|
Trying to stay on top of the discussions/ranting/whining that will forge the future of the Monk class have left me exhausted and feeling like one class IS NOT worth all this effort and aggravation!
My response/solution is simple. No more Monk characters in any of my games.
IMO: The typical Monk concept is usually awkward in a classic fantasy setting that isn't Asian themed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did the same thing. Using Superior Unarmed Strike feat from Tome Of Battle for unarmed brawlers.
Little extreme there, but it is your game, do what you want. Glad I don't play in it though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to stay on top of the discussions/ranting/whining that will forge the future of the Monk class have left me exhausted and feeling like one class IS NOT worth all this effort and aggravation!
My response/solution is simple. No more Monk characters in any of my games.
IMO: The typical Monk concept is usually awkward in a classic fantasy setting that isn't Asian themed.
Tell that to the Scarlet Brotherhood. LOL Seriously, it worked well in AD&D 1st edition, of course, we didn't have all of these asian-themed weapons back in that day. Monks could use the hand axe, club, crossbow (any), dagger, javelin, knife, pole arm (any), sap, scimitar, spear, staff, sword (short, long, and broad).
Now, they only got 1 attack per round with a weapon, regardless of level, and could not apply a high strength bonus on attacks and damage, but DID receive a class bonus on weapon damage equal to 1/2 the monk's level (round down). So, a +1 at 2nd level, a +2 at 4th level, etc.
Open-hand attacks (i.e., unarmed strikes) were what a monk normally used, but there were reasons a monk might also use a weapon. I remember attacking critters whose bodies caused you harm if you touched them (lot of the oozes, fire elementals, some demons, etc.). And open-hand attacks did not affect creatures which required magic weapons.
So there was a reason to use weapons, even though the monk was primarly an unarmed specialist. With open-hand strikes, a monk eventually got more attacks per round than a fighter, ranger, or paladin, and did 5d4 damage on every attack he lands (half damage against critters larger than 10' or so), once again with no bonus on attack or damage from a high strength.
Those monks didn't even get bonuses from high Dexterity to their AC! their AC was fixed based on level, and if their Dex was higher that didn't matter.
The monks back in the day weren't Asian theme, and certainly were not awkward. They represented men and women who trained and honed their own physical and spiritaul strengths, eschewing the weapons and armor of knights and nobles to acheive perfection of self.
Heh. Most players today would have a stroke at the restrictions placed on those old monks. You could not keep more treasure than would lightly encumber you. You were limited to five magic items in two, two of which were magic weapons. The other three were rings and any magic item usuable by clerics or thieves.
All other treasure, gold, items, etc, you had to give back to your monastery, keeping only enough to put a roof over your head and feed you.
And then there was the challenge combats to advance in level! You see, there were only a set number of higher level monks in a specific region. And when you reached that level (8th), you didn't automatically become 8th level just because you had the XP; no, you had to track down one of the current 8th level monks (of which there were 3), challenge him, and defeat him in single combat . . . success means you become 8th level, failure means you drop all the way back to the minimum XP for 7th level . . . if you survived, that is.
And you had to do this for every single level above 8th (only a single monk of each level 9th and up), until you reached the pinnacle of the monk class: the Grand Master of Flowers. And of course, once you earned your position, you had to fight off those who wanted to take it from you.
No, back then the monk worked. And it did not rely on exotic weapons or a mish-mash of rules . . . it just worked.
MA
|
Weird. My conclusion after staying on top of the discussions/ranting/whining on the 'future' of the Monk class was to not really pay any more attention to said discussions/ranting/whining. My main monthly campaign has a monk as their primary melee role and it's working out just fine.
Not to say there are not some legitimate issues and points brought up over it, but honestly at the end of the day the DM can make minor adjustments in a homebrew so easily it's not worth having angst over it.
Concerns over theme and style were concerns in my Greyhawk campaign as well, but I simply ruled out the vast majority of the eastern-themed exotic monk weapons, translated a couple traditional variants to compensate (light flail instead of nunchaku, darts instead of shurikens, etc.), renamed some of the combat style names and put monks more in the context of religious orders.
Not looking to counter you too hard there Azmyth, but it's not worth getting all spun up on the MMO-esque battles of some of these topics when you have the power as DM to tailor it so that it works.
I plan on doing with the Monk like I do anything else in the game; tailor to the unique set of circumstances.
To me, it's more important what the character concept was aiming for, than the stack of rules that makes up the character. Often I've got rules tweaks in play, sometimes having to make a retro-ruling mid-game.
