to add to that, it takes a lot to get a dragon to fight for you.
either time to raise it, levels to control it, or roleplay to befriend it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll concede that the monks design is not perfect. It's hardly bad. What is weak is what got ported over from 3.x. Ki is a cool ability. Extraordinary without being supernatural. The unarmed fighter idea is necessary in my view. That the ki came with the UA warrior theme is something I can live with. UA combat can be achieved with the fighter. What the monk brings is much subtler, it's the class that makes it's saves and shrugs off the more unique attacks.
It's a strong class when the DM is trying to kill you, it becomes much less appealing in a game where the DM pulls his punches. This may be part of why people hate him. While the name "monk" may throw people off, aestheticism is hardly synonymous with monastic. The class fills a void that the other classes do not with or without UA strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your running a historical accurate game (as much as you ever really can) then they are completely out of place. But if your fantasyworld accounts for them, as Golarian and Greyhawk, then they just add more flavor and options. All of which add to the fun of the game IMO.
Abraham,
The relative rarity of spellcasters is immaterial. A functioning military organization that is any thing more than rough militia would logically go out of it's way to secure spellcasting units. A nation that possesd any level of magical practitioners would sensibly require some form of compulsory service. It would stand to reason that talented recruits would be selected for state sponsored military magical training. The Magus class lends itself to this almost by design. The crafting rules in PF make the creation of fireball wands a relatively inexpensive form of force multiplier.
That castles were largely made of wood is not an advantage in a world of fireballs and scorching rays. A defensive structure is not made obsolete by magic but it's design would be radically altered. Hellknights built a structure inside of a mountain, dumb on our own world since caves made it easy to cut off airflow, not so where portals to the plane of air can be erected. Magically reinforced masonry and structural supports would be common in fortification design, providing funding is available. Dungeon complexes are a silly notion of RPGs but not so much when you realize that they are far more secure from magical assault than an aboveground structure.
Flying creatures are rare admittedly. However their rarity is determined by food availability more than anything else. What is the life cycle of a griffon? I'd wager less than 20 years. If that's true then an organized breeding program could field a large flying force relatively quickly. Feeding a force of trained griffons would be expensive but hardly cost prohibitive. The advantage of aerial scouts who exceed the relative CR of the standard military unit is enormous. The Sable Company of Korvosa is elite, expensive and worth every penny to it's government. If trained griffons were mounted by war wizards who could extend the benefits of Mage Armor and Protection from Missles to their mounts you've got a potent military unit. Likely 5 times the cost of heavy cavalry but easily 5 times as valuable.
Dragons are a stretch even for a fantastic military society, but one that was the subject of TSRs first line of novels. It's a common theme in fantasy literature. Wyverns are more likely if less formidable.
My point is that magic radically alters the world in ways that go beyond simple spells and the local magic mart. Nations and societies will cultivate magic within their reach for maximum advantage and security.
|
As long as the topic is wandering away from monks and moving on to castle attacking strategies in a fantasy world, I'll point out that the Order of the Stick web comic had an awesome example of this.
They had a long ongoing storyline showing the party of 6 adventurers trying to help a human walled city run by paladins protect their city from an army of invading hobgoblins. And yes, magic played a key role, but there was only a limited amount of it on both sides, which is what kept it relatively under control. In fact, the only flyers on either side were the main bad guy (a lich) and his undead dragon mount.
OT:
This is why in my world any castles or other fortified buildings belonging to government officials and similarly powerful individuals are protected by forbiddance and guards which include spellcasters that can sling ranged spells at flying invaders. There's also ballista that fire bullets of alchemist's fire and acid for the less magical but still "fantasy" solutions.
They're still big fortified buildings 'cause that still helps keep out the orcish hordes with their greataxes.
In other words, fantasy has a somewhat "ye olde" appearance, with armor and swords and fortified buildings, but it should also have mystical reinforcements of said objects, wherever it makes sense in the campaign world (and taking into account the campaign world's availability of magic, etc.).
While I absolutely agree with zagnabbit that it's a heavily flawed assumption that D&D-like worlds are "medieval," I think it's also a heavily flawed assumption that in a world where PCs have magic, NPCs that have the resources to build castles don't.
