Basic query as te title indicates.
When did magical kung-fu powers becomes a standard part of the whole "fantasy medieval" genre? Why? Does anyone else think this is odd? Does anyone else exclude monks from their games for such reasons?
-Idle
Probably around 1st edition AD&D. I blame Gary Gygax.
|
I have no idea and it's something I've never been able to come to terms with. It just seems silly to me and it has always been at least mildly immersion breaking. Then again, I hate most anime.
The issue is less severe in settings with really strong fleshed out 'asian themed' regions ala Forgotten Realms.
There is precedence for the unarmed strongman/brawler but not for the wire-flying mystical ki energy kung-fu master.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Basic query as te title indicates.
When did magical kung-fu powers becomes a standard part of the whole "fantasy medieval" genre? Why? Does anyone else think this is odd? Does anyone else exclude monks from their games for such reasons?
-Idle
If I were playing in a medieval themed game, I'd make my monks less medieval.
Basic query as te title indicates.
When did magical kung-fu powers becomes a standard part of the whole "fantasy medieval" genre?
It's just a D&D thing. Along with psionics. And druids, for that matter.
(Personally, I like monks and psionics.)
I recall reading in some 1st Edition book, probably the PH, that Gygax was inspired by the Destroyer series. So monks are supposed to be Masters of Sinanju. Not that they live up to it, but hey, balance was necessary.
So then, yeah, they don't fit in with the medieval paradigm. But hey, that's OK, cause its easy to fix. Just take them out. Or not. Me, I like the ideas behind monks. Really, they always struck me as being better assassins than Assassins. YMMV.
I remember seeing them in my 1e Player's Handbook and thinking WTF.
People tell me there is no need for a Con Man base class, so, what are you gonna do?
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).
Honestly, the Bard always felt bizzaro too. I can see it as a Prestige Class, but not a base Class.
Biggest fallacy of the game... No incarnation of D+D was never ever modeled after "the standard fantasy medieval" genre. It's an evolution of wargaming which is the manipulation of soldier pieces on battlemats. Monks were one of those pieces in which the original folks were fascinated by.
I agree with the thrust of the idea but don't believe that this in anyway explains the monk. Yes all the original designers and most of the early fans where wargamers...but no one had martial artists in their wargames. I mean the closest one might see for this would be eastern themed miniature battles but rules of the period rarely went down to individuals so actual rules for using kung-fu moves would not come up. You might have a beautifully painted army from the shogunate period but when you played with that army (often against Byzantines or Republic of Rome era Goths or some other unhistorical opponent) you'd not get a bonus for kung-fu moves.
I'd look more to Gygax as an explanation. For whatever reason Gygax likely had something of a fascination with the orient. This seems probable because of the publication of Oriental Adventures. We sort of presume that Oriental Adventures is a natural progression after you have done most of the other books but evidence from later editions does not really support that. Playing in a fantasy orient was never more then a niche activity. Only a handful of Dungeon Adventures focused on the area, and while many of them where well received there never seemed to be a groundswell of demand for more.
If its not a natural extension then where the heck did that book come from? it seems to me that Mr. Gygax could have worked on anything for this period in the games history and some ideas, like adding more depth to the races, are probably a more natural progression. Instead Gygax chose fantasy orient, the only reasonable explanation would seem to be that he made this choice because that is what he wanted to work on, and if so then he presumably already had an interest in the theme which explains why he chose to include the monk.
Possibly it may have also just been an inspired marketing decision. Martial Arts where a growing phenomena in the late '70s and the idea of being a master martial artist is really likely to appeal to a nerdy teenage male. If one presumes that, at least some of the time, and especially in the beginning, RPG character design is about creating a Mary Sue including a master martial artist is an inspired choice.
"fantasy medieval" genre
Doesn't exist.
The concept of a copycat "high fantasy" setting is the most boring thing imaginable. Fantasy being stock, cliche, and samey is...well, hell, that more or less is the definition of "not fantastic"
|
|
Ahem.
There actually *were* monks in medieval western Europe. Who do you think built all those monasteries? While it is true that the monks of that time and place were not *known* for their combat styles in the same manner that the oriental monks were, that does not mean that western monks *had* no combat capabilities. After all, the reason most monasteries were built like forts was because they were attacked from time to time, and the monks had to defend them. The reason that a lot of the oriental unarmed combat styles were developed in the first place was as a way to get around laws restricting the use of various different weapons to certain social classes. Similar laws also existed in various different parts of medieval Europe.