Whats more important is the fun-factor, to me.
Weird. My conclusion after staying on top of the discussions/ranting/whining on the 'future' of the Monk class was to not really pay any more attention to said discussions/ranting/whining. My main monthly campaign has a monk as their primary melee role and it's working out just fine.
This.
How on earth can board banter cause you to exclude a class? There is no effort in letting the monk play as written.
And then there was the challenge combats to advance in level! You see, there were only a set number of higher level monks in a specific region. And when you reached that level (8th), you didn't automatically become 8th level just because you had the XP; no, you had to track down one of the current 8th level monks (of which there were 3), challenge him, and defeat him in single combat . . . success means you become 8th level, failure means you drop all the way back to the minimum XP for 7th level . . . if you survived, that is.
And you had to do this for every single level above 8th (only a single monk of each level 9th and up), until you reached the pinnacle of the monk class: the Grand Master of Flowers. And of course, once you earned your position, you had to fight off those who wanted to take it from you.
This was amazing. Yeah, it kinda sucked for the player because they didn't get to level immediately but it actually showed character progression. Also, if I remember right, it wasn't just for Monks, as druids had to go all over the world to find and fight the guys in their own grove too. Loved this and want to try doing something like this in the future but not sure of the reception that it will get
Trying to stay on top of the discussions/ranting/whining that will forge the future of the Monk class have left me exhausted and feeling like one class IS NOT worth all this effort and aggravation!
My response/solution is simple. No more Monk characters in any of my games.
IMO: The typical Monk concept is usually awkward in a classic fantasy setting that isn't Asian themed.
Tell that to the Scarlet Brotherhood. LOL Seriously, it worked well in AD&D 1st edition, of course, we didn't have all of these asian-themed weapons back in that day. Monks could use the hand axe, club, crossbow (any), dagger, javelin, knife, pole arm (any), sap, scimitar, spear, staff, sword (short, long, and broad).
Now, they only got 1 attack per round with a weapon, regardless of level, and could not apply a high strength bonus on attacks and damage, but DID receive a class bonus on weapon damage equal to 1/2 the monk's level (round down). So, a +1 at 2nd level, a +2 at 4th level, etc.
Open-hand attacks (i.e., unarmed strikes) were what a monk normally used, but there were reasons a monk might also use a weapon. I remember attacking critters whose bodies caused you harm if you touched them (lot of the oozes, fire elementals, some demons, etc.). And open-hand attacks did not affect creatures which required magic weapons.
So there was a reason to use weapons, even though the monk was primarly an unarmed specialist. With open-hand strikes, a monk eventually got more attacks per round than a fighter, ranger, or paladin, and did 5d4 damage on every attack he lands (half damage against critters larger than 10' or so), once again with no bonus on attack or damage from a high strength.
Those monks didn't even get bonuses from high Dexterity to their AC! their AC was fixed based on level, and if their Dex was higher that didn't matter.
The monks back in the day weren't Asian theme, and certainly were not awkward. They represented men and women who trained and honed their own physical...
Ahhh, monks in the good old days. I miss playing one lol. Although they did eventually get to start counting their hands as a + equivalent iirc, or am I thinking of the Mystic from D&D back when it came in boxes? Been a long time lol.
Yeah, monks didn't always have the Asian flavor, I blame anime for that. I also blame whoever wrote the 3.0 monk for just going and copy pasting the 1e/1eOA monk into an editor and doing a (really) bad job of porting the abilities over directly. It would be nice to see the monk redone from the ground up with the concepts and ideas ingrained in the 1e monk but whose abilities were written with to be in harmony and synergy with the PF rule set.
A lot of monks have been played in my groups, and they've worked out just fine. Maybe it's my GM or something. In the game I'm GMing, I offered the monk player a buff (based on a suggestion from Rathendar during the beta), and he was actually resistant to the idea since he didn't think it was necessary.
No need for drastic measures.
...unless it doesn't fit your campaign world, then sure, why not? Not sure why that needs a post though.
Trying to stay on top of the discussions/ranting/whining that will forge the future of the Monk class have left me exhausted and feeling like one class IS NOT worth all this effort and aggravation!
My response/solution is simple. No more Monk characters in any of my games.
IMO: The typical Monk concept is usually awkward in a classic fantasy setting that isn't Asian themed.
Now take the next step.
You can hide all the topics that sicken you.I hid the one "Environmental damage is too low" because I don't agree with the OP and they were not listening to attempts to compromise.
