1-A martial arts style typically oriental type of class has no place whatsoever in a typical western meieval-based role-playing game, in my opinion at least (...) Also, if someone can give me a reasoning/concept/flavor/justification they use or know to why Monks have their place in a medieval-europe themed game, I am all ears and might even let people play one in my game.
We can't, because we don't care for western medieval-based role-playing game. Personally, I don't GM Warhammer, well, I think since the turn of the millenium. When I get to GM Ars Magic I won't allow monks in it.
Oh dear lord.
Relax, Cheapy, we hadn't the whole monks are bad thread... For at least a few weeks now.
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here are my reasons:
1-A martial arts style typically oriental type of class has no place whatsoever in a typical western meieval-based role-playing game, in my opinion at least
2- the concept that a halfling can poud a dragon or iron golem to death with its bare fist, for example, would be enough to switch me back to Vampire the Masquerade...
Here are my reasons for disagreeing.
1. Pathfinder/Dungeons and Dragons are not western medieval roleplaying games. They are fantasy roleplaying games. Fantasy is much broader than historical Europe, and the games encompass other themes as well.
2. This is selective realism, because I assume you're okay with a paladin slaying a dragon with his holy avenger despite this being equivalent to cutting apart a 747 with a sword.
Suspension of belief is a subjective thing, and peoples reasonings are usually illogical. That's fine, but make sure you aren't forcing them on others.
Also, if someone can give me a reasoning/concept/flavor/justification they use or know to why Monks have their place in a medieval-europe themed game, I am all ears and might even let people play one in my game.
Any staff-using priest could use the monk class to represent their spiritual nature and martial arts.
Redwidow, I also dislike them, and always have. Though they have been a part of the game for quite some time (I believe since 1st ed).
For the new monk, I give them light/medium armor prof (and maybe a couple other related bonus feats), take away all the stuff they lose when wearing armor, and call them Brawler. To me they fit the bare-knuckled barroom/Norse-ish strongman type (especially as a drunken master).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, I never even read the class skills and abilities...
"I have no idea what I'm talking about! And I'm PROUD of that!"
1-A martial arts style typically oriental type of class has no place whatsoever in a typical western meieval-based role-playing game, in my opinion at least
Sure. But this is D&D/PF, not LotR or Robin Hood & his Faerie Men.
In my opinion the fighting-monk priest kit from 2nd Ed was sooo popular that that is why they added the monk as an individual class in 3rd ed and up.
Beetch please. The Mystic class was introduced way back in the BECMI days.
Yes, I also hate the monk. Mostly because it is called monk. If they'd used whatever the original Asian-language term is, I would have much less of a problem. But by calling it the monk, every monastery must have a staff of these guys. I know it doesn't "have" to, but the published material and setting tend to favor putting something called a "monk" in monasteries, and so every place of spiritual retirement and asceticism has to be staffed by wu-shu types with very little in common with Western archetypes. While Golarian and other settings may not be strictly medieval, they are usually primarily medieval in terms of inspiration (we can go point by point if you want to, but be warned that I have degrees in this subject, and I will not hesitate to use dead languages in the discussion). By shoehorning monks into the so-called "monk" class, we're missing out on a lot of ideas that could have come from Western (or Orthodox Eastern) monasticism. And that really, really makes me mad.
But I'm weird that way.
this is a controversial topic here on the forums i am very excited to see where this will go......monks are rad plain and simple.
Hi all!
I was wondering if I was the only one who despises the monk class? Am I the only one who thinks like I do?
The reason is not even related to what it does as far as game mechanics go; I just don't like the concept of it. In fact, I never even read the class skills and abilities...
Here are my reasons:
1-A martial arts style typically oriental type of class has no place whatsoever in a typical western meieval-based role-playing game, in my opinion at least
2- the concept that a halfling can poud a dragon or iron golem to death with its bare fist, for example, would be enough to switch me back to Vampire the Masquerade...
In my opinion the fighting-monk priest kit from 2nd Ed was sooo popular that that is why they added the monk as an individual class in 3rd ed and up.
I respect those that like the monks, simply as DM I have enver allowed them in my game.
