|
When you hear "Monk" what associations do you have as a long time Pathfinder player?
If you were someone new to Role Playing, what associations might you have with "Monk"?
On a somewhat related note why was the Thief in 2nd ed, changed to Rogue in 3rd ed?
Could the "Monk" benefit from a name change to say "Martial Artist?"
What do you all think?
Thanks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you hear "Monk" what associations do you have as a long time Pathfinder player?
Something that should be totally flipping out and killing people, but tends to just annoy them while other characters do the killing.
If you were someone new to Role Playing, what associations might you have with "Monk"?
On a somewhat related note why was the Thief in 2nd ed, changed to Rogue in 3rd ed?
So people weren't tied to the idea of 'I must steal crap'.
Could the "Monk" benefit from a name change to say "Martial Artist?"
Certainly. Not going to happen any time soon however.
I remember not being able to hit or be hit with my 25th level 3.5 monk Auer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you hear "Monk" what associations do you have as a long time Pathfinder player?
Frustration, and far too many circumstances where my characters could do nothing while other combat classes kicked butt.
If you were someone new to Role Playing, what associations might you have with "Monk"?
Saffron clad martial-artist barely five feet tall but able to kick-buttock through amazing combat skills and mystic powers of mind over body. Note that actually trying to make this kind of monk in Pathfinder is an exercise in futility if you want to actually contribute to party success.
On a somewhat related note why was the Thief in 2nd ed, changed to Rogue in 3rd ed?
Ditto above, to stop players thinking they had to steal everything.
Could the "Monk" benefit from a name change to say "Martial Artist?"
Martial Artist implies someone using highly trained combat skills to even the odds with bigger, stronger opponents to me - but without necessarily the spiritual elements implied by the monk. That would also imply an even greater emphasis on combat, at which the monk is mechanically the weakest of any combat class, including those spell-casters that fight and without them using their spells.
What do you all think?
You could call it "Uber Phenominal Azz-Kicker!!" and it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever. At least with "Monk" you get some solace that you can still be a spiritual being, even if it is of no practical use in the game.
The monk's problems are mechanical in nature, they have nothing to do with nomenclature.
When I hear Monk...
I think of Shaolin Monks and the prime of 70's kung fu films featuring such characters. I also think of Bruce Lee, Jet Li, and several other Martial Artists from cinema.
When I compare that ideal to the Monk class, I think it partly fits my ideal. It also comes with a regimented supernatural component in the form of his Spell Resistance, Wholeness, and other (Su) abilities. And, for all our complaints about how the monk performs, he has been doing better since the recent changes(lower cost for AoMF, addition ki strike types, & 2H Flurry). He's not a "Bruce Lee" capable of sieging a guarded complex by himself or anything, but he's not as awful as he was and there are different archetypes for that.
Monk... western gregorian style priest.
But for Pathfinder I don't think of Asian martial artist. It reminds of an Indian martial artist (if such exists?) due to its powers.
I was raised Catholic, and there was a monastery not far from where I grew up. The first thing I think of when I hear "monk" is the monks who lived at that monastery. Even one of my childhood friends decided to join the ranks and served as a monk there (although I haven't talked to him in nearly 8 years, so I don't know if he's still there). I do remember when he took a Vow of Silence for a year, and wasn't allowed to speak to anyone. That was hard for his parents.
Anyways, those memories always remind me that the Monk class doesn't have to be eastern in flavor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OCD detective.
Unarmed and unarmoured front-line combatant as in Final Fantasy 1 (aka Black belt/Master), Dragon Quest 9 and a number of other RPGs that manage not to bungle the class.
One of my pet peeves is when people bring up "Gregorian" or "western" monks. They don't need a class because they already have the Expert, or for the exceptional cases, the Cleric. The "western" monk is just a guy who has a religious education and lives in a monastery.
A monk is a character that wears no armor, attacks with speed, and is fast enough to avoid most attacks. Whether they use weapons or fight unarmed would depend on the monk.
Ironically, it's extremely hard to make an effective Dex based monk in Pathfinder. You can do it with the Agile weapon enchant (which is non-core), but it can take several levels before you get the money for it (if the GM even allows it). So Paizo has definitely failed to bring even the mainstream monk archetype to life imo.
Characters should be allowed to use dexterity to hit with light weapons without spending a feat. The feat Weapon Finesse should allow light weapons to add Dex damage instead of Str into the attack. This feat would not work with power attack or against any foe that is immune to critical strikes. This houserule makes Dex based PCs a little more viable.
|
I too think Brother Tuck. What 2nd ed. D&D in a Dragon magazine called the Cloistered Cleric (or was that 1e?). Spends his days (no women here sorry) illuminating manuscripts. Never really thought the monk suited D&D, I more see the D&D general setting as Conan, Lady Hawk, Beastmaster, or Red Sonja type setting. A world of swords, sandals, oh and chainmail bikinis (Tika Waylan for example - ah Elmore, Parkinson et al!). I was quite please when the removed the Monk in 2e.
As for Rogue, for me that could have been a role-played fighter or thief. As in "Behold I am Tony the dashing rogue!" [Level 4 thief wearing brightly coloured armour and with CHA 14] The rogue of today is nothing more than a Fighter/Thief in the old tongue :)
Yar. Eastern Monk or one who has trained under them is pretty much what I think of, and is the only one that makes sense as a separate class from Cleric.
He needs more support for his fists, knees, elbows, feet, and forehead though than he's got with weapons as of late.
When you hear "Monk" what associations do you have as a long time Pathfinder player?
People who don't understand the full implications of the system.
If you were someone new to Role Playing, what associations might you have with "Monk"?