So, while it would arguably be stretching things a little based on what we *know* of the historical record, there is no reason why one couldn't have had a small order or two of monks in medieval western Europe who had developed effective unarmed/unarmored combat styles. Quarterstaffs were in vogue for quite a while and were a common piece of equipment for travelers to have with them.
All one has to do is to read some of the accounts of "Robin Hood" to see quarterstaffs being used by people who were well practiced with them. The use of such a staff was also one of the ways that one would use to signify that they were on a religious pilgrimage, with a "Shepard's crook" style staff being used by clergy as well as sheep herders. To think that the people who used such staffs routinely for walking sticks were incapable of using them effectively in a fight strikes me as being more fantastic than the idea that some of them could.
Last but not least, some of the orders of western monks were relatively secretive about some of the things they were up to. By and large these were Christian orders that were organized under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church. The Vatican has been regarded as a "state" in its own right for centuries. While the Vatican hasn't always and usually didn't try to set up and control actual standing armies, I think that those who would argue that the Vatican does/did not have the equivalent of a "special operations" capability are likely naive.
Thus the idea of a "monk" who was quite capable in unarmed/unarmored combat is not necessarily completely out of place in a medieval western Europe style setting. All that would be needed would be to fine tune the fluff so it sounded less "oriental".
When Marco Polo traveled the Silk Road, I'm sure he encountered Kung Fu guys along the way. In fact, didn't Marco Polo give them the english name 'monk' to begin with??
|
Basic query as te title indicates.
When did magical kung-fu powers becomes a standard part of the whole "fantasy medieval" genre? Why? Does anyone else think this is odd? Does anyone else exclude monks from their games for such reasons?
-Idle
For many of us, the "standard fantasy" setting has long grown beyond being just medieval Europe. Monks are a part of that. Many of us quite like the idea of mystical martial artists and have room for it in our settings.
I would never disallow monks. Or bards, or barbarians, or any other core class unless the campaign involved was a serious fringe situation. If it was set exclusively in some Europe-only or Asia-only setting(which is pretty damn unlikely for me) I still wouldn't. There are too many ways these classes can be refluffed and too many roles they can fill to disallow them for both players and NPCs.
|
|
"fantasy medieval" genreDoesn't exist.
The concept of a copycat "high fantasy" setting is the most boring thing imaginable. Fantasy being stock, cliche, and samey is...well, hell, that more or less is the definition of "not fantastic"
What I still occasionally refer to as "Extruded Fantasy Product."
OTOH, Jo Walton had some interesting things to say about why setting games in Generic High Fantasyland is (or can be) a good thing. Short version, if you don't want to click the link: Anything that helps the players immerse themselves in the world is a good thing, and Generic High Fantasyland at least has the virtue of familiarity.
When Marco Polo traveled the Silk Road, I'm sure he encountered Kung Fu guys along the way. In fact, didn't Marco Polo give them the english name 'monk' to begin with??
There were Kung Fu monks in medieval times. It's not like they appeared out of thin air when Gary Gygax put them into 1e core.
Someone told me it all started with >Marco Polo< and his travels in the 1200's. He discovered Kung Fu monks (and named them 'monks').
> Here is Marco Polo discovering Kung Fu monks <
> Here is a map of his travels < in the 1200's and 1300's.
|
|
NB: This may be a double post; I'm not sure if the first one went through.
"fantasy medieval" genreDoesn't exist.
The concept of a copycat "high fantasy" setting is the most boring thing imaginable. Fantasy being stock, cliche, and samey is...well, hell, that more or less is the definition of "not fantastic"
What I still occasionally refer to as "Extruded Fantasy Product."
OTOH, Jo Walton had some interesting things to say about why setting games in Generic High Fantasyland is (or can be) a good thing. Short version, if you don't want to click the link: Anything that helps the players immerse themselves in the world is a good thing, and Generic High Fantasyland at least has the virtue of familiarity.
When the game started Bruce-Lee was seriously cool. Kung-fu was right up there with skateboarding and Star Wars. And every group has at one point had someone ask if they can be a ninja. Thus... YOU TOO CAN BE CHUCK NORRIS!
it's not that big a deal in my group because nobody ever plays monks and none of the modules or homebrewed adventures have them in either so there sorta there but not really.