Also, if someone can give me a reasoning/concept/flavor/justification they use or know to why Monks have their place in a medieval-europe themed game, I am all ears and might even let people play one in my game.
Cheers!
RW
Who says the game is medieval and western? Why is it ok for a halfing and not a pixie monk? :)
I just have fantasy games without them being european themed, but if you need an answer the entire planet does not have to be european themed. Take section of your world that is far away and make it Asian themed.
You can also refluff the class so that the it harness the power of the universe and channels it into his unarmed fighting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unarmed fighting has a rich and unique history in LOTR one of the original gods was a laughing monk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulkas
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it wasn't for monks half the threads on this board wouldn't exist.
As for the topic.
As several have pointed out monks are no more out of place then half a dozen other classes in medieval RPGs (of which Pathfinder isn't in the first place).
Its OK if you think it breaks your immersion in the game. Each person has his own subjective opinion on what is and isn't a deal breaker. I personally have no issue with Monks, but think Gunslingers do. If your Running the game then the group should be fine with you disallowing one class... there are plenty of other classes to choose from.
There is also no reason to ask us to convince you. Obviously you already made up your mind. IF you dont like it... fine. Several others do like monks... fine.
There is no right answer to this question.
You basically asked what's a better color. Blue or Green. Your going to get a whole lot of opinions that boil down to "I like monk" or "I don't like monk".
No, you are not. And that's okay. Others like the monk. And that's okay too.
this.
I am a fan of the monk re-skinned as a duelist/pugilist tho to better fit with the remaining classes. (unless doing oriental Adventures in which case they fit fine.)
Again, I have no problems with some Eastern kung-fu wandering into my Western-themed fantasy from time to time. Cross pollination can and has bred some interesting new things. But it's killed the Western monk for modern fantasy, and that grinds my gears.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi all!
I was wondering if I was the only one who despises the monk class? Am I the only one who thinks like I do?
The reason is not even related to what it does as far as game mechanics go; I just don't like the concept of it. In fact, I never even read the class skills and abilities...
Here are my reasons:
1-A martial arts style typically oriental type of class has no place whatsoever in a typical western meieval-based role-playing game, in my opinion at least
2- the concept that a halfling can poud a dragon or iron golem to death with its bare fist, for example, would be enough to switch me back to Vampire the Masquerade...
In my opinion the fighting-monk priest kit from 2nd Ed was sooo popular that that is why they added the monk as an individual class in 3rd ed and up.
I respect those that like the monks, simply as DM I have enver allowed them in my game.
Also, if someone can give me a reasoning/concept/flavor/justification they use or know to why Monks have their place in a medieval-europe themed game, I am all ears and might even let people play one in my game.
Cheers!
RW
Hehehe.
To address your points (rather than fixing my truck, it's hot outside).
1) Unarmed martial arts are not solely an Eastern concept. The French had Savate, the Greeks and Romans had an effectively brutal form of wrestling where punches were allowed and contestants died in competition. The Vikings had something as well that was not dissimilar. Also the Apache tribe in America had a kick intensive Knife fighting technique I've seen demonstrated in a Kung Fu class that was bad assed.
2) Yet a rogue can backstab a Storm Giant with a dagger, which is comparatively smaller than a pen knife?
3)Monks are first edition, AD&D baby! Just like gnomes, who got dropped from 2ed with monks because of competition from the LotR purists. Lame!
4)That's cool, there's not much I don't allow but there is some.
5)In almost 30 years of gaming I've only played in 2 Medieval Europe settings, I ran one of those, sometimes I still do. In it there are no Monk (class), there is also no;
Rapiers or full plate armor (anachronistic)
Spellcasters (thats fantasy)
Demi-humans as players (myths)
Polytheism ( well some, but those are pagans)
Genies or elementals (middle eastern)
The "common tongue" (that's a Star Trek fallacy)
Mithral or Adamantine, heck most special materials (myth or fiction)
A crap ton of knowledge skills (obvious reasons).
Various other things.
I do allow primitive firearms, they are time appropriate.
