Why are Monks considered part of the standard fantasy trope?

Honestly, the Bard always felt bizzaro too. I can see it as a Prestige Class, but not a base Class.

You need to get your eyes checked. It's right there in the classes chapter, where the core base classes hang out :P.

If bards don't deserve a base class, then neither do rangers, or paladin, or druids, or most classes except maybe half a dozen, tops.

Pathfinder goes the other way, more with base classes, less PrCs.

CourtFool wrote:

Honestly, the Bard always felt bizzaro too. I can see it as a Prestige Class, but not a base Class.

It essentially is a prestige class, introduced before such things existed, in AD&D 1E.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. A class that can do it all is something for the people who get class feature envy. Monks have great flavor and fit perfectly into western fantasy as soon as you rewrite all the fluff.

We're in a game where medieval knights in ren-era armor wielding clubs worship a greek pantheon that's structured using a pastiche of modern day morality.

I'm not really sure what to say if monks and bards are the breaking point.

We're in a game where medieval knights in ren-era armor wielding clubs worship a greek pantheon that's structured using a pastiche of modern day morality.

I'm not really sure what to say if monks and bards are the breaking point.

it's also a world where the guy who exclusively learns the art of murder in a monastery isn't anywhere near as effective a warrior as the knight in ren-era armor wielding a falcata and worshipping a modern morality influenced variation of the greek pantheon.

I'm happy tossing Monks out of my games in general, but then depending on the campaign type any other class may or may not get tossed out as well.

Monks are probably one of the 'less appropriate' classes in general, and if a player really wants one in my game we just re-jacket the class in a more westernised wrapper...and take out all the Bullshidoshi aspects.

Weapons have a minor transformation and the world moves on.

Pathfinder goes the other way, more with base classes, less PrCs.

And long may it last!

As a GM, I always ban three things:

- Monks (for setting)
- Summoners (mechanics are too slow)
- Evil Alignment (for party/plot)

My PCs have learned to stop even asking to play a Monk. It just doesn't work in my Tolkien or Arthurian inspired worlds.

Unless I'm doing an obviously Vedic or somesuchother milieu, then Monks are in (but some other class gets banned).

Wow, your players "learned to stop even asking to play a Monk." Sounds like you're a fun GM. (rolls eyes)

Sorry, sure GM's can say no to anything, I try to find ways to say yes.

i always just assume the monks in my games are priests who use a variation of oriental style combat. i don't figure them to be oriental or they would have a race requirement and that would require a new race or subrace to be created. not to mention a far off eastern continent, in 1st edition that worked cuz everything was hack and slash and dungeon crawls barely held together as a campaign.nobody cared about where your character came from. but if i was gonna give them a race requirement it would be mutant turtles

.....there were monks in western Europe during the medieval period, just not karate-chopping monks, no one said they had to be asian. As for not allowing a base class simply because of the character concept; learn to be creative and make your own concept for the class ruleset, something a good DM should be able to do without hesitation.

learning the art of murder in a monastery could mean a lot of things.

doesn't mean you have to have levels in the monk base class.

nor does it mean you have to focus on unarmed combat.

one's class and other numbers on thier sheet are merely mechanics intended to represent a character.

here is an example of a "monk" that learned the art of murder in a "monastery" but has neither levels in the monk class nor a focus on unarmed combat

I shall call him Alan the Altar Boy.

i will post him later.

i warn you that any mistakes i accidentally make about references to real world religions are completely due to my ignorance. i have never gone to a church in my life whatsoever and i am not familiar with the italian language, especially how it was used in romanticized rennaisance era vatican.

Now for Alan the altar boy

i do not have the resources to research ren-era italy, catholicsim, nor the vatican.

Alan was a shy, quiet, seemingly reclusive orphan who grew up at the vatican, he polished altars and read scripture, occasionally sneaking out to watch the guards train. he was facinated, not only by the beauty of thier technique, but the memorabilia that they wore. he always imagined himself wanting to become one of these great knights. one day, sneaking out to watch the sparring sessions and showing a steely resolve, the captain of that squad, Sir Enzo Linguini (Couldn't think of a proper italian name. my italian vocabulary is extremely limited) handed the boy one his old but still in good condition well crafted swords and asked him if he wished to try a match. the boy accepted and showed a level of natural talent and precision most altar boys did not possess in addition to a strong resolve. Enzo told the boy, "If you wish to become my apprentice, you may keep that sword, i have plenty of others" the boy trained as an apprentice, and a squire to the captian, all while maintaining his religious duties of reading scripture and polishing the altars, on his 16th birthday, he was chosen as a temple guard to the vatican and had sworn vows of loyalty and chastity to the church, having become a monk as well. 2 years later, he was knighted for his prowess in protecting the church. he had become what he had always wanted to become, the very knight he idealized. the incarnation of countless stories of which he was told

