Knights & Knaves Alehouse

AxeMental wrote: I think the monk totally works (you just have to keep the hokey factor down).

Would you allow them to double specialize with their body weaponry?

I find that the Monk as presented in the Handbook isn't worth it.

I would play the revised Monk in the Best of Dragon, though.

i have no issue with the BTB PHB Monk.

@Odhanan: Thanks for the ref to "Cloistered Cleric"! That is getting closer to the way I would integrate the Monk/Friar into my campaign. Thank goodness for the Dragon Archive!

Just because they were inhabitants of monasteries doesn't mean that they had no martial skills. They had to be able to defend themselves against various and sundry ruffians and highwaymen, too. IIRC, the RL Fechtkunst ms. called "I.33" supposedly depicts monks sparring with buckler and one-hander sword. In any event I would make them on par with Pyle's Friar Tuck and a skilful wielder of the vastly underappreciated quarterstaff.

With reference to fantasy (inspired figures drawing form the 'Kung Fu' tv series and The Destroyer fiction series - thanks Foster), I take no issue with the presence of an Eastern or Western monk in the milieu. The monster manual holds plenty of creatures from various cultural origins and times, player characters and non-player characters alike should be no exception. In my campaign, which is admittedly more historically-influenced than fantasy, monastic orders and military orders are highly visible.

As for the design element of the monk in the PHB, It is a good starting point for a fantasy-envisioned Eastern monk. Since my campaign tends to be less fantastic , I have had to lower the level ceiling on the class as written. Though the monk in O.A is entirely too granual, there are elements of the design I believe to be helpful. The hard, hard/soft, and soft abstraction is very useful for visualizing the myriad of martial arts styles and how they relate to one another. The idea of the martial arts styles themselves, being describable within the rulings of the game is rather instrumental, as they are more like static or fixed abilities that define the monk and give him an obvious place as a combatant within melee. The monk then, is not waiting until 3rd or 4th lvl to be a lethal combatant with a chosen style.

My pointed departure from the PHB is that I homebrew them as fighters:
a. armor class is static based on martial arts style and appreciates once when reaching
level limit.
a. open hand attacks as fighters
b. open hand damage remains progressive, but reduced to fit within the appreciateable weapon damages we find already written in the PHB.
c. attacks with martial arts weapons remain as written for soft and hard/soft styles, though hard styles are as a normal fighter (this emphasizes speed and ferocity).
d. damage with martial arts weapons is as written save for a hard style for which it is normal.
e. Following the precident in the PHB and some Dragon articles I match the style frameworks (hard, hard/soft, and soft) with a weapon from the weapon vs. armor type table.
f. No thief abilities
g. Non-lethal abilities are highly diminished (saving throw adjustment in lieu of percentile or blanket immunities).
h. Retain all or most of the restriction as written in the PHB.

As for Western military and monastic orders, fanatical fighters (see dervishes) and cloistered clerics (see Dragon 53) seem fine. The cloistered clerics in our games are 0-lvl scribes, brewers or bear some such trade or education (see DMG), 0-lvl, bearing spell-casting and saving throw levels and a more limited spell list following the example of the sage.

Oriental-flavored monks don't work for me. Not sure why, exactly, because, as others have pointed out, there are other non-Western ideas elsewhere in the game.

I created a specific thread for discussion about the Western Monk conundrum in AD&D.

I never liked the class much. It always came across as a tack-on piece of work.

francisca wrote:

AxeMental wrote: I think the monk totally works (you just have to keep the hokey factor down).

Would you allow them to double specialize with their body weaponry?

Hah they'd still get their asses kicked at low to mid levels for sure.

Yeah, I agree TRP they do have a tacked on feel for certain. I guess it just feels like one more thing in a potpourri of fantasy and historical elements.

While I think the monk works ok as written, I have modified the class for use in my own games by adding a few extra abilities from the monk class in Dragon.

As far as an eastern monk in a western setting, it doesn't bother me at all. If western European adventurers can travel the globe in search for adventure, certainly adventurers from the Far East would do the same.

1st Edition D&D monks are just fantasy monks to me. They do not = to anything in reality or Hollywood.

Tholianweb wrote:1st Edition D&D monks are just fantasy monks to me. They do not = to anything in reality or Hollywood.

This is exactly where I come down on monks. I don't associate AD&D monks with anything but AD&D monks. No oriental influence, just your average ass-kicker (debatable, I know).

I like the class as presented in the PHB. So long as the DM supplies the proper magic items along the level progression line, they are fine. But overall, a monk is a secondary character. If you have a well-balanced party, a Monk PC is ok. But when he slotted as as a front-line character I think a party becomes flawed.

Monks are presently closer to reality than any of the other classes I can think of.

DungeonDork wrote:Monks are presently closer to reality than any of the other classes I can think of.

here is a quote from a blog i just read...

Otherwise, I say stop taking yourself so seriously, and remember its fantasy after all! Whatever you do, don’t get caught up in the concept that reality needs to have a place in all this swords and sorcery stuff, that just cheapens it, trust me. Reality is your dwindling bank account and the fact that your fifteen year-old cat is about to die. I say smile while you can and enjoy the gift of your imagination, because sometimes it’s all that we have.

Tholianweb wrote:

DungeonDork wrote:Monks are presently closer to reality than any of the other classes I can think of.

here is a quote from a blog i just read...

Otherwise, I say stop taking yourself so seriously, and remember its fantasy after all! Whatever you do, don’t get caught up in the concept that reality needs to have a place in all this swords and sorcery stuff, that just cheapens it, trust me. Reality is your dwindling bank account and the fact that your fifteen year-old cat is about to die. I say smile while you can and enjoy the gift of your imagination, because sometimes it’s all that we have.

I've always disagreed with the "reality is bad" shtick, a bigger sword should do more damage then a small sword. We can base this not just on logic, but on historical accounts. Same goes with wearing armor vs. not wearing armor. The bottom line is this is an RPG, so the more like reality the better (or more precisely what we can buy as plausable, or popular myth). That doesn't mean go overboard and get your panties in a wad (like those "realists" anti-Excalibur nuts who can't stand the inaccurate time period of the armor, or the guys that can't stand how Hawkeye is using a later period rifle in Last of the Mohicans movie), but do respect the most basic laws of nature as well as fictional precedence. Stick with one set of logical assumption and be done with it (even if it ends up being wrong) rather then nuking the idea of basing a game on common sense. Who would enjoy a game where wearing plate mail makes you easier to hit then wearing no armor for instance? Players want to play in a plausable world, the more they can relate to it, the more they can fit in. Plausable = reality, so theres nothing wrong with pointing that out (as the above poster did).

As for the writer of that blog, I find his arguement a bit insulting: 1. that he's taking himself any less seriously then those who prefer "reality" based games and 2. that the person preferring said game is using his imagination less. It sounds like the person he is responding to is suggesting a game that is logically sound results in a better experiance.