Monkey Business
Gilgamesh — Sat, 2005-10-22 12:07
Which GM's out there have Monks in their campaigns? What changes do you typically make to the class, if any?
In my opinion the Monk abilities undermine the fighter character class and introduces a number of absurd notions:
People fight better without weapons than with.
Your hands are faster than a sword.
Unarmed people can beat up people who are armed to the teeth.
As far as the setting goes they don't seem to fit with the Medieval Fantasy notion. Some GM's have tailored the Monk to reflect a more medieval approach -- more like a priest. What is it about the Monk class that people like?
Just wondering.
- Login to post comments
Even though I've responded to you on this a little, I thought I'd pitch in my two coppers' worth.
My problems with the class are likely the same as yours:
But some of my biggest problems with the class are exactly the same as yours, and I submit to you that they're systemic problems. In other systems (GURPS comes immediately to mind) a trained (unarmed) martial artist can be deadly, but had better run from a well-armored opponent with an edged weapon: the unarmed fellow's blows will never penetrate the armor, and cannot (in most cases) deliver the kinds of death-blows at which edged weapons excel.
d20 and its predecessors in the D&D game systems have always featured abstract, fanciful notions of combat. When I use any of these systems, at some point I have to shrug and admit that some unrealistic mechanics will slip in. It's part of the flavor of the system, and despite my reservations I do find things to like about it.
What do I like about the class? Honestly? Not much except that many players seem to expect its presence. We do have one mythical Western monk archetype: Friar Tuck. The presence of that figure was enough to convince me to try my hand at salvaging the class.
I don't know how familiar you are with D&D 3.0+, but (at the risk of inciting another flame war on the subject) the system is pretty thoroughly playtested and balanced. The Monk class, while still "cheaty," is no longer an unbelievably attractive class, powergame-wise. It has its strengths, but the system has been balanced enough that the class does not stand out as overpowered relative to a Fighter or other combat-oriented class. The best role of a Monk in the average 3d ed combat is a "light tank" or support fighter; the Monk's AC and ability to withstand damage will never compare to the same features of a good old-fashioned fighter.
The changes I made largely accounted for my setting differences (no teleporting/dimension door effects, no asian-flavored Monk weapons, no alignment-related features). The only Monk weapon (for the flurry of blows mechanic) I allow is the quarterstaff.
I do think it's kind of cool to consider a divine, meditation-oriented martial artist. Though that concept clearly fits a Buddhist-flavored setting better than an Occidental medieval one, some rationalization of the focus of the soul to produce mystical effects seems to be...well, for lack of a better word, "cool." Contemplative recluses in the historical mode have little place in any but the most thoughtful and realistic campaigns; in a fantasy setting, I think allowing them the divine spirit-focus feature is at least excusable.
Just for yuks, I thought I'd share my Monk's Code with you, so you can see why the class has not been eagerly snapped up by any of my players with powergaming tendencies (I don't play with many, but a few at least lean that way).
*My campaigns tend to have some adult issues, so this actually can be a restriction to some players.
The vow of poverty alone is enough to scare most powergamers away from the class forever.
Wel, quite frankly, D&D and realism don't exactly exist on friendly terms. I mean, I don't recall the last time I saw someone cast Entangle in real life.
So what if in real life, you couldn't beat up someone if they had a sword and you didn't? This is a land so overflowing with magic that your suspension of disbelief should already be running to full power - is it so hard to simply add that while some people can cast fireballs, others can punch through a full plate armor with their fists? I mean, it's not like you ever see monk-types in real life demonstrating how at peace they are by them,selves by breaking bricks in half and other random feats.
Why should a monk be like a priest? The cleric is the priesty one.
Sure there are lots of fantastic things going on, but the Monk isn't consistent with characters around them. I can "believe" in a colt .45; I can "believe" in a ray-blaster, tank, and jeep; I can "believe" in a superhero; just as I can believe in the entangle spell or the hong-kong cinema hero. A fireball and an entangle spell co-exist in the same setting quite easily, but do colts, blasters, tanks, superheroes, and chop suey masters fit?