Monks only make sense in a eastern type of game because there power level suits that style.
as far as the bard goes this class makes sense for a european fantasy setting but none of my fellow gamers want to play a 3/4 caster with crappy healing and crappy damage spells. However in the bards defense we as a group don't really work together so his abilities to inspire and give bonuses are wasted on us.
Druids yea we play those guys alot, I'm playing one now. Good damage,ok defense, major versatility. Plus as far as I am concerned in the Forgotten realms setting a druid of silvanus is awesome to role play because of the history of the faith and the rites associated with it.
If I were playing in a medieval themed game, I'd make my monks less medieval.
That's great. :D
Have you got any more of those?
It also just occurred to me (that besides occur needing an extra r to pluralize it) that having monks in the setting also throws wrenches in the gears of many things.
For example, you can't have a feat to increase unarmed damage without considering the monks unarmed damage progression.
You can't give a prestige class a natural armor ability based on say, CON without worrying about the monks AC climbing too high.
You have a whole class of weapons JUST for the monk which are essentially a wasted exotic weapon proficiency for every other character in the game.
You have a line of feats involving unarmed strikes which are essentially pointless for every other class.
It's impossible to have another unarmed brawling class be relevant when the monk is in the setting. You can't run a concept where you punch or kick with your off-hand with a one handed weapon; for example because you have to go into extreme feat debt to do so, and the its 1d3 damage... forever... no matter what.
-Idle
(PS Not all gripes coherent; my apologies optimizers :P)
Monks only make sense in a eastern type of game because there power level suits that style.
Just to make sure I understand you correctly: you think monks are inappropriate for a Western fantasy setting in part because they're too powerful?
Just to make sure I understand you correctly: you think monks are inappropriate for a Western fantasy setting in part because they're too powerful?Monks only make sense in a eastern type of game because there power level suits that style.
The short answer to that question is yes. I do feel that monks are too powerful in a regular non eastern style setting.
Long answer we had a player that broke a monk so bad that we still refer to his kicks as a nuclear launch detected, when he hit something it died no matter what it just died.
It's not the monks fault just like you would never allow a wu-jen's spells to be used by a wizard because they break the style of power associated with the class.
prime example, a wizard with polymorph can only go up or down one size catergory so a firbolg or fire giant is as good as he's getting. while a wu-jen has a spell that lets him become guargantuan or larger.
Spell for spell wu-jen's out damage mages but even they are far behind the psions.
Not only do monks start the game with more attacks per round than fighters the monks get more nifty abilities to boot. Sure granted that they don't get the super amount of feats a fighter does but still the slow fall and immunities at later levels make a pretty good trade. I'm not even going to go into the crack-age of their AC with some very simple low level magic items where as a fighter is lucky to be able to afford magic armor. Granted my DM's have a VERY tight rein on the cash so we don't break the game but still pound for pound monks make better fighters than fighters.
The short answer to that question is yes. I do feel that monks are too powerful in a regular non eastern style setting.
Huh. I don't want to get into an argument about it here, but if you dig around a bit under General Discussion you'll find several threads like this one in which many posters argue that the monk is clearly the weakest core class in Pathfinder.
here are a lot of the problems i have seen with the monk
monks have to pay triple the normal cost for weapon enhancements
a lot of thier abilities just plain contradict each other
flurry of blows doesn't mesh well with thier huge amounts of speed
since if you are going to full attack, your speed drops to a mere 5 feet.
flurry b.a.b. is not true b.a.b. all it really provides is bonuses to hit and level appropriate extra attacks.
flurry b.a.b. does not help with prerequisites, does not factor in feat based abilities that scale with b.a.b. and lacks a lot of the other advantages provided by b.a.b.
monks, being reliant on making lots of smaller attacks have to make more attack rolls making damage reduction a huge problem.
you can't really get special material unarmed strikes at the low levels without houserules of some kind unless you want to sacrifice damage, flurry or both.
unarmed strikes never benefit from the reach quality. means that stepping into the giants square after sufficient movement gives him a free chance to hit you.
monks have lower enhancement caps for existing weapon/armor enhancement bonuses. bracers of armor max out at +8 and may not benefit from flat cost abilities, amulet of might fists maxes out at +5 and may not recieve flat cost abilities either. but both are so darn ovepriced for what they do. a monk enhancing thier unarmed damage also cannot get a natural armor enhancement without houserules. as both pieces take up the neck slot. constitution and wisdom bonuses used to fight over this slot as well before pathfinder.
my conclusion
monks aren't as overpowered as Nippophobes crack them up to be. a lot of the oriental classes were actually mechanically inferior to thier western counterparts with the exception of a few exclusive spells that were typically double edged swords of some kind.
