Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Salamandyr" data-source="post: 6194929" data-attributes="member: 40233">The monk, as he appears in most editions, from level 1 does things that are outside the abilities of a normal human being...and this is neither metagamey, we're not going to explain it things like hit points, or explicit magic.  Nope, their concept is that they, either through monastic tradition or access to super secret martial arts that the rest of the world isn't privy to, are "better" than others around them.This isn't surprising.  We know from stories from those who played in the original games that the monk was modeled after Caine from Kung Fu, the premise of which was here was this guy with all this super secret training from the East, by dint of which he could take on gunfighters.  And of course, 70's D&D was still full of the misconceptions about Western martial arts, that knights needed cranes to mount their horses, and swords were iron bars weighing 10 to 20 pounds, etc.You are correct, that, in game terms the monk has, in general, not at the same attack bonus as the fighter.  He has always received abilities that were ostensibly supposed to be just as good (it is fortunate for the fighter that they have never quite managed to equal in actuality).  But the essential fact remains...in the world the monk inhabits, weapons are the domain of those who choose not to exercise their full ability.  They're a shortcut, a crutch.  The real badasses don't need swords, or armor at all.  Yes, a first level monk doesn't take on dragons.  But the low level monk takes on everything the low level fighter does...with no clothes on. Exactly where the heck did you get the idea that I thought they don't fit because they're oriental?  The word oriental doesn't appear anywhere in my post.  The idea of a warrior monk fits fine in Western fantasy...especially considering that warrior monks existed in Europe.  For example, the Knights Templar, Teutonic Knights, etc were all warrior monks.  The warriors of Sparta fit the monk ideal...monastic warriors who eschew all else to train their bodies for war in service to a higher cause.  The hero school of Chiron the centaur even sounds a lot like an Eastern monastery; secluded mountain top temple where young men grow up honing their bodies to be the greatest heroes they can be.No, my contention is that Chinese pulp entertainment (kung fu and wushu films, comics and books), the kind of stuff the monk class was designed to imitate, is closer to Western mythology than Western pulp fiction that the other D&D classes are designed to emulate.  Jet Li's character in Hero does all the stuff he does in that movie because that's what fighters do in that kind of story, not because he's a different character class than, for instance, Lancelot.Well, I'm not sure why you disagree, but okay.  Yes, in the Crouching Tiger movies, not everyone can fly...the mooks, nobodies, and untrained don't fly.  The ability to fly is intended to show that you are a powerful warrior.  If D'Artagnan was a character in that story, he'd fly too, because he's a powerful warrior.  In fact, there's a lot of similarities between his background and the monk (not surprising, since the monk is just a variation on a Campbellian archetype).  He's a traveller from a remote land who has been trained by a wise old wizard/warrior and has access to certain secret techniques not available to other men.  That's the way the rules of Crouching Tiger work.  You train long enough, under the right masters, and you fly.  By contrast, put Li Mu Bai in The Three Musketeers and he wouldn't fly.  Because powerful warriors don't fly in The Three Musketeers.   He also probably wouldn't be deflecting musket balls with his sword.  But he'd be the baddest ass swordsman around, save for D'Artagnan and Rochefort, and be quite impressive.   It's just in one campaign, high level fighters get class ability "fly", and in the other they don't.</blockquote>

Verification