The basic fighter spends just as much time and energy training to fight with weapons as the Monk does without -- how can they be roughly equivalent in strength?
This would be like having two classes the runner and the race-car driver. If we applied the same kind of logic to these classes they would both travel at the same speed -- perhaps the runner would be better over short distances, and the race car driver would exceed the runner in endurance races (that would be balanced and sensible, right?).
Axiomatic says - is it so hard to simply add that while some people can cast fireballs, others can punch through a full plate armor with their fists?
Good point, but are you suggesting that a Monk's ability is magical/mystical or the product of training and conditioning? If so, why does the Fighter never develop any magical/mystical abilities -- or the rogue? In real life we have swordsmen who perform kabutowari (the helmet cut) just like the tamashi-wara or breaking exercises that you refer to.
Also, if a Monk's abilities are magical how come it can't be disrupted by a dispel magic? If this comes from "Chi" or "Ki" how come there are not sorcerors out there who can disrupt the "Chi" of a Monk to recuce their damage/speed?
In my opinion there is not a martial artist on this planet who, without the aid of a weapon, could defeat a healthy armed swordsman of any level of experience. A rookie with a knife might face some terrible surprises, but a four foot length of sharpened steel can move mighty quickly -- and most of its length will end any aspirations of muto-dori (taking the sword). I know that this real life example is a point well conceded. I want to make the starting points clear. Why doesn't the swordsman ever develop these wonderous martial arts abilites -- it is not that I object to the Monk. I object to the Monk in relation to the fighter. I object to the Monk in relation to the Thief.
3e has made some changes that bring balance but not sense. I have limited exposure to 3e so I can't argue specifics and defer to others who have. My claim that the class still does not make sense rests in the observations of the paragraph above.
Assuming that the Monk is a balanced class when compared to others the only remaining question is how to put them into context. This is my real issue with the Monk. I want to know how people are putting them into context. Cocytus' suggestion of a Friar-type Monk gives them a context and also suggests (I assume) that their source of unbelievable power is divine. This is why the Monk can match fighting skills with an armed warrior -- they have a divine "energy" that protects and aids them.
This context appears nowhere in the rulebook. I have applied this thinking -- you should see the reaction of a power-gamer when they are placed in a situation/environment where no mystical abilities function and their Monk abilites - AC - multiple attack - et al, fall by the wayside. Wow!
Thanks for your input, any thoughts?
The basic fighter spends just as much time and energy training to fight with weapons as the Monk does without -- how can they be roughly equivalent in strength?
In a straight-up fight, given equal levels and the kinds of gear you would expect for their levels, I don't think a Monk has much of a chance against a Fighter (using 3.5 rules). They're not so much roughly equivalent in strength as in game utility -- the d20 Monk fills a specialized niche, excelling at immobilizing casters, supporting the party "tank," and so on.
...are you suggesting that a Monk's ability is magical/mystical or the product of training and conditioning? If so, why does the Fighter never develop any magical/mystical abilities -- or the rogue? In real life we have swordsmen who perform kabutowari (the helmet cut) just like the tamashi-wara or breaking exercises that you refer to.
My justification, as I think you realize, is that the Monk's ability is mystical, powered by heightening the soul's connection to the power of the gods.
Your point about other sorts of mystical warriors is well taken. I can only respond that where there is a shred (if only a shred) of precedent for a warrior Monk in Occidental mythology, there is not much precedent for a kensai-like character. In my setting, a fighter with a mystical connection to the divine is called a Paladin.
Also, if a Monk's abilities are magical how come it can't be disrupted by a dispel magic? If this comes from "Chi" or "Ki" how come there are not sorcerors out there who can disrupt the "Chi" of a Monk to recuce their damage/speed?
