D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]

[Mister_Sinister]

Midnight, crunch represents fluff. The fact that in 3.5, we are forced to disjoin them is because of this here bullshit does not mean the two should be separate. The 3.5 solution is a coping mechanism, not the correct approach.

Crunch which does not reflect fluff is a problem, not a goal. Additionally, there is no wuxia hate going on here - Elennsar and I are both BIG fans.

[Midnight_v]

1) The Knights Templar, in D&D, were Fighters, maybe Paladins (if we assume magic is real and completely ignore the alignment). Nothing like monks in any sense rpgs have used the term, ever.

2) Your definition of fluff and what the rest of us are working from seem to vary.

3) Wuxia hate? Where?

4) Some promising ideas, maybe.

5) I'm really, really not sure what you're using to mean fluff (which is thusly irrelevant) here.

.
1.  Just read the Knights templar in wiki. . . the first step of becoming one was to give up all worldly possesions. You sacrifice it to the order.  Wait....

Little was heard of the Order for their first nine years. But in 1129, after they were officially sanctioned by the church at the Council of Troyes, they became very well-known in Europe. Their fundraising campaigns asked for donations of money, land, or noble-born sons to join the Order, with the implication that donations would help both to defend Jerusalem, and to ensure the charitable giver of a place in Heaven. The Order's efforts were helped substantially by the patronage of Bernard of Clairvaux, the leading churchman of the time, and a nephew of one of the original nine knights. The Order at its outset had been subject to strong criticism, especially of the concept that religious men could also carry swords. In response to these critics, the powerful Bernard of Clairvaux wrote a multi-page treatise entitled De Laude Novae Militae ("In Praise of the New Knighthood"), championing their mission, and Bernard strongly supported the concept of killing in the name of Christ, and legitimised the concept of the Templars, who became effectively the first "warrior monks" of the Western world.[citation needed] Bernard wrote:

[A Templar Knight] is truly a fearless knight, and secure on every side, for his soul is protected by the armor of faith, just as his body is protected by the armor of steel. He is thus doubly-armed, and need fear neither demons nor men.[1]
 
Saint Bernard de Clairvaux, the Order's patronDonations to the Order were considerable. The King of Aragón, in Spain, left large tracts of land to the order upon his death in the 1130s. New members to the Order were also required to swear vows of poverty, and hand over all of their goods to the monastic brotherhood. This could include land, horses and any other items of material wealth, including labor from serfs, and any interest in any businesses.

2. Fluff, any non mechanical descriptor of the game. What do you mean?
To me Fluff is the mythos surronding the mechanics. It is the part of D&D that is still
"Acting", as opposed to the part that is "table top gaming"

3. 

Personally, I just don't think monks belong in a Western-themed game, and not because they didn't exist in Europe (although they really, really didn't!), but because they just don't fit the genre of D&D, which is very much based on fantasy novels of the early/mid-20th century. My vote is to just ditch the monk entirely. It fits in an Asian-themed RPG, like Five Rings or Oriental