Worldwide Europe - Are People Doing This?

[GQuail]

I also suggest that a lot of these Oriental-flavored classes just aren't needed. There is no need for a samurai class, for instance, so every time WotC makes a samurai class, there's a good chance they'll mess it up. At most, the only changes needed are making the fighter class a bit more flexible (so they can compete while wearing lighter armor, might have some leaderhsip feats available other than just Leadership, create a chain of Iajitsu feats, and so forth).

I think this is good advice, and perhaps keys into a bigger issue: when a new core class is justified and when you should use already existing ones with adaptions. Certainly, I've no love for the Samurai class, and would probably use the PHBII Knight (with a modified skill & bonus feat list to suit: Katana proficiency over mounted combat, perhaps?) for a player who wanted to dabble in that type.

I do like some of the stuff going on in some of the OA classes, mind: I think it's the Wu Jen who gets the taboos as he levels up, and I think that's a great way of making high level spellcasters seem appropriately "alien" and detached. I'm not saying you shouldn't use new classes at all: but I guess it doesn't help the stereotype of the "crazy Katana fan guy" when he insists on getting his own class from another book than everyone else in order to play his favourite class. ;-)

 

[GQuail]

All right, I'm starting to understand that with monks, a big part of it is that it's the only class in the PH with overtly non-Euro-centric flavour. Sort of the black sheep of the core classes, I guess.

Certainly, I find it the only core class which can require justification to use in a mundane game. Either you've got convenient wandering Oriental warriors, or you've got a random Jujitsu-trained monastery in the middle of your Faux-Paris because, oh, you know, they picked it up.

I don't depsite it being in core rules, but perhaps a future edition could put it in the DMG as an example of a setting-specific class? Same way we have the assassin, archmage et al in the DMG to demonstrate PrCs. It would still be there for those who want it, but people who wanted to keep it out of their games might feel better when it's more clearly noted as optional rather than "expected." (Yes, yes, I know, the DM can change everything, but you know what I mean.)

I still don't get why you can't just allow a katana as a more-expensive masterwork bastard sword.

....you guys are discussing Katanas. I'm astounded the mods didn't start shooting people on the spot. ;-)

 

[Sound of Azure]

I don't depsite it being in core rules, but perhaps a future edition could put it in the DMG as an example of a setting-specific class?

Copycat

....you guys are discussing Katanas. I'm astounded the mods didn't start shooting people on the spot. ;-)

 

[Psion]

"Dotted across the landscape there are monasteries - small, walled cloisters inhabited by monks who personal perfect through actiosn as well as contemplation"

It's the first line of the monk class and implies an obviously, ahem, "well-travelled" tradtion of shaolin monks. And they aren't getting anywhere near my campaigns!

That doesn't answer the question. The assertion you put forth is the monk is ONLY depicted as travellers from a far off land in settings (a setting not being a PHB, which doesn't say that either). Yet I can only think of one setting for which this is even partly true.

So, I renew my request for a citation: which settings do this?

 

[GQuail]

Copycat

In alls eriousness, considering the presence of the optional rules for cultural weapons, prestige classes, ideas for modifying races and classes etc in the DMG (especially the 3.0 edition, which pretty clearly implied PrCs would be campaign unique, and had a bigger section on the "Witch" class IIRC) it's not that radical an idea: combine with a couple of other setting-specific classes (like the Artificer? Or the Shi'ar (sp?) from the Dragon Compendium for an Arabic class?) and you give some detailed examples on how base classes can look, whlst keeping them out the PHB and letting it focus more on a single sort of background.

If you were going to do that, though, the PHB may need to include more feats and what have you geared around unarmed combat to make non-Monk pugilists practical: and magic items like the Monks belt would need a look in as well.

Of course, Monks have been aprt of core D&D for so long I dunno if any edition of the game would be brave enough to chuck them. Some players might feel it an un-necesary complication which requires a Monk player to buy the DMG to play the class of his choice rather than just a PHB, like he's been able to do since the 70s. But I think it could be a way to go.

 

[Sound of Azure]

Of course, Monks have been aprt of core D&D for so long I dunno if any edition of the game would be brave enough to chuck them. Some players might feel it an un-necesary complication which requires a Monk player to buy the DMG to play the class of his choice rather than just a PHB, like he's been able to do since the 70s. But I think it could be a way to go.

Yeah, I can see the reasoning to do that very thing (that's why I mentioned it myself). I'd welcome it being seperate, either in the DMG, or in an oriental adventures book.

I would like there to be feats and such for unarmed fighters that don't require the Monk class in the next iteration of D&D, or possibly in an "Unearthed Arcana II" or something in version 3.5 as an option.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Stereotype, schmereotype- the expectations WERE different. Were there exceptions? Of course. I could point to several European knights who were as famed for their linguistic skills as their swordwork- but they were quite unusual.