According to the Wiki, citing the opening of 1st Ed. OA:
In its early development, the D&D game was supplemented by various booklets, and in one of these the monk, inspired by Brian Blume and the book series called The Destroyer, was appended to the characters playable. So too was this cobbled-together martial arts specialist placed into the AD&D game system, even as it was being removed from the D&D game.
So, like many things in early D&D, and in RPGs in general, someone thought it sounded cool.
Really, if you want to start scratching at the whole thing, madness swiftly follows. You can begin with questions like "why lay on hands" or or "why spell memorization," and the answer is generally "oh, they must have been reading [insert text here] that week'; you run into things like "why fighters" and "why is HP so abstract", where the answer is generally 'right, all the bones of a tactical wargame'; but play at it long enough and you start to run into things like druids and monks, where it doesn't make sense to begin with, and all I can see the the scene like where your 8 year old nephew is rattling off the abilities and history of the superhero he made up.
Just to make sure I understand you correctly: you think monks are inappropriate for a Western fantasy setting in part because they're too powerful?Monks only make sense in a eastern type of game because there power level suits that style.
The short answer to that question is yes. I do feel that monks are too powerful in a regular non eastern style setting.
Long answer we had a player that broke a monk so bad that we still refer to his kicks as a nuclear launch detected, when he hit something it died no matter what it just died.
It's not the monks fault just like you would never allow a wu-jen's spells to be used by a wizard because they break the style of power associated with the class.
prime example, a wizard with polymorph can only go up or down one size catergory so a firbolg or fire giant is as good as he's getting. while a wu-jen has a spell that lets him become guargantuan or larger.
Spell for spell wu-jen's out damage mages but even they are far behind the psions.
Not only do monks start the game with more attacks per round than fighters the monks get more nifty abilities to boot. Sure granted that they don't get the super amount of feats a fighter does but still the slow fall and immunities at later levels make a pretty good trade. I'm not even going to go into the crack-age of their AC with some very simple low level magic items where as a fighter is lucky to be able to afford magic armor. Granted my DM's have a VERY tight rein on the cash so we don't break the game but still pound for pound monks make better fighters than fighters.
I like monks alot. Granted, I have played very few of them over the years. Maybe three over the past "gulp" forty years, as opposed to the many rangers, clerics, and druids. Almost every party I have been in had one. But especially in Pathfinder, I would never call them overpowered. Fun maybe. Lots of cool shiney bits no one else gets. Great for getting from point A to point B. But overpowered....your methods DO vary :P
Greg
I am laughing so hard at the thought that monks are too powerful for the genre.
If anything, the problem with the monk is that he's so pathetically weak that he becomes the standard for unarmed classes, and now everything has to be balanced around his sorry rear end, which means you will basically never see a good unarmed class because "No it can't be more powerful then the monk!"
The monk is in my informed opinion very well balanced. He is somewhat (not very) weaker in combat when observed in isolation - but he benefits more from allies and buffs than other classes. A monk's best friend is a bard.
It is true that monks suffer a bit in mid-levels, say around level 3 to 6, compared to heavy melee classes; but after level 10 the monk is a noticeable powerhouse.
In real life I play with a group of well-optimized players - and my monk (around level 13) has no trouble consistently topping or equalling the DPR charts of major encounters. Not to forget that with Stunning Fist, Punishing Kick and Touch of Serenity (all on same character) the flurries have a lot of conditional effects to apply to enemies and it is hard for a foe to make all 3 saves in 1 round.
A monk is useful if there is a fighter, cleric, bard and wizard in the party as well... if you dip rogue to get trap-finding.