Most game settings are closer to the Renaissance era. Most cover a landmass that dwarfs Europe, very few are even remotely both Medieval and European.
This is Swords and Sorcery ala R.E. Howard or Fritz Lieber. Tolkien and Frodo were just a starting point.
Play your game man. But the position you've taken isn't new, isn't inclusive and is painfully dull in my experience. I don't mind when someone bans whole sections of class options, but when they do, their game better be on point to keep me at the table.
Hi all!
I was wondering if I was the only one who despises the monk class? Am I the only one who thinks like I do?
The reason is not even related to what it does as far as game mechanics go; I just don't like the concept of it. In fact, I never even read the class skills and abilities...
Here are my reasons:
1-A martial arts style typically oriental type of class has no place whatsoever in a typical western meieval-based role-playing game, in my opinion at least
2- the concept that a halfling can poud a dragon or iron golem to death with its bare fist, for example, would be enough to switch me back to Vampire the Masquerade...
In my opinion the fighting-monk priest kit from 2nd Ed was sooo popular that that is why they added the monk as an individual class in 3rd ed and up.
I respect those that like the monks, simply as DM I have enver allowed them in my game.
Also, if someone can give me a reasoning/concept/flavor/justification they use or know to why Monks have their place in a medieval-europe themed game, I am all ears and might even let people play one in my game.
Cheers!
RW
I agree on both counts. I thought I was the only one!
I really have a "Medieval Europish" comfort zone with my fantasy games- I never budge from that. I usually throw elves in the east (there is no asia, only elves!) and dwarves in the north. The "barbarians" that live far from civilization are orcs and the like.
Take a look back at the lord of the rings films:
Were there any black people? Asians? Hispanics? No. It's a eurocentric fantasy story. There is no martial artist. There is no ninja. There is no mayan warrior, etc. And that's the way I like it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take a look back at the lord of the rings films:
Were there any black people? Asians? Hispanics?
Hey, aren't those non-European guys from lotr movie as well?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi all!
I was wondering if I was the only one who despises the monk class? Am I the only one who thinks like I do?
The reason is not even related to what it does as far as game mechanics go; I just don't like the concept of it. In fact, I never even read the class skills and abilities...
Here are my reasons:
1-A martial arts style typically oriental type of class has no place whatsoever in a typical western meieval-based role-playing game, in my opinion at least
2- the concept that a halfling can poud a dragon or iron golem to death with its bare fist, for example, would be enough to switch me back to Vampire the Masquerade...
In my opinion the fighting-monk priest kit from 2nd Ed was sooo popular that that is why they added the monk as an individual class in 3rd ed and up.
I respect those that like the monks, simply as DM I have enver allowed them in my game.
Also, if someone can give me a reasoning/concept/flavor/justification they use or know to why Monks have their place in a medieval-europe themed game, I am all ears and might even let people play one in my game.
Cheers!
RW
I agree on both counts. I thought I was the only one!
I really have a "Medieval Europish" comfort zone with my fantasy games- I never budge from that. I usually throw elves in the east (there is no asia, only elves!) and dwarves in the north. The "barbarians" that live far from civilization are orcs and the like.
Take a look back at the lord of the rings films:
Were there any black people? Asians? Hispanics? No. It's a eurocentric fantasy story. There is no martial artist. There is no ninja. There is no mayan warrior, etc. And that's the way I like it.
you may of missed my post but lotr absolutely has martial artists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulkas
For my homebrew world, there were no monks until one Dwarf devoted his life to devout smiting of the foes of the Dwarf-Father with his fists. He went on to save the world, became the head of the church of the Dwarf-Father, and began an order of pious pugilists.
I had to be given a really good, well role-played reason for monks to exist in even limited quantities. I was the same way about ninjas (Elven world savior), and gunslingers (Gnomish freedom fighters). So if you, dear OP, don't want a class or classes in your game, that is your right as the GM to decide. Please give your players logical reasons however, as zagnabbit also stated.
I define martial artist as a dude who punches you in the face instead of using a sword. karate chop aside a unarmed fighter is a martial artist in my book. you dont have to be eastern to face punch.
|
Take a look back at the lord of the rings films:
Were there any black people? Asians? Hispanics? No. It's a eurocentric fantasy story.