Ahhh, monks in the good old days. I miss playing one lol. Although they did eventually get to start counting their hands as a + equivalent iirc, or am I thinking of the Mystic from D&D back when it came in boxes? Been a long time lol.
Yeah, monks didn't always have the Asian flavor, I blame anime for that. I also blame whoever wrote the 3.0 monk for just going and copy pasting the 1e/1eOA monk into an editor and doing a (really) bad job of porting the abilities over directly. It would be nice to see the monk redone from the ground up with the concepts and ideas ingrained in the 1e monk but whose abilities were written with to be in harmony and synergy with the PF rule set.
That was the monk from the article He's Got a Lot to Kick About from Dragon Magazine #53. That version added four more class levels (and you didn't have to fight until level 12), increased the hit die from d4s to d6s, and made your open-hand strikes +1 magic weapons at 10th level, +2 at 18th level. Of course, you still did half-damage against any opponent more than 10' in height or with a natural armor class of 0 or lower with open-hand strikes.
MA
Ahhh, monks in the good old days. I miss playing one lol. Although they did eventually get to start counting their hands as a + equivalent iirc, or am I thinking of the Mystic from D&D back when it came in boxes? Been a long time lol.
Yeah, monks didn't always have the Asian flavor, I blame anime for that. I also blame whoever wrote the 3.0 monk for just going and copy pasting the 1e/1eOA monk into an editor and doing a (really) bad job of porting the abilities over directly. It would be nice to see the monk redone from the ground up with the concepts and ideas ingrained in the 1e monk but whose abilities were written with to be in harmony and synergy with the PF rule set.
That was the monk from the article He's Got a Lot to Kick About from Dragon Magazine #53. That version added four more class levels (and you didn't have to fight until level 12), increased the hit die from d4s to d6s, and made your open-hand strikes +1 magic weapons at 10th level, +2 at 18th level. Of course, you still did half-damage against any opponent more than 10' in height or with a natural armor class of 0 or lower with open-hand strikes.
MA
Nah, it'd be the mystic from D&D then, it started kicking in earlier than 10. Either way, both are the forefathers of the monk we have today. Pretty sure they are unhappy lol.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see this "monks don't fit into my medieval fantasy setting" pop up a lot. I can totally understand but, man, what happens when the wizard decides to start summoning celestial dinosaurs? Nothing breaks the Arthurian atmosphere quite like a T-rex with a halo and vestigial angel wings.
I see this "monks don't fit into my medieval fantasy setting" pop up a lot. I can totally understand but, man, what happens when the wizard decides to start summoning celestial dinosaurs? Nothing breaks the Arthurian atmosphere quite like a T-rex with a halo and vestigial angel wings.
Yep, I remember changing my monks to the far superior (IMHO) "He's got a lot to kick about" version back in the day.
And I agree with those (Vorduvai, BltzKrg242, Cheapy, Mandreth) who are leaving the monk as is. After perusing the various threads, I figure some folks don't like rhe class as is and that's fine, just as others seem to be playing them just as they are or with minor houseruled tweaks, I imagine like any other class.
To be perfectly banal, the solution the OP has found is for their particular playstyle and campaign, NOT the monk.
I see this "monks don't fit into my medieval fantasy setting" pop up a lot. I can totally understand but, man, what happens when the wizard decides to start summoning celestial dinosaurs? Nothing breaks the Arthurian atmosphere quite like a T-rex with a halo and vestigial angel wings.
I agree, which is why I removed dinosaurs as options. My players thought it really broke the atmosphere, as well (though I don't run an Arthurian style game, mind you).
Ok, monks I can understand. I really can.
But dinosaurs, that's just badwrongfun. Come on, man. That's just wrong.
I call for the seperation of methos and era.
I see this "monks don't fit into my medieval fantasy setting" pop up a lot. I can totally understand but, man, what happens when the wizard decides to start summoning celestial dinosaurs? Nothing breaks the Arthurian atmosphere quite like a T-rex with a halo and vestigial angel wings.Reminds me of this.
Frick, meant this.I see this "monks don't fit into my medieval fantasy setting" pop up a lot. I can totally understand but, man, what happens when the wizard decides to start summoning celestial dinosaurs? Nothing breaks the Arthurian atmosphere quite like a T-rex with a halo and vestigial angel wings.Reminds me of this.
That's a good one. :) Reminds me of a picture I saw the other day. I thought "Hmm, awakened fiendish T-rex pistolero... now I need a GM who will let me play it."
I try to not make decisions for my home game based on what forum trolls scream. I considered doing it once, but then I realized one thing has zippo to do with the other, and I got better.