place if everyone got along. Etcetera.

 

[Lela]

Looking at the whole system, that the Monk does seem out of place. The D&D system (setting aside OA) is a Western base. Even the Wizards and, to an extent, Sorcererors come from the Europian area. Paladins are a bit more Roman (though still Western) and Clerics are certainly Western. In fact, the only other class that could be percieved as Eastern is the Barbarian. Which is very likely pushing the steryotypes a bit and neglecting Celtic tradition.

That said, in a world where Wizards can stop time and Clerics rotinely speak with their gods, a character who focuses inward in search of similar power isn't that far fetched. Though based off the Eastern styles, I think the Monk is okay as is. They've turned inward and those styles are one of the only ways to reflect that in a hand-to-hand way.

I'm not saying that other styles aren't focused inward. I'm simply saying that they wouldn't have the desired effect in a D&D world. That being the bit of extra Jet Li/Jackie Chan flashyness mixed with completely impossible feats that allows the Monk to shine along with those who fallow other areas.

The world would be a dull place if everyone got along.

No it wouldn't, you, um, BIG GEEK!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

If I were going to ax one core class, it would be the monk -- it's too out of place flavor-wise with the base Western European medieval setting that is core D&D, and if you want a decent unarmed combatant, there should be a way to do it with the fighter class.

That said, we've been down that road once before, and much as I think the monk doesn't fit, I'd fight tooth and nail to keep it.

Sure, the system would work fine with just four base classes. And y'all can go join diaglo playing 1974 OD&D; I'm not going back -- I like the current level of variety & flavor.

 

[BryonD]

I would say: yes. The Monk, the Bard, the Ranger, the Barbarian, and the Paladin should all be prestige classes, in my opinion.

<snip>

A bit tongue in cheek......

Why stop there?

The only classes should be commoner and aristocrat. After all, those are the only things you can truly be born into. Then ALL the classes can be prestige.

 

[BryonD]

On the whole east vs. west thing:

A) I have never played a game set in Europe.

B) There were LOTS of monks and clerics in middle ages Europe. The clerics were distinctly unlike most of the PC clerics I have seen, so why can't the monks have that same freedom? Plus, I think in a world where the gods make themselves known monks would tend to be more like the eastern stereotype than the western.

 

[KDLadage]

A bit tongue in cheek......

Yes I was... oh, you mean you...

Why stop there?

Have to stop someplace.

The only classes should be commoner and aristocrat. After all, those are the only things you can truly be born into. Then ALL the classes can be prestige.

Hey, yea... then we could... nah! I like most core classes. I just think that people do not often enough taylor to game to meet the world... instead, they taylor the world to meet the game. Both are valid options, but I think it is obvious which side of that fence I sit on.

 

[Gargoyle]

The monk could be a prestige class. But the TV show Kung Fu always comes to my mind. "When you snatch the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave." "When you can walk across the rice paper without breaking it, it will be time for you to leave." and so on.

The monk class was designed around the idea that being a monk is more than a skillset; it's supposed to be a lifelong journey to enlightenment that must start early. Thus the multiclassing restriction most of us hate.

I've thought of writing up a monk prestige class. But that image of Grasshopper keeps me from doing it. There are lots of more specialized monk-like concepts that make better prestige classes, and that don't necessarily require levels as a monk to qualify for.

 

[Shadowlord]

Yes, the monk should be a prestige class, and the paladin too. They are after all very rare classes.