Just like to point out Gygax was writing about monks in his Gord the Rogue books, they were in Greyhawk.
|
|
here are a lot of the problems i have seen with the monk
monks have to pay triple the normal cost for weapon enhancements
since if you are going to full attack, your speed drops to a mere 5 feet.
monks, being reliant on making lots of smaller attacks have to make more attack rolls making damage reduction a huge problem.
you can't really get special material unarmed strikes at the low levels without houserules of some kind unless you want to sacrifice damage, flurry or both.
monks have lower enhancement caps for existing weapon/armor enhancement bonuses. bracers of armor max out at +8 and may not benefit from flat cost abilities, amulet of might fists maxes out at +5 and may not recieve flat cost abilities either. but both are so darn ovepriced for what they do. a monk enhancing thier unarmed damage also cannot get a natural armor enhancement without houserules. as both pieces take up the neck slot. constitution and wisdom bonuses used to fight over this slot as well before pathfinder.
May I introduce you to your new best friend: Brass Knuckles. Also a nice new toy for monks: The Temple Sword
Actually Gary Gygax and friends like Kung Fu the TV series with David Carradine :) and the original D&D Monk was build on that character. From the escape to the quivering palm to the falling with no damage :)
It was all in homage to the great oriental monk in the western setting :)
In Golarion they explain it in ways like Tian Xia monks commin over the Ice and starting secret monestaries or wandering seeking enlightenment or Vudrani monks setting up monesteries or fighting schools like the Irorium or on Jalmeray. Or various groups setting up unarmed fighting schools and focusing on a more monastic life perfecting fighting tecnique, like in Cheliax or Riddleport.
And many western mideval monks were retired cavaliers, and other soldiers so they knew how to fight too... :)
Just to make sure I understand you correctly: you think monks are inappropriate for a Western fantasy setting in part because they're too powerful?Monks only make sense in a eastern type of game because there power level suits that style.
The short answer to that question is yes. I do feel that monks are too powerful in a regular non eastern style setting.
Long answer we had a player that broke a monk so bad that we still refer to his kicks as a nuclear launch detected, when he hit something it died no matter what it just died.
It's not the monks fault just like you would never allow a wu-jen's spells to be used by a wizard because they break the style of power associated with the class.
prime example, a wizard with polymorph can only go up or down one size catergory so a firbolg or fire giant is as good as he's getting. while a wu-jen has a spell that lets him become guargantuan or larger.
Spell for spell wu-jen's out damage mages but even they are far behind the psions.
Not only do monks start the game with more attacks per round than fighters the monks get more nifty abilities to boot. Sure granted that they don't get the super amount of feats a fighter does but still the slow fall and immunities at later levels make a pretty good trade. I'm not even going to go into the crack-age of their AC with some very simple low level magic items where as a fighter is lucky to be able to afford magic armor. Granted my DM's have a VERY tight rein on the cash so we don't break the game but still pound for pound monks make better fighters than fighters.
For 1E, i do agree that monks seem overpowered, though most of the classes & martial arts do.
Just wondering what Wu-Jen spells are too powerful for a wizard? :P
Cause i have a F-M that can use Wu-Jen spells & the best damaging spell is 'Enchanted Blade' - d6/level but requires to hit roll & single target. Main advantages a Level 2 spell.
Anyone who wasn't alive in the '70s has no frame of reference for this. Bruce Lee movies were HUGE. "Kung Fu" was a weekly prime time TV show; Shaw Brothers movies would appear on "Kung Fu Theatre" every Sunday morning. A new Remo Williams (aka "The Destroyer") book would come out in paperback seemingly twice a month or so. You couldn't turn on the radio without heaving hear yet again about how "Everybody was Kung Fu Fighting."
THIS is the "reality" that Quentin Tarantino is channeling in Kill Bill, and the saturation that led to the Monk in D&D. The whole Kung Fu Monk craze was part and parcel of the 1970s; that's the time when D&D was being formulated.
True, so true :) And I grew up in the 70's and played the game when it came out :) but it seems to me the monk closely resembles the David Carridine edition of the thing more than the others. Though Bruce and the Kung Fu theatre is still a favorite of mine :) And they are putting out new issues of "The Destroyer" lately :) if anyones interested ;)
Well, back in Dragon magazine they did some stuff with Friar tuck type monks; but basically back in the 70's we all watched a lot of martial arts movies set in ancient, fanstastic china; so it seems to fit right into spellcasters and barbarian warriors though the theme is congruent the theme and setting gets confused. In the original world of Greyhawk; they had the Scarlet Brotherhood; which gave the class a lot of support, though in first ed the monk was very very lacking; basically a fighter with mage hps and a fairly crappy ac who could do a few rogue type things; then at 12th scared the jeepers out of everyone with the touch of death. Then the monk revisison came out in the Dragon; and it was way over the top; but very cool; went to 21st level and added some stuff.
but to answer your question; no, I have not banned them; made sure they were well supported with clans and monestraries and such. In 3.5 I am a bit concerned about monks and some of the feats from the Book of the Divine and being a bit to much; but hard to say as balance is right out the window in 3.5 which is hard on a gm and makes you rethink all your monsters and takes quite a bit more extra work in game building of scenarios.