Well, that's a damn fine point. It suggests a new spell or suite of spells: disrupt focus (or disrupt ki, if you prefer). It would have no effect or limited effect on a normal person: say it only negates DEX modifiers for the duration of the spell. To be truly useful it might have to be a mid-level, area-effect spell. But used against a Monk, the target would lose his extra movement, special unarmed damage, WIS bonus to AC, etc.
3e has made some changes that bring balance but not sense.
No argument. I included the Monk class because a certain player clamored to have it, and I was able to tweak the class toward an Occidental as opposed to an Oriental flavor. I think I succeeded, but you'll have to be the judge of what's right for your game. When you say you feel the Monk doesn't belong in a standard medieval setting, I know exactly what you mean.
Cocytus' suggestion of a Friar-type Monk gives them a context and also suggests (I assume) that their source of unbelievable power is divine. This is why the Monk can match fighting skills with an armed warrior -- they have a divine "energy" that protects and aids them.
Yeah, that's the idea.
This context appears nowhere in the rulebook. I have applied this thinking -- you should see the reaction of a power-gamer when they are placed in a situation/environment where no mystical abilities function and their Monk abilites - AC - multiple attack - et al, fall by the wayside. Wow!
Good for you, and good point. Given my rationalization of Monk powers, it makes sense that they would not function inside, say, an Anti-Magic Field.
I find that there are a lot of things that aren't stated in the rules and that require GM interpretation to handle. This is less true (in my experience) for d20 rules, but it still applies. The only thing I should observe is that if one interprets Monk special powers as mystical, one should then define under what circumstances these powers can be disrupted and make sure that these conditions are clear before gaming starts. For my current setting, I would not say that Dispel Magic negates Monk powers, partly for reasons of balance (over sense, yes) but mostly for reasons of simplicity: the bookkeeping involved would be quite a nightmare, and then there would be arguments about how long the effect lasts, whether the Concentration skill might be used in lieu of a save, etc. But I'm intrigued by the idea of a well-defined spell that specifically negates Monk powers for a set period.
I'm going to leave out the obvious point that you cannot have realistic combat in D&D. If you want realistic combat you have to go to another game system like GURPS.
What I do want to state is this: If monk is the only class with martial arts, then wouldn't ALL martial artist be monks? Wouldn't this include practitioners of European Martial arts like Savate (French kick-boxing), Boxing, Wrestling (Greco-Roman or otherwise), street fighting, and other less known martial arts?
What about sailors and merchants who travel to distant lands? Do they have the opportunity to learn martial arts? Escrima, Banto, Capoera, and Muy Thai Kick-boxing are all martial arts that seamen in the U.S. navy can be exposed to. Some people in the Navy practice and train in these martial arts. When they come home and leave the Navy, some of them open schools where they teach others their foreign martial arts. That's how Karate and Judo came to the United States. Is it so hard to imagine sailors in a fantasy world doing the same?
Every country in the world has a form of martial art. Some countries have several forms that are renown for their effectiveness. China, Japan, America, Brazil, and the Phillipeans are great examples.
What about pacifist monks? The followers of Jesus were told to "Turn the other cheek" instead of fighting back. What does this do to the class (game)dynamics? Monks in western history were scholars and scribes. They meditated and prayed and studied and that's about it... They did still have to travel on occasion. Sometimes they had to make pilgrimages, transport religious artifacts, stuff like that.
What differenciates a priest and a monk anyway? In the real world a priest teaches and preaches to a congregation. A monk teaches and pray with other monks or by themselves. Neither one has to have anything to do with martial arts or special powers at all.
"Power currupts. Absolute power currupts absolutely. But it rocks absolutely too!"
Right. As noted, my interpretation of Monk powers is less of a martial art and more of a rare form of divine magic ("soul-focusing," if you will). That explains why it's not available to other classes.
I am considering adding as feats (one of the nice things about 3d ed) those features of the class that are clearly the result of physical conditioning, such as the improved movement speed. It makes no sense that the Monk and Barbarian should be faster than everyone else, so I'm going to add a feat that improves movement in the same way (as long as you're wearing medium armor or less, your movement speed increases by 10 feet/round when you take the feat).