see, you have a character that learned how to murder people in a "monastery", that has no levels in monk, no focus on unarmed combat, and may have a social status as a "monk" and completely fitting for a eurocentric setting.

i'm sorry if i failed to research the vatican, the italian language, the rennaiscance, or catholoscism.

i just do not have the resources and have not traveled very far outside of california. i also have never attended any religious gathering whatsoever, am completely nonreligious, and didn't have the best education.

i do not mean to be offensive, but all i know about religion comes from hollywood movies and stuff like that.

Sorry, sure GM's can say no to anything, I try to find ways to say yes.

Some days NO is the only answer, if something flatly doesn't fit I'd prefer they chose something else off the gigantic menu of choices available.

I dont see the problem with there not being a Western Monk. If bob the High Priest returns from the Holywars having experienced the Silk Road and all it's wonders - discovering the far off Empire of Changan, then returns to the Holy City of Roma where in audience with the Father of all Clerics, fills his holyness in on the current status of that distant Empire (all documents relegated to the secret library), and then demonstrating some martial art that he has been trained in while there, why should he not go off and found a monastary for Monks who want to learn to kill with the touch of a finger?

I dont see the problem with there not being a Western Monk. If bob the High Priest returns from the Holywars having experienced the Silk Road and all it's wonders - discovering the far off Empire of Changan, then returns to the Holy City of Roma where in audience with the Father of all Clerics, fills his holyness in on the current status of that distant Empire (all documents relegated to the secret library), and then demonstrating some martial art that he has been trained in while there, why should he not go off and found a monastary for Monks who want to learn to kill with the touch of a finger?

that is actually a pretty good point.

i posted an example what may be a fairly traditional western monk.

Alan the altar boy. i think i might give him a try. i forgot his +2 racial bonus. luckily i edited it in during the nick of time.

he is a reasonably optimized 15 point buy sword and board fighter. i could post a level 5 version later.

some representation of alan the altar boy at 3rd level and 5th level

Alan the Altar Boy is thus a monk, and not a Monk.

why should he not go off and found a monastary for Monks who want to learn to kill with the touch of a finger?

And why should they not excommunicate or burn him at the stake for resproducing such heathen heretical practices :p

So is my backstory of street urchin who joined the circus and turned his acrobat performance into a fighting style not allowed in 'standard fantasy'?

So is my backstory of street urchin who joined the circus and turned his acrobat performance into a fighting style not allowed in 'standard fantasy'?

Who what or where has implied that anywhere?

(As I say, I note you have unwrapped the Eastern Wrapper and applied a Western Overlay - which was my stated workaround :p)

So is my backstory of street urchin who joined the circus and turned his acrobat performance into a fighting style not allowed in 'standard fantasy'?

NOFUNALLOWED.jpg

Guess an order of martial artists formed from the descendants of slaves initially taught and led by a wise old mystic who intentionally got himself enslaved in order to start a revolution is on the outs too. :(

Who what or where has implied that anywhere?

I dunno, I didn't read the thread. :)

Quite a bit of disingenuous responses in this thread. Just because you can shoehorn a western concept for an unarmed fighter into a package which isn't as blatantly "asian" doesn't mean you have the right to cry "concept martyr".

-Idle

doesn't mean you have the right to cry "concept martyr".

That went by a little too fast for me. Say again?

I dunno, I didn't read the thread. :)

Thats a very cheeky admission! :)

As I say, I'm not whizzing on the class per se, its juat that not every class is suitable to every campaign, and I find the monk to (generally) be one of the more contentious fits as most campaigns don't hit too much eastern influence. For the same reason I am yet to field a Rakshasa or Genie of any kind etc - or bloody Dinosaurs (dont get me started on dinosaurs).

On the other hand if we were doing some kind of 'Shogun' campaign then all bets are off go crazy!