It also just occurred to me (that besides occur needing an extra r to pluralize it) that having monks in the setting also throws wrenches in the gears of many things.
For example, you can't have a feat to increase unarmed damage without considering the monks unarmed damage progression.
I can never just have a feat where I give someone some pet wolf or something following him around because of those douchebag rangers.
Or those a%#&+#! paladins depriving me of the pleasure of just getting a feat where people get faith healing.
Or....
The list goes on.
You can't give a prestige class a natural armor ability based on say, CON without worrying about the monks AC climbing too high.
Or the fighter's, really. They can have really insane ACs. Especially archer fighters. Think that class bonus and wis is so great? Try getting a big chunk of dex AND the heaviest armours around.
So are you banning fighters now, too?
You have a whole class of weapons JUST for the monk which are essentially a wasted exotic weapon proficiency for every other character in the game.
On this, I actually agree. But it's really a case of bad weapon management, not a case of a bad class.
You have a line of feats involving unarmed strikes which are essentially pointless for every other class.
Yeah, that's bad. Of course, having feats like all those channel feats (mostly just for clerics), all the many feats that actually spell out "fighter only".
And, of course, a barbarian, like one getting that brutal pugilist, might like to get those feats, too.
It's impossible to have another unarmed brawling class be relevant when the monk is in the setting.
It's perfectly possible. Because monks aren't really brawlers. Monks are monks. They're not even full warriors.
Did you know that a fighter or barbarian going the unarmed route can easily outperform a monk when it comes to hitting enemies and dealing damage.
You think those nifty big damage dice for unarmed damage are so great? Actually, a real warrior will match the total output just because he gets bonuses to attack and damage.
That 1d3 won't matter.
The short answer to that question is yes. I do feel that monks are too powerful in a regular non eastern style setting.
Well, I definitely know that they are not too powerful. I'm playing a monk right now, I know how to optimise, and the warrior types, played by players that are not really that much into optimising, hit so hard that my monk gets damage envy.
Long answer we had a player that broke a monk so bad that we still refer to his kicks as a nuclear launch detected, when he hit something it died no matter what it just died.
If I based my likes and dislikes on whether I had a player go to ridiculous lengths of munchkinising the heck out of the class, I'd have turned my back to all roleplaying long ago.
I know a guy he can make an overpowered character in Amber.
Not only do monks start the game with more attacks per round than fighters
You mean more misses, right? Fighters can also go the two-weapon way and get a penalty to all their attacks for the right to use smaller weapons and less of his strength per attack. Or they can just get a big hunk of metal and make his fewer attacks really hurt. Hurt a whole lot more than those kazillion attacks with crappy attack bonuses.
the monks get more nifty abilities to boot.
Let them keep it. Fighters fight. That's what they do. They do it better than everyone else. They do it without bells on, but they certainly do it better than these mystics.
I'm not even going to go into the crack-age of their AC with some very simple low level magic items where as a fighter is lucky to be able to afford magic armor.
Huh? What items are you talking about?
Anyway, monks do have a great AC, but fighters can usually beat that.
pound for pound monks make better fighters than fighters.
Yeah, but fighters are about ten times as handy, so on the whole, they can't hope to compete.
Freeport has a brawler or martial arts master character called "the Survivor" that is awesome and in the new Pathfinder edition of Freeport it is quite compatable. They are definately not (Shaolin)Monks and can be of any alignment! Which makes them great fun to play with because they can be all those hero's from the kung fu movies that weren't in the safron robes whith the bald heads :) They dont get all the trappings of the Monk either but they do get unarmed strike and extra damage, and they are good all around unarmed characters whith high AC due to dodge and such.
the whole idea of monks get more attacks than fighters at level 1, is baseless. One of my favorite archtypes to build is a dual wielding human fighter if I have the right stats. I get two weapon, Exotic weapon: Bastard sword, and weapon focus: Bastard sword.