To bring this back on topic, I think it's okay if there's a monk that lives inside my forbiddance enchanted acid ballista reinforced castle with its wizard guards.
The monk love in this thread warms my heart.
In that case, we must stamp it out immediately, and with great prejudice.
Monks are horrid, yuck, remove their yukkie peanut butter from my yummy chocolate!!!! I demand it be done.
I played a member of the monk class in an explicitly Arthurian campaign. Just refluffed him as a peasant farmer who was the local champion pugilist, and pretty good with a quarterstaff, grain flail (nunchaku), sickle (kama), and thrown rocks (B version of shuriken). Ta-da.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I played a member of the monk class in an explicitly Arthurian campaign. Just refluffed him as a peasant farmer who was the local champion pugilist, and pretty good with a quarterstaff, grain flail (nunchaku), sickle (kama), and thrown rocks (B version of shuriken). Ta-da.
*brofist*
Yeah I'm fine with where monks are currently. Lots of options lots of places they fit in anywhere in any culture. The main argument against them keeps coming down to people being unable to disconnect unarmed combat from 'Eastern' cultures.
Yeah I'm fine with where monks are currently. Lots of options lots of places they fit in anywhere in any culture. The main argument against them keeps coming down to people being unable to disconnect unarmed combat from 'Eastern' cultures.
I totally agree that unarmed combat is not limited to the eastern culture. But for some reason D&D at it's base assumes that it is. Honestly, if I have unarmed combat, I'd prefer it be the martial classes such as the fighters and rangers being at the top of their game.
My personal issues with the monks in most of my settings is this:
Note: I'm not saying that they're overpowering (I don't believe that), I'm saying that the flavor is just out of place in most of the settings I run
I understand that it's clearly an 80's Eastern Monk; if you take away that flavor the abilities don't make much sense.
It makes no sense that Fighters do not have improved unarmed strike, but monks do. When your setting contains Monks that are hermits who sit around and pray, the class Monk begins to get confusing.
My problem with monks is they're the only core class that feels culture specific.
Clerics, for example are obviously inspired by western culture, history and beliefs, but they are very much adaptable to other cultures just by selecting the gods of those cultures.
Monks have class features with foreign names, a set of abilities designed to create action scenes from a different genera and even a completely unique set of weapons. Why can't anyone else use monk weapons? Simple: monk weapons don't exist in their culture. The monk is assumed to be different to everybody else by the very rules, even in a setting neutral book. He screams "I'm different! I'm not from here!"There's no reason why the monk shouldn't exist, but it seems odd that he's less easily adaptable than everyone else. He'd actually fit better if the other core classes were hoplite, sultan, witch-doctor and highwayman. It would still just about work and at least he wouldn't stand out.
Agree.
My PERSONAL biggest pet peeve, was the 'Lawful' requirement. THAT limited the adaptability more then the culture concept. As a rule I HATE the 'concept' of ki.
I was pleased to see the Pathfinder version was at least 'vague' enough that I could USE it.... without making a big DEAL about it. Extra attacks... farther jump... doesn't get sick... These are all very passive powers that may/may not be attributed to 'inner power' as it does to 'intense training'
That said, in every culture there have been unarmed fighting techniques... and some people are better at them then others. As a 'concept' I have no problem with making a chuck norris/Van Damme/Karate Kid style charcter.
I'm quite the fan of characters like Daredevil and nightwing... so I'm glad the monk class exists. I just wish they didn't focus SOOOO intently on the 'asian robed monk'.
Archtypes have helped with that ^_^
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone who can't fathom the monk's inclusion in D&D needs to put their mind back into the cultural milieu in which Gygax worked and produced. Not medieval Europe, but America in the 1970s. The time of "Kung Fu Mania." In the theatres, the late Bruce Lee was still a top draw -- check out the poster of him on John Travolta's wall in Saturday Night Fever! On prime time weeknight TV, we had David Carradine in Kung Fu; on Saturday night, John Belushi ran a Samurai Delicatessen; on Sundays, the TV was dominated by "Kung Fu Theatre." Turn on the radio, and you were as likely as not to hear "Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting!" On the local paperback shelves, there was always a new episode of the "Destroyer" series, featuring the Sinanju exploits of Remo Williams.
THAT's what spawned the D&D monk. It was a product of the times. For those of us who were alive and gaming during those times, it's a welcome reminder.