WTF do you call the guys riding on the oliphaunt? Oriental armor, face masks, the barbarian dude "driving" the big beastie...
yeah, find me THAT in Western culture.
I'll wait.
Oh. And these dudes marching into the Black Gatewhen Frodo uses his cloak of Elvenkind say hai2u!
Them's about as Asian flavored as you can get, friendo.
| 30 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's ridiculous for a man with years of hard practice and dedication to beat a dragon in a fist fight, but not ridiculous for a random person with slightly above base intelligence to be able to shoot rainbows out of his hands that are so intense they blow your mind.
One example of a monk co-existing with westernish middle ages setting can be found in the novel Witchblood by Will Shetterly. The main character is a martial artist (just called artists in the book) who has to deal with a castle siege and magic.
My primary beef with the Monk is the name. If they'd called it the mystic warrior or something like that I think it would have caused quite a bit less controversy.
Many cultures all over the world had lightly armed or unarmed and lightly armored or unarmored combat styles. Especially when you start talking about the legends. Many of those can be fit halfway decently into the monk class. Certainly with all the current archtypes and options.
PF/Golarion is definitely not a European Medieval recreation, but it is heavily influenced by it in many peoples imagination.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I notice that when people say their world is "Medieval Europe", they really mean it's "Medieval England". I also notice their worlds tend to be flat, unimaginative wannabe Lord of the Ring stories instead of actual Medieval England. I've had GMs bar characters that were based on Cossack mounted riders, Russian Bogatyrs (knight errants), French knights, and even British Yeoman (longbowman) with the excuse that it didn't fit with their vision of European fantasy. One GM thought I invented the word yeoman actually. I kind of laughed.
That's why when someone says their setting is "medieval Europe", it's usually a red flag that they aren't very good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Medieval Europe plus polytheism and magic is hardly medieval Europe.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem I find with monk is monk weapons. The weapons that are monk weapon are restrictive and don't allow you to flavor you monk differently. I mean you can flurry with temple sword but not a long sword. From a Balance perspective I see no reason for the limitation as the example above shows the long sword is exactly the same as the temple sword except it lack the trip quality. So why can't you flurry with long sword. The only reason I can find is that this style of monk doesn't fit someone's stereotype of what a monk should be.
So you get all the freedom to be what ever you want with fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, and so on but you can't have monk that is not stereotypical of an Asian monk or friar tuck. The class works great if that's the style of character you want but I want to be able make my own style of mystical fighter that fits in the Medieval setting.
So what I did was created monk order of Aldori Sword Masters using the Weapon Master. To make this work I allow monks to proficient in all simple weapons and can choose 1 weapon proficiency in any other weapon including exotic weapons. Any weapon a monk is proficient with is considered a monk weapon. I had issue with this at first but with the changes to Flurry of Blows to work just like Two Weapon Fighting that meant I wouldn't see Two Handed Sword wielding monk Flurrying 2 attacks with the same sword. I no problems with monk hitting with the two handed sword and kicking in the same round though.
With this house rule it gives the player playing a monk a lot more freedom in the style of character and they can flavor the other powers however they want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also thanks for the correction; I didn't know it dated from 1st edition.
It does. And -- surprise, surprise! -- people have been complaining about how monks don't belong in D&D since 1E (or possibly even 0E).
I think Redwidow phrased it best with "Is the concept out of place?". While Chaoseffect is enjoying parsing the argument, the question is really whether or not the concept works in our typically-culturally-Western and Tolkien-influenced world. I throw in that sure, it's a stretch imagining an unarmed Halfling going toe-to-toe with anything bigger than a wheel of cheese, but some players consider monks (however you choose to imagine highly-disciplined ascetics) to be cool, and that is what it's all about; letting the players Live-the-Cool.
Still, there's GM fiat, and I, for one, don't allow summoners, animated objects as monsters, or that 0 level bard spell that allows a bard to summon a musical instrument from nowhere. I'm not running a Disney-movie, after all.