"So is this some kind of healer like a cloistered clergyman deal or a martial artist? Wait, it can't be a martial artist, because that should just be the Fighter..."
On a somewhat related note why was the Thief in 2nd ed, changed to Rogue in 3rd ed?
Because the Thief was a class that couldn't fight at all. They were barely better than the Wizard. The Thief was a "skill class" through and through, considering they began as the only class with skills at all.
In 3rd edition, they made skills a universal thing anyone could have. They kept the "skill class" legacy by giving the Rogues more skills than anyone else, but it was still ultimately insufficient to build a whole class around in the new framework.
Therefore, they attempted to make them more like a secondary combatant in the same tier as the Cleric, and the name "Thief" just no longer fit someone who regularly got into fights.
Could the "Monk" benefit from a name change to say "Martial Artist?"
No, I think that would be sillier than the current situation. Martial arts should be covered by the fighter--an archetype or something. If you want ki magic or something, that could be a "thing" but it's probably better handled as a type of cleric/oracle.
On a somewhat related note why was the Thief in 2nd ed, changed to Rogue in 3rd ed?Because the Thief was a class that couldn't fight at all. They were barely better than the Wizard. The Thief was a "skill class" through and through, considering they began as the only class with skills at all.
Also, in 2e, the rogue class consisted of the thief and the bard. They were both different aspects of the same chassis. One had backstab and skills no one else got, and the other could cast a few wizard spells and got some of those skills no one else got. Rangers also got a taste.
"Skills and Powers" expanded that. 3.0 made it a given. We've been arguing ever since.
When you hear "Monk" what associations do you have as a long time Pathfinder player?
Shaolin Monks. Bruce Lee, Jet Li, Jackie Chan. Wuxia and Wire-fu.
If you were someone new to Role Playing, what associations might you have with "Monk"?
Shaolin Monks. Bruce Lee, Jet Li, Jackie Chan. Wuxia and Wire-fu.
On a somewhat related note why was the Thief in 2nd ed, changed to Rogue in 3rd ed?
Peole got fixated on the name. It's the same reason some people hear 'monk' and start thinking about western clerics.
Could the "Monk" benefit from a name change to say "Martial Artist?"
At least it would stop people from trying to inject western monks on the class. But it does break ranks with the other classes who all have a one word name. Even if we had a good name, it wouldn't see official change unless there was a Pathfinder 2nd edition.
|
|
When you hear "Monk" what associations do you have as a long time Pathfinder player?
Concept: Mystical martial artist.
Imagery: People that look like Irori, Sajan, Ember, all of the monks showing up in art in PF products, martial artists across many other forms of media, Bruce Lee.
If you were someone new to Role Playing, what associations might you have with "Monk"?
Concept: Mystical martial artist.
Imagery: People that look like Irori, Sajan, Ember, all of the monks showing up in art in PF products, martial artists across many other forms of media, Bruce Lee.
On a somewhat related note why was the Thief in 2nd ed, changed to Rogue in 3rd ed?
Probably to reinforce the idea that one was not limited to being a literal thief by playing with the "Thief" class. It was more accurate for what it represented, and it clearly supported a wider range of characters right out of the box.
Could the "Monk" benefit from a name change to say "Martial Artist?"
Possibly, but "monk" fits the one-word format they've got going now, but such benefits would probably be limited to stopping all the Medieval Western European monk-related derails that keep turning up in monk threads.
One of my pet peeves is when people bring up "Gregorian" or "western" monks. They don't need a class because they already have the Expert, or for the exceptional cases, the Cleric. The "western" monk is just a guy who has a religious education and lives in a monastery.There were orders of European warrior monks like the Knights Templar and the Teutonic Knights, but those would be better classed as clerics and paladins in Pathfinder.
Yeah, that's basically what I said.
I have been into martial arts and kung-fu movies a lot longer than I have played D&D, so the mystical martial artist is rather ingrained into my skull. I always envision those heart exploding, bull killing, earth wandering badasses that the class is actually associated with.
My favorite monk came from the show Kung Fu and there was a movie with David Carradine that influenced how I was going to play my monk.
1) Monk : Religious order, usually living in a monastery, sometimes travelling. Usually wearing simple woolen robes and carrying holy symbols and with a tonsure. Travelling monks were usually ministering to the poor. Monastic monks were usually scribes and historians. Within Pathfinder, a Monastic Monk would most likely be a multi-class expert/adept. A travelling monk would most likely be a multi-class expert/adept or expert/cleric. Some Monastic Monks made wine and or cheese to bring in funds to keep the monastery going.
2) Monk : Meditative order, usually using physical training in order to find enlightenment. They usually live inside a monastery, and train daily between meditation. A pathfinder monk would usually be a Monk class, or a multiclass expert/warrior with improved unarmed strike and some style feats.
3) Monk : A hermit who lives on a mountaintop, or in an old fortress, and trains daily. Usually has one or two students who are foundlings or runaways. A Pathfinder Monk would typically be a Monk of some type.
4) Monk : A Martial Artist who lives in an unexpected place, and has no students, and is burned out and jaded. Usually some young gang member or incredibly stupid ruffian manages to push him too far, and the Little Old Man (LOM) beats said ruffian to pulp, usually in front of a snot nosed kid who insists on being trained. The LOM makes the kid do wierd things that don't seem like training, like repairing his house, or painting it, or chopping wood, and eventually reveals they were all training exercises when the snot nosed kid pushes the LOM too far. LOM's don't need money, they made their money before they became LOMs. NOTE : IT IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS TO BE A DIRTBAG NEAR A LOM! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
A European guy in a robe making wine and copying religious texts, or a TV Show I didn't watch.