Also, Calamar, one thing to consider: I do not use d20 by personal choice, but rather because the bulk of my players are familiar with it. I have vowed to move away from it forever when my current setting-book is finished and the playtesting campaigns concluded. Just sayin'.
Calamar wrote:
If monk is the only class with martial arts, then wouldn't ALL martial artist be monks?
Swordfighting is a martial art -- Fighters are martial artists. The "to-hits" of every class increases as they gain experience -- they are all gaining martial experience. That is one of my points.
Monks are given some kind of special treatment as if they are the only "martial artists" in the game. They are certainly not. They are given access to special powers because of the influence of chop-suey cinema. I object to this not because I don't like "The Five Deadly Venoms" or the latest Jet Li movie, but because those films exist in a certain context. These are oriental "superhero" movies about legendary, mythical people. It would be inappropriate to have Superman and Spiderman archetypes in D&D. The Monk superhero doesn't fit any better. The solution to the problem has been to water down the abilities to such a degree to bring balance to the system, yet the essential mindset has been the same.
I was encouraged and interested by the ways that people were confronting this issue. If you agree that the Monk is out of context there are two options : modify the class to make the IDEA consistent with the setting (Cocytus); or modify the setting to encompass the idea and perhaps building on it (Gilgamesh). Both make sense and probably doing a bit of both is what really happens. What I don't agree with is that the class fits without modification into the typical fantasy setting, or into the published settings of WoTC. It may be balanced -- but it doesn't fit. Stand a Monk and a Fighter side by side and an incongruity should surface.
To the point about bringing styles from other lands. I agree completely, Calamar. A game should endeavour to bring the flavour of a culture not just through racial descriptions, but through the skills and teachings of that culture. Learning a new skill is an act of discovery no less important than a great journey.
Regional skill variation is a concept that D&D does not have the scope to address. I don't think it is anything that the game designers would ever care to address either. Feats are used to develop unique qualities and skills in the D&D system.
Can someone enlighten me on feats? From what I remember they don't increase with level -- is that how they work?
Cocytus wrote: I would not say that Dispel Magic negates Monk powers, partly for reasons of balance (over sense, yes) but mostly for reasons of simplicity: the bookkeeping involved would be quite a nightmare, and then there would be arguments about how long the effect lasts, whether the Concentration skill might be used in lieu of a save, etc.
I agree that Dispel Magic is far too commonplace to be able to restrict a character ability set so easily. Anti-Magic is powerful enough and pervasive enough that the rationale makes sense.
It would be unfair to allow a Monk into a campaign and overly restrict the skill set. To do this would undermine the trust of the players. That being said, they should certainly be set onto the same footing as everyone else. It should be done, as Cocytus suggests, at the outset.
What about monsters, plants, and items that draw "Chi" as well as spell effects that disrupt it? Once the powers of the Monk have been given a context they no longer a forced to live in isolation to that context.
While D&D monks take a lot from Hong Kong cinema, they do have historical roots in actual Chinese monastic societies. Shaolin monks did train enough that they were able to accomplish physical feats that your average Joe would think superhuman. Tales get exaggerated more and more through time and Legend takes care of the rest... but then, isn't that exactly the same reason we have tales of dragons and ogres too? Isn't it ridiculous for you guys to have no problem with Elves and Gelatinous Cubes, but Mr. Miyagi sets off your bullshit alarm?
Anyway, as long as we're talking magic monks here, someone needs to mention the Boxer Rebellion. In a nutshell, the "Boxers" (as foreigners called them) were a secret society called The Fists of Righteous Harmony who believed they had magic powers that made them impervious to foreigners' bullets.
While in reality the dice weren't with them and they were slaughtered in the thousands, it doesn't have to be that way in your game.
What's to say a PC can't do a little wax on, wax off?