The expectations are not that different, and the concepts aren't even that different. Making the class flexible means you can cover both concepts without making Japanese aristrocratic warriors inferior or superior to European aristrocratic warriors. The sooner WotC stops creating ethnic classes, the better.

 

[Infernal Teddy]

1.) Monks
As we're on "why does every one do Robin Hood england games?", I thought I'd drop something in. I'm working on a campaign at the moment, where the main power is a huge empire that has conquered most neighbors. In the east is a great wasteland, and beyond that is a realm surrounded by a wall. Yes, I'm basing my game on the eastern end of the roman empire, and I know that there will be a China/Japan and a India at the other end of the map. And that's where my monks will come from, because there will be more contact that there was historically. (Mind you, according to recent reserch, there seems to have been some contact between rome and china in the first century B.C. and A.D. ...)

2.) Katana vs. Bastardsword
The one thing that most people miss on this is the fact that these weapons were designed on different concepts. During the traditional Samurai period of Japan, most warriors - including Samurai - wore leather armor, or at least other rather light armor types, so the Katana was designed to be a slashing/cutting weapon. On the other hand, the Bastard Sword (A rare weapon in any case) was designed to bash the opponent, so as to render the poor bastard in the full plate unconcious (Full plate nad bastard swords were both developments of the late middle ages / eearly renesance(Sp?) . To quote a german knight known for using a Zweihänder to clobber his foes to death "Shape blades are for wimps and saracens!".

Just my €3.52

 

[Nyaricus]

That doesn't answer the question. The assertion you put forth is the monk is ONLY depicted as travellers from a far off land in settings (a setting not being a PHB, which doesn't say that either). Yet I can only think of one setting for which this is even partly true.

So, I renew my request for a citation: which settings do this?

Okay, well Faerun-lore states in the FRCS: "Among humans the first monastic orders native to Faerun appear to have arisen in Amn and Calimsham simutaneously with some orders immigrating from other worlds and the eastern lands of Kara-Tur."

Calishites are descendants from the continent named Zakhara, the Land of Fate. They are essentually arabs, to make a real-world analogy. Makes more sense for monks to come from there.

Amn is composed of approximately 30% Calishite heritage, and 65% Tethyrian and 4% Chondathan. The Tethyrian ethnic group, from RoF: "The Sword Coast has long been home to native human tribes who intermingled with wave upon wave of immigrants, whether they arrived as conquerers or refugees. In recent centuries, these disparete groups have graually coalesced into a relatively new ethnic group known as Tethyrians, occupying a vast territory strectching from Calimshan to Silverymoon and form the Sea of Swords to the Sea of Fallen Stars. Going onward... "Tethyrian culture is a melting pot of Calishite, Chondathan, Illuskan, and Low Netherese."

So, given that, Amn, composed of Tethyrians, Calishites and Chondathans, a long time ago had many Calishites and, to a lesser degree, Chondathans living there. Since Tethyr is a newer ethnic group and "planet-hopping" was at it's hayday a long time ago in the realms (in deed, the Calim empire was formed in -7800 DR, over 8000 years from the year today in the realms by two djinn who brought thousands of slves from Zakhara), we can assert that the first monastic orders formed long before the Tethyrian ethnic group was even formed, thus having MANY more pure-blooded Calishites living in what is now Amn. What this means is that was happened in Calimshan happened in Amn, which means that Monasteries were formed from groups who came from far-away lands.

This is not to mention the "immigrants from other worlds" (namely, earth, it seems and likely Shaolin Monks, since they appear to have so many similarities) and Kara-Tur which is the Utter East, the Orient, the Asia of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting.

So, as you can well see, monks are from Faraway Lands, at least in FR.

 

[Nyaricus]

Of course, Monks have been aprt of core D&D for so long I dunno if any edition of the game would be brave enough to chuck them. Some players might feel it an un-necesary complication which requires a Monk player to buy the DMG to play the class of his choice rather than just a PHB, like he's been able to do since the 70s. But I think it could be a way to go.

Second Edition chucked Assassins, Half-orcs AND the Monk class (not to mention the terms Demons and Devils when referring to those critters; that's why they are called Baatezu and whatnot) and upped the requisite of term-work in order to avoid flak that D&D was a "devil-worshipping" game about the occult thanks to a bunch of bad (and mostly false) press.

Although to drop the monk in favour of having it in a Oriental Adventures book would be a different reason, some might take this the wrong way for some reason, or accuse WotC for racism, which would be silly as well. If you want to make an Oriental-themed book, why not put all your cards in one hand?