If I was running some kinda 'Thieves campaign' game I'd say Paladins would equally be badwrongfun...funnily enough not many takers on a 'theives campaign' and I've had the idea kicking around for ages... same same an Oriental Adventures campaign... I'd love to PLAY one (only had the supplements purchased and ready to go for 20 years...!) but cant find takers as players or as GM's.

Its just the broader consideration with how things 'gel'.

Quite a bit of disingenuous responses in this thread. Just because you can shoehorn a western concept for an unarmed fighter into a package which isn't as blatantly "asian" doesn't mean you have the right to cry "concept martyr".

-Idle

I don't know. There's all too often an air of "your fun is bad and you should feel bad" when it comes to discussion of monks being viable for general fantasy settings.

Especially when so many are hellbent on the notion that general fantasy settings = Medieval Europe Only.

Full Disclosure: I have little interest in an Asian-Setting-Only campaign, but I am very interested in playing a monk in a more culturally inclusive campaign.

IdleMind wrote:

Quite a bit of disingenuous responses in this thread. Just because you can shoehorn a western concept for an unarmed fighter into a package which isn't as blatantly "asian" doesn't mean you have the right to cry "concept martyr".

-Idle

I don't know. There's all too often an air of "your fun is bad and you should feel bad" when it comes to discussion of monks being viable for general fantasy settings.

Especially when so many are hellbent on the notion that general fantasy settings = Medieval Europe Only.

So your being sensitive about the point of view of someone else regarding something subjective entitles us both to be jerks. Am I getting this right?

People here are acting like there is some kind of setting absolute. Even most(not all) of the people who actually ANSWERED my OP questions did so in a snarky matter-of-fact manner. Do all people here have this disease, or is it just limited to when people query ideas that don't fit with RAW or what they are used to?

-Idle

Full Disclosure: I have little interest in an Asian-Setting-Only campaign, but I am very interested in playing a monk in a more culturally inclusive campaign.

Full disclosure, I actually got to play a Monk once, as a wandering mystic ninja type... it was awesome. It was like a party Rogue on crack!

But it fit with the campaign world the GM had us seated in.

Thats a very cheeky admission! :)

That's just how Team TOZ rolls. Who the hell do you think I am? ;)

Mikaze wrote:

IdleMind wrote:

Quite a bit of disingenuous responses in this thread. Just because you can shoehorn a western concept for an unarmed fighter into a package which isn't as blatantly "asian" doesn't mean you have the right to cry "concept martyr".

-Idle

I don't know. There's all too often an air of "your fun is bad and you should feel bad" when it comes to discussion of monks being viable for general fantasy settings.

Especially when so many are hellbent on the notion that general fantasy settings = Medieval Europe Only.

So your being sensitive about the point of view of someone else regarding something subjective entitles us both to be jerks. Am I getting this right?

Nope.

Sensitive? Just tired. Especially when people brag about "teaching" their players to stop asking to play concepts they're interested in playing and when people continue to taut the assumption that all settings are Medieval European as universal truth.

People here are acting like there is some kind of setting absolute. Even the people who actually ANSWERED my OP questions did so in a snarky matter-of-fact manner. Do all people here have this disease, or is it just limited to when people query ideas that don't fit with RAW or what they are used to?

-Idle

The very question of "the standard fantasy trope?" assumes there is some setting absolute to be had, which there isn't. As for the general tone of the thread, it comes down to this subject coming up repeatedly throughout the course of 3.x after monks were reintroduced to reactions of "HELLS YEAH!" and "RUINED FOREVER!" and everything in between.

That's just how Team TOZ rolls. Who the hell do you think I am? ;)

You don't honestly want me to answer that, do you? :-)

yellowdingo wrote:

why should he not go off and found a monastary for Monks who want to learn to kill with the touch of a finger?

And why should they not excommunicate or burn him at the stake for resproducing such heathen heretical practices :p

Because he killed the Papal Assassins sent to dispose of his heretical arse...and then buggered off and joined an obscure monastary where a few sought him out to learn his knowledge and thus was born the first Monastic Order of the Left Hand of God.

The Monastic Order of the Left Hand of God

Anyone seeking to join this obscure and heretical Monastic Order must take Ranks of monk and Cleric in equal level (beginning with Cleric). Thus a member of the Order can never attain the greater ranks of the Monk that might be found in the far off lands of the East. MONASTIC PRIEST (Cleric/Monk)

There needs to be an order of the right hand of the devil too. :)

You don't honestly want me to answer that, do you? :-)

You don't have the balls. ;)

There needs to be an order of the right hand of the devil too. :)

There is... its a ranged weapon specialist group...