Can someone enlighten me on feats? From what I remember they don't increase with level -- is that how they work?
In a vacuum, a character starts with one feat and gains one at every level that is divisible by 3. Humans get an extra feat to start, and some classes get bonus feats periodically.
The function of the feat, in a nutshell, is to customize a character's class features in a limited way. Certain class features seem to lend themselves well to this idea. Based on this discussion (and the videogames Knights of the Old Republic and Knights of the Old Republic 2), I am contemplating adding the following feats to my setting:
I have already added the Class Skill feat, which allows characters to choose a cross-class skill and make it a class skill.
Does that answer your question?
What about monsters, plants, and items that draw "Chi" as well as spell effects that disrupt it? Once the powers of the Monk have been given a context they no longer a forced to live in isolation to that context.
Yes, I agree absolutely. Because I'm interpreting certain Monk powers as divine magic, my proposed Disrupt Focus (Focus being my word for "chi") spell would prevent certain other powers from working for the duration of the spell: a Paladin's Smite and Detect [Evil] powers, clerics' undead-turning and cure-channeling powers, etc.
Isn't it ridiculous for you guys to have no problem with Elves and Gelatinous Cubes, but Mr. Miyagi sets off your bullshit alarm?
That point has been addressed. It's not a question of whether or not it's credible for magic-boxing powers to exist, but how those powers are addressed by the ruleset. My approach has been to divide monk powers into two kinds:
It seems to me that Gilgamesh's position (correct me if I'm wrong, Gil) is that things of the latter variety should be available to fighters, who are after all martial artists. I agree. Fortunately, I think the feat mechanic of d20 bails me out there, and I can make such features available to other classes as feats.
I am a fan of comic books and the superhero genre. I am a fan of science fiction. I am a fan of Hong Kong Cinema. I am a fan of fantasy literature, Tolkien, and speculative fiction. I am not a fan of senselessly putting it all together into a juvenille melting pot and thinking that more is more.
I've seen my share of fantastic prowess in the martial arts, but Cocytus has my position correct. A fighter is a martial artist. What differentiates the Monk is the reclusive, introspective, nature -- the connection with the mystical and/or divine and the ability to transcend the physical with mind-over-body abilities.
The physical abilities should be available to the warrior-type classes as the natural result of effort. Three things make you good at the martial arts: Duration, Intesity, and Frequency -- in other words: training, training, and training. It doesn't matter whether you study an esoteric internal martial art like Tai'Chi or an external weapon style. It is all the same.
The boxers are a wonderful paradigm and a great story. Certainly you can flavour a campaign with societies and groups like them. They become problematic if they don't fit with the world around them. What got me interested in this thread/question was a discussion on races in another topic. How many races should be included in a fantasy setting? I did a D&D rule re-write a few years ago and reduced everything back to the 4 core classes and added skills to supplement/customize the individual experience. Unlike a feat (thanks for the info Cocytus) a skill develops over time.
That is my only complaint about the feat system. My understanding is that my character can acquire a feat like they acquire a weapon proficiency -- binary, boolean, digital. They either have it or they don't. Flurry of Blows is a defined skill that "appears" at a certain level of the players choosing. You invest in it and it instantly arrives -- like buying a book in the book store. It never grows and there is no part-way skill. On another topic this is a gripe of mine about how Wizards acquire magic (but I better start a new thread on that one).
Anyways, it was not my intent to criticize the Monk class or any of the other stylizations of D&D. I genuinely want to see how the Monk is being integrated in real Fantasy settings.
Well, skills-based systems are better than class-based systems. As noted, I am locked into d20 for now. While you're right that the "binary" nature of feats isn't terribly realistic, it's an abstract system.
My wife got me GURPS 4th ed for my birthday, though. MWAHAHAHA...
Oh! One thing, though.
You invest in it and it instantly arrives -- like buying a book in the book store. It never grows and there is no part-way skill.
