Stuff you don't have a problem with, but will never use

[Steely_Dan]

Well it meshes well with the eastern stereotype of the martial artist monk. A lot of the art for monks has obvious Eastern influences. Class abilities and attack abilities have names that call to mind zen and buddhism, and often include the word "ki". 3.5 monks at least have weapon proficiencies that come from asian sources. Prestige classes and paragon paths for monks are sometimes explicitly rooted in Eastern mythology or culture.

I think that's a good start for why some people associate monks with Eastern influences.

Yep, bummer 3rd and 4th Ed embraced that...


Check out the Bloodguard.

 

[Emerikol]

I'll never play a vancian caster again, been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, not going back.

I'm fine if it's in the system, and other people are using it at the table where I'm a player. If I'm DM, it just won't be in the game. If the game won't work without it, I find a different system to run. I should note I have vastly different tolerances for playing versus running a system.

While I'm almost exactly the opposite in how I feel about your details, I agree with the sentiment. I am far more willing to try something as a player than to allow something as a DM. Too much invested.

 

[triqui]

Well there are two ways to look at a class, either with the flavour of the class or with the mechanics.

Either the flavour of paladins, warlocks, etc. don't fit - as knights aren't paladins and not divinely powered evil slaying what's its. For this, Merlin being a wizard is good enough regardless of vancian casting. Morganna would then be a Witch, not a Warlock. Either way there wouldn't be a 2 souled sorcerer - so I guess that class will have to go.

Sir Galahad is divine powered. Lancelot is the paladin of the Lady of the Lake. If Merlin is a wizard (which probably he isn't, he's closer to a druid), then Morgana is a wizard too, as she learned from him. She later did a pact, so she'll be a female warlock in D&D.

Or the mechanics don't fit - as paladins cannot smite or detect evil. The cleric can't turn undead. And as you said, Merlin doesn't have vancian casting so he isn't a wizard.

Then no class fits. Including fighters and rogues, as they don't get sneak attack or 1 feat per level.

Onlly D&D novels would fit.

But, if you don't like monk don't use him.

Who said I don't like them?

 

[Obryn]

I still don't understand the eastern/oriental/ki etc obsession with the monk some seem to have, not of that is mentioned anywhere with the original monk.

Yeah, the original monk is Remo Williams. That said, the flavor of the monk in the AD&D PHB is vaguely Eastern-themed, down to the class level titles.

Remember, though, that the Monk was re-imagined for 1e's Oriental Adventures. So "Eastern Martial-Artist" isn't exactly a new association you can pin on 3e/4e.

-O

 

[Steely_Dan]

Yeah, the original monk is Remo Williams.

I'm thinking more Bannor/Bloodguard action.

 

[bogmad]

I feel like they pretty much settled 5e's direction with all these arguments about classes outside the core 4 in one of the Designing the Core seminars at Gen Con. (no I wasn't there, but the recording is up at the tome show The Tome Show).

Basically, yes, a lot of the extra classes can be approached by creative use of background, specialties, and the four base classes -and they want to have those available for people that want to have those archetypes addressed that way. They will however also develop the other popular classes when they can use a new unique mechanic that is true to the archetype.

I'm happy with that solution. Is that enough for us to stop arguing whether the monk is a viable class and just put it in the category of "Stuff you don't have a problem with, but will never use"?

 

[Obryn]

I'm thinking more Bannor/Bloodguard action.

Right - that's another example. But the original inspiration for the monk was from ... whatever the series of books Remo Williams was from. Destroyers or something along those lines. (I know the Bloodguard were the inspiration behind the extremely-similar Oathsworn from Arcana Unearthed/Evolved.)

-O

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I feel like they pretty much settled 5e's direction with all these arguments about classes outside the core 4 in one of the Designing the Core seminars at Gen Con. (no I wasn't there, but the recording is up at the tome show The Tome Show).

Basically, yes, a lot of the extra classes can be approached by creative use of background, specialties, and the four base classes -and they want to have those available for people that want to have those archetypes addressed that way. They will however also develop the other popular classes when they can use a new unique mechanic that is true to the archetype.

I'm happy with that solution. Is that enough for us to stop arguing whether the monk is a viable class and just put it in the category of "Stuff you don't have a problem with, but will never use"?

I'm happy with that solution too... if anything, I think people are enjoying discussing the issue here because it WAS brought up in a context of "stuff that I don't mind existing but wouldn't play," rather than "MONKS ARE NOT MY D&D KILL THEM WITH FIRE."

 

[triqui]

Right - that's another example. But the original inspiration for the monk was from ... whatever the series of books Remo Williams was from. Destroyers or something along those lines. (I know the Bloodguard were the inspiration behind the extremely-similar Oathsworn from Arcana Unearthed/Evolved.)

-O

There are other valid monk examples, like Adem mercenaries in Patrick Rothfus' In the Name of the Wind novel and sequel, or even the Aiels in Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time.

 

[Obryn]

There are other valid monk examples, like Adem mercenaries in Patrick Rothfus' In the Name of the Wind novel and sequel, or even the Aiels in Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time.

Absolutely. I'm talking about the original inspirations, though.

-O