Dual wielding bastard swords gives me a -4 to hit each, +1 BaB, +1 WF, and if I have at least a +2 strength I have a +0 to hit at level 1 which is the same as a monk with flurry and a +2 strength. Difference? Monk does d6+2/d6+2 while the fighter does d10+2/d10+1.... Also The monk has around a 15-17 ac, while the same fighter has a 15-17 ac with light armor... So they are similiar until the fighter gets specialization, greater focus and specialization, and magic swords, as well as the amount of crazy feats in the various splat books in 3.5. If straight PF then they still have alot better feat options.
|
|
Just to make sure I understand you correctly: you think monks are inappropriate for a Western fantasy setting in part because they're too powerful?Monks only make sense in a eastern type of game because there power level suits that style.
The short answer to that question is yes. I do feel that monks are too powerful in a regular non eastern style setting.
Long answer we had a player that broke a monk so bad that we still refer to his kicks as a nuclear launch detected, when he hit something it died no matter what it just died.
It's not the monks fault just like you would never allow a wu-jen's spells to be used by a wizard because they break the style of power associated with the class.
prime example, a wizard with polymorph can only go up or down one size catergory so a firbolg or fire giant is as good as he's getting. while a wu-jen has a spell that lets him become guargantuan or larger.
Spell for spell wu-jen's out damage mages but even they are far behind the psions.
Not only do monks start the game with more attacks per round than fighters the monks get more nifty abilities to boot. Sure granted that they don't get the super amount of feats a fighter does but still the slow fall and immunities at later levels make a pretty good trade. I'm not even going to go into the crack-age of their AC with some very simple low level magic items where as a fighter is lucky to be able to afford magic armor. Granted my DM's have a VERY tight rein on the cash so we don't break the game but still pound for pound monks make better fighters than fighters.
You could argue the same for a Witch. A Single Priestess could gut a Kingdom and leave it drowning in Curse. We are talking about little old ladies who fly around on brooms and drop baseballs that expand to the size of mountains as they crush castles. They are a staple of Western Fantasy.
Yeah, but fighters are about ten times as handy, so on the whole, they can't hope to compete.
For the record, that was supposed to be heavy, not handy. The sentence should make more sense, now.
|
|
the whole idea of monks get more attacks than fighters at level 1, is baseless. One of my favorite archtypes to build is a dual wielding human fighter if I have the right stats. I get two weapon, Exotic weapon: Bastard sword, and weapon focus: Bastard sword.
Dual wielding bastard swords gives me a -4 to hit each, +1 BaB, +1 WF, and if I have at least a +2 strength I have a +0 to hit at level 1 which is the same as a monk with flurry and a +2 strength. Difference? Monk does d6+2/d6+2 while the fighter does d10+2/d10+1.... Also The monk has around a 15-17 ac, while the same fighter has a 15-17 ac with light armor... So they are similiar until the fighter gets specialization, greater focus and specialization, and magic swords, as well as the amount of crazy feats in the various splat books in 3.5. If straight PF then they still have alot better feat options.
No it isn't. Level 1 Monk with a +2 Strength would have a +1/+1 to hit with his flurry.
Basic query as te title indicates.
When did magical kung-fu powers becomes a standard part of the whole "fantasy medieval" genre? Why? Does anyone else think this is odd? Does anyone else exclude monks from their games for such reasons?
-Idle
As others have pointed out D&D has never really been faithfully 'medieval', rather it just draws on medieval themes along with all sorts of weird fiction, swords and sorcery, pulp sci fi, etc ideas. Kung fu monks, psionics, freakin' robots with ray guns, Mythos inspired horrors, etc have all been part of the game for a long time.
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.
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.
As others have pointed out D&D has never really been faithfully 'medieval', rather it just draws on medieval themes along with all sorts of weird fiction, swords and sorcery, pulp sci fi, etc ideas. Kung fu monks, psionics, freakin' robots with ray guns, Mythos inspired horrors, etc have all been part of the game for a long time.
Not to mention that practically every Bestiary and Monster Manual is a mad mix of critters all over. Many of them aren't "medieval" as in "common in middle ages Europe stories". In fact, most of them aren't. The Greek stuff doesn't really count, that's too old. And there go lots of "classics" like minotaurs, centaurs, hydras, medusae, gorgons, the works.
The oni don't belong, either, they're as Asian as the monks. And rakshasa, oh yeah, those have no place outside of India.
The list goes on.