There is a sort-of middle ground here. Some feats come in tiers; you have to meet prerequisites to take the first one, you have to have the first one and meet other prerequisites to take the second one, and so on. In this sense, a character's "skill level" in a feat can be said to progress. In Knights of the Old Republic, there are three levels of the Flurry of Blows feat, each progressively better (i.e., incurring lower penalties) than the last.
That sounds sensible.
Make sure to let us know what you think of GURPS 4th. I have looked at it - much like I have looked at D&D 3e. You don't really know much about a system until you play it though.
Knights of the Old Republic -- is that a Star Wars d20?
a few comments, if you please.
1- don't get bogged down by semantics: The term "monk", as used for christian monks and kung-fu masters are only related because of monasteries like Shaolin instructing their pupils in unarmed fighting techniques. Invent your own nomenclature if you need one. same with "martial artists": It is synonimous today with unarmed fighting techniques, but indeed the term should include armed fighting as well.
2- Cocytus, your division of monk's powers has already been done in the rules of D&D themselves: some abilities are Supernatural, some are Extraordinary and some are Spell-like
an excerpt from the D&D site: " Supernatural abilities (Su) are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance. Supernatural abilities cannot be dispelled. Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise and generally does not provoke an attack of opportunity..."
and
"Extraordinary abilities (Ex) are nonmagical, don't become ineffective in an antimagic field, and are not subject to any effect that disrupts magic. Using an extraordinary ability is a free action unless otherwise noted."
and lastly:
"Spell-Like (Sp) Abilities: Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, material, focus, or XP components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance if the spell the ability resembles or duplicates would be subject to spell resistance...."
As far as I recall (with a little googling), Fast Movement and Diamond Soul are EX abilities, while Wholeness of Body, Abundant Step and Quivering Palm are all SU abilities (and can be negated by Anti-Magic field).
In addition, some of the monk's abilities (improved unarmed strike and stunning fist, for example) are already written as feats for use of other classes.
3- Gilgamesh, Knights of the Old Republic (a.k.a KOTOR) is indeed a d20 game in the Star Wars universe, albeit an electronic one. KOTOR 1 and 2 were developed and published for the PC and Xbox.
all of these, of course, do not change the fact that the Monk, as presented in D&D, is problematic indeed from a thematic point of view.
Gurps 4th ed. is as great a leap over 3rd ed. as 3rd ed. D&D was over the 2nd ed. Character creation has been updated, some common sense combat rules have been added, and the ease of play has been improved. Steve Jackson Games listened to the players and fans of GURPS and really gave the whole system a much-needed overhaul. Almost ALL of my house rules have been incorporated into the 4th ed. as the standard instead of as an option.
Also, the book LOOKS great. One thing that I do have to say about D&D in general is that they have the prettiest books. Hardback and full of beautiful pictures by renown artists. Gurps still isn't quite up to that impressive standard, by they tried. The 4th ed. books are hardback (but they still have shitty bindings that let pages fall out) and color pictures inside. The book itself is color coded so that you can just flip to the correct section instead of looking things up by the page number. I highly recommend 4th ed. over 3rd, and of course Gurps over anything else...
Knights of the Old Republic and it's sequal were video games released on the Xbox. They incorporate the D20 rules and are the sole reason that I tried playing D20 Star Wars. The games are by far the best RPG that I've ever seen or played. In fact, the only one that I've ever liked. I highly recommend these games.
"I wanna hurt you just to hear you screamin' my name."
2- Cocytus, your division of monk's powers has already been done in the rules of D&D themselves: some abilities are Supernatural, some are Extraordinary and some are Spell-like.
Yes, they have, but I don't always agree with the rules' division. For example, the AC bonus is listed as Extraordinary, where I'd classify it as supernatural.
This conversation with Gilgamesh has also made me realize that I think Extraordinary abilities, with very few exceptions, should be available to other classes as feats. It's not something I'm recommending as a rules change for D&D as a system, but rather a systemic change I'm introducing to my own campaign.