Anyone who can't fathom the monk's inclusion in D&D needs to put their mind back into the cultural milieu in which Gygax worked and produced. Not medieval Europe, but America in the 1970s. The time of "Kung Fu Mania." In the theatres, the late Bruce Lee was still a top draw -- check out the poster of him on John Travolta's wall in Saturday Night Fever! On prime time weeknight TV, we had David Carradine in Kung Fu; on Saturday night, John Belushi ran a Samurai Delicatessen; on Sundays, the TV was dominated by "Kung Fu Theatre." Turn on the radio, and you were as likely as not to hear "Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting!" On the local paperback shelves, there was always a new episode of the "Destroyer" series, featuring the Sinanju exploits of Remo Williams.
THAT's what spawned the D&D monk. It was a product of the times. For those of us who were alive and gaming during those times, it's a welcome reminder.
I remember growing up watching Bruce Lee movies along with other martial arts movies. I was wondering why he never made movies anymore, then I found out he died 4 years before I was born. That sucked. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay going to delve into metaphysics a minute and then back to normal physics and finally go off on a tangent:
On a metaphysical level I have absolutely no problem with the concept of 'ki', as it has several unique properties that distinguish it from 'magic' and 'psychic abilities' as well as placement as such in multiple culture across every continent (though to lesser realized extents). For example where 'psychic' ability is typically consider in context of force of self -- it is will made manifested and is powered by mind alone, 'magic' is generally 'drawn down' from the heavens and represents a connection to a different plane of existence (even though it is a part of this one) this connection requires the gathering of energies and shaping of such in order to achieve effect -- the more gross (or 'vulgar') the effect the more energy focus and commitment is required: 'ki' however grows up much like plants. It rises in a natural means and must be manipulated in such ways as well -- one can't simply use the mind, it requires the body to be in tune as well.
All three follow different 'laws' as well. Psychic ability seems to be linked to scientific principles and while it tends to operate in ways currently not understood there are laws of physical reality it simply can't break. Magic tends to require specific practice or payment in order to have achievement while ki tends to be more 'pay it forward' in that it is generally inaccessible until you fully commit to it. None of these however have successfully broken cause and effect or the rule of three in any of its varied forms.
However all three have shown up in multiple cultures, and remarkably in many of the same ways. The 'ki' seems to be well established in helping to resist and force gross physical effects that normally wouldn't be possible. Yes we can see people delivering blows that bone simply cannot stand -- and they are typically unharmed from doing so. Many people chalk this up to training -- I don't disagree... but the simple physics of it are still not there -- something beyond physical training is helping. It is a regular pattern that otherwise normal people can and continue to manage to do things that are beyond the realm of belief through this mechanic -- ranging from shooting impossible shots, to breaking impossible things with their bare flesh to climbs, jumps, and healing.
On the tangent -- Castles -- it doesn't matter if there is or isn't a lot of mages, or if there is or isn't military mandatory service because both sides will do so and magics effects in game are still too limited to offer wide scale tactical abilities needed to dramatically alter the need of castles or other defensive positions.
I don't have a problem with it, per se. Sometimes I feel the urge to explain the style's presence in the game. But most of the time, not a big deal.
(Has somebody been watching too much Dorkness Rising?)
I personally am a fan of Mani from Brotherhood of the Wolf. I know his fighting style was anachronistic and not entirely accurate for a Native American. But he looked so damned cool slugging it out in the mud with his tricorne hat and his Colonial Era duds.
Just think of how cool an anachronism can actually be whenever you worry about this.
|
If your having monk problems, I feel bad for you son, I got ninety-nine problems but the monk ain't one.Yo, you be stealin' my lines like a bard be stealin' the rogue's spotlight. Be watchin' yo self.
Um, Jay-Z "borrowed" that line from an earlier rap song...
(Ice-T was the originator, in case you're interested).
The limitations on the monk come from 3.x. Lawful alignment,'weird weapons that are historical equals of other implements on the same tables, stunted BAB and perhaps even the name. When PFRPG was rolled out it was a tweak, not a rewrite. The monk kept it's warts.
I'd be interested to know what the beta testers thought of the monk? Did they want the weirdness fixed? Did they even care?