The Devils Right Hand ...Get you into trouble but it couldn't get you out... :)

If I wanted to play in a strictly Arthurian world I'd play a game built from the ground up for it, like Pendragon.

Likewise, RuneQuest (Mongoose) hits my sword and sandals/bronze era spot quite nicely.

D&D works best when it's not so...focused. It's a broad game, not a narrow one.

Probably around 1st edition AD&D. I blame Gary Gygax.

You know, I was just looking up Blackmoor the other day on wikis and it seems we can blame Arneson.

[Even most(not all) of the people who actually ANSWERED my OP questions did so in a snarky matter-of-fact manner. Do all people here have this disease, or is it just limited to when people query ideas that don't fit with RAW or what they are used to?

I described to you the Zeitgeist during the game's formative period, which directly led to the inclusion of the monk. Do I thereby have a disease of some kind? Or am I not in the "most" category? Because at first I thought you were asking an honest question, not just looking for people to confirm your bias, but now I'm not so sure.

Outside of D&D, I haven't seen many 'monk' types in fantasy RPGs. I haven't run across them in much fantasy fiction, either. Of course, I may have read different books and played different games than the OP has read and played.

Western fantasy fiction... on the other side of the Bigger Pond,it's a different story. D+D is like the English language, it's taken stuff from everywhere.

IdleMind wrote:

[Even most(not all) of the people who actually ANSWERED my OP questions did so in a snarky matter-of-fact manner. Do all people here have this disease, or is it just limited to when people query ideas that don't fit with RAW or what they are used to?

I described to you the Zeitgeist during the game's formative period, which directly led to the inclusion of the monk. Do I thereby have a disease of some kind? Or am I not in the "most" category? Because at first I thought you were asking an honest question, not just looking for people to confirm your bias, but now I'm not so sure.

No, you actually answered my query. I knew nothing about the climate of the 70's regarding the fervor over martial arts, nor did I know anything about Destroyer being a large influence on the hobby itself (especially the men behind it). I even looked through a 1st ed PHB just to get a feel for it being different.

It's an annoyed overreaction on my part, my apologies.

-Idle

There needs to be an order of the right hand of the devil too. :)

Cutlass wrote:

You don't honestly want me to answer that, do you? :-)

You don't have the balls. ;)

The Dark Circle of Friar Segunis

The Foul Friar, breaking with the Order of the Left Hand of God (or perhaps just the Church) departed for the sprawling Capital of Parais and there in the undercity established a wholy Monastic Order focused on the Martial art. The Circle of Segunis has some SACRED ASSASSINS (Assassin/Monk) in his school, but most are focused on exploring the Martial Discipline(Monk). Most of his Circle are Street vermin, but one is the Daughter of the Duke who rules the city.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

IdleMind wrote:

[Even most(not all) of the people who actually ANSWERED my OP questions did so in a snarky matter-of-fact manner. Do all people here have this disease, or is it just limited to when people query ideas that don't fit with RAW or what they are used to?

I described to you the Zeitgeist during the game's formative period, which directly led to the inclusion of the monk. Do I thereby have a disease of some kind? Or am I not in the "most" category? Because at first I thought you were asking an honest question, not just looking for people to confirm your bias, but now I'm not so sure.

No, you actually answered my query. I knew nothing about the climate of the 70's regarding the fervor over martial arts, nor did I know anything about Destroyer being a large influence on the hobby itself (especially the men behind it). I even looked through a 1st ed PHB just to get a feel for it being different.

It's an annoyed overreaction on my part, my apologies.

-Idle

Destroyer...you Mean Remo the Destroyer and the old Korean master who teaches him?

Destroyer...you Mean Remo the Destroyer and the old Korean master who teaches him?

Yeah, those books were part & parcel of the whole '70's martial arts craze. Warren Murphy & Richard Sapir used to churn 'em out as fast as I could read them, with each one bearing the legend, "The Super Man of the 1970s!!!" on the back.

Honestly, the Bard always felt bizzaro too. I can see it as a Prestige Class, but not a base Class.

IIRC Bards were the original prestige class, they became their own distinct class in second edition