The archetypes fixed many gaps in style, chaotic monks, ki-less monks, now even armored monks. Huge strides have been made in allowing the monk to break the shaolin mold. The monk's problems have been slowly chipped away by designers. It is due to this that the "I hate monks" threads really bug me. It feels like now that there is a monk for all seasons, it's the mechanics that people dislike more than the flavor; and if that's the case then setting and period should be left out of the discussion.
I'm one to talk; I attempted a complete derail. Sorry bout that.
People need to make up their minds. Are spellcasters near-omnipotent beings that render entire armies obsolete, or are they peons that can be drafted into military service regardless of their desires on the matter?
Depends on their level actually, although the high level ones are probably in charge of their own "mage-troops" and attached protecting units as generals and thus easily part of the military structure as well. Kingdom's archmage and his hands that serve the royalty while pursuing their own agenda or not is also a rather clasic trope. Sure that the wizard *can* rule on his own, but it's easier if someone else does it while you are devoted to your studies.
As far as monk ability names go, then please try to find another world-widely known, thematically unifying set of abilities. Kung-fu has a massive popularization behind it through movies and documents, so it has an advantage, but for goodness sake it could be refluffed to krav-maga, savate, quarterstaff or any other local style, but truth to be said, the eastern styles have a world popularity at the moment.
I'd be interested to know what the beta testers thought of the monk? Did they want the weirdness fixed? Did they even care?
Personally I initially hated the change to flurry of blows and line pretty much everything else. I've not found the monk to be a flurry of misses though even in 3.5 though he did take some finesse as a player to use. The monk actually had a lot of heated debate going on with him and numbers flew hot and hard during that part of the play test.
At the end of the day I think Paizo went a long way to fixing him with their core and then finished the job with the archetypes... if only we could figure out how they all work.
|
The vikings supposedly had a staff fighting and unarmed combat fighting style based on runes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stav
How accurate it is to say that it was REALLY invented hundreds of years ago is not really possible
Not to derail the topic, but that was invented by one man, who traveled to Japan, and then combined what he learned with his interest in his heritage/Runes. Nowhere does it even imply that Vikings used his style.
Anyways, the Monk is no more out of place than the Cavalier,Druid and Barbarian,all hanging out together. Do I like Monks? No,mostly because I feel that every iteration of D&D has done them less-than-awesome in it's treatment of them. PF comes closest, with it's new Styles/Archetypes, but I've always felt that it needed different attack options for punches, elbows,kicks,etc...to give it the proper flavor.
Do I allow them? Sure.
The current party in my Kingmaker game consists of a Cavalier(Order o/t Dragon), Cleric of Erastil, Cleric of Cayden Calean/Wizard/Mystic Theurge,
Inquisitor and a Witch. A Monk would fit in just fine in that goofy-looking bunch.
Uriel
I reply to the thread title:
No!
:^p
Kitchen Sink Fantasies can be fun sometimes. Technically Golarion is one with it's Horror, Spaceships, Guns, Wuxia, Tribes, Dinosaurs, Swords, and Sorcery. However, I find things a lot more interesting when there's a theme than when it's everything all the time.
And that's why I really, really dislike Golarion. But who cares? What games other people play is their business.
|
|
Kitchen Sink Fantasies can be fun sometimes. Technically Golarion is one with it's Horror, Spaceships, Guns, Wuxia, Tribes, Dinosaurs, Swords, and Sorcery. However, I find things a lot more interesting when there's a theme than when it's everything all the time.And that's why I really, really dislike Golarion. But who cares? What games other people play is their business.
I had no idea there were spaceships, since I'm new to Pathfinder and Golarion. But there's a long standing precedent for it in this genre of RPG, dating back to the "S3 - Expedition to the Barrier Peaks" module written by Gary Gygax himself for AD&D in 1980. As an occasional thing, I think cross-genre play like that can be goofy fun, but if you're going to do it regularly, then you should play a different game that revolves around it.
On the other hand, dinosaurs have always been a staple of low-tech fantasy. Just look at Arthur Conan Doyle's "Lost World" or the TV show "Land of the Lost" (I'm in denial about there having been a movie by that name). Besides, what else is a dragon, but a dinosaur with higher intelligence and some magic thrown in? So I'd say dinos have been a staple of D&D from day one. And once again, there's a long standing precedent for it, dating back (at least) to the T-Rex in the "X1 - The Isle of Dread" module that came with the 1981 D&D Expert Set.
What I wonder about this sort of objection is... are there no other cultures on the entire planet? Is the entire globe just covered with pseudo-medieval pseudo-European cultures on every continent?
Anyone ever seen the 80's movie, Beastmaster?
Monks are in there. But that's kind of a "Conan-esque" setting, which I find is closer to what PF, Rolemaster and D&D are.
If you wanna play true medieval, that's alot of editing.
Personally, my favorite settings wouldn't even be medieval, but ancient Mediterranean (Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Arabian), or North-Europe (Vikings and Celts).
Anyone ever seen the 80's movie, Beastmaster?
Monks are in there. But that's kind of a "Conan-esque" setting, which I find is closer to what PF, Rolemaster and D&D are.If you wanna play true medieval, that's alot of editing.
Personally, my favorite settings wouldn't even be medieval, but ancient Mediterranean (Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Arabian), or North-Europe (Vikings and Celts).
Yeah. There weren't any asians in Conan either, right? :)
Yeah. There weren't any asians in Conan either, right? :)Anyone ever seen the 80's movie, Beastmaster?
Monks are in there. But that's kind of a "Conan-esque" setting, which I find is closer to what PF, Rolemaster and D&D are.If you wanna play true medieval, that's alot of editing.
Personally, my favorite settings wouldn't even be medieval, but ancient Mediterranean (Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Arabian), or North-Europe (Vikings and Celts).
Yeah, Farewell MAKO...
Yeah, I usually assume they're all from Tian Xia, or at least its influence.
That said, some of the previous posters have posed some interesting new archetypes for Monks (or maybe they're in the APG and I just skipped over it). That's what I'd like to see--a "monk" that doesn't make me think of Shaolin Temples, flowing robes and shaved heads. Less "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and more...I don't know...Tom Cruise in the scene in "Legend" where he's on the table kicking that guy in the face? Robert Downey Jr.'s movie portrayal of Sherlock Holmes? Hmm.
If anyone has read "The Belgariad"* by David Eddings there is a certain kingdom that is known to have the best spies in the world. They all had nicknames, like, "Javelin," "Silk," etc. Anyway, there's a part where the goodguy spy, "Silk" had a fight with a badguy spy (I forget his name), and they fought in a way that was clearly some type of unarmed martial art, and it was reminiscent of an Asian style, but it had enough of the serial numbers filed off that it came across as sufficiently European-esque. I am not articulating this well, because I am at work and in a hurry, but my point is that Unarmed fighters can be portrayed in a way that doesn't scream Wuxia, or Wire-fu, or whatever you call it. I'd love to see some archetypes--or even just *examples* of how that type of character can be portrayed in Pathfinder without being so pigeonholed. Heck, if I could more readily envision them differently, I might even consider playing one...
*Disclaimer: I read those books when I was in high school and loved them at the time. I've heard they don't really hold up as well for adults, so I'm not technically recommending them or anything.
*Disclaimer: I read those books when I was in high school and loved them at the time. I've heard they don't really hold up as well for adults, so I'm not technically recommending them or anything.
Meh they're good bubblegum. Eddings was a fun writer.
So I'd say dinos have been a staple of D&D from day one. And once again, there's a long standing precedent for it, dating back (at least) to the T-Rex in the "X1 - The Isle of Dread" module that came with the 1981 D&D Expert Set.
The 1974 boxed set explicitly describes a hydra as a multi-headed dinosaur. The first time a "real" dinosaur was presented as a monster appears to be in the 1978 Monster Manual, which included 28 different monsters under the Dinosaur entry (not all of which were technically dinosaurs, but all of which were prehistoric beasts).
What I wonder about this sort of objection is... are there no other cultures on the entire planet? Is the entire globe just covered with pseudo-medieval pseudo-European cultures on every continent?
What rest of the planet? My custom game world is flat and has exactly one continent . . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No 'Eastern WuXia monks' in my campaigns either. A 'reskinned monk' in the image of Friar Tuck was 100% ok though.
Took a little bit of work, but we ended up with monks in play that didn't wreck the setting. No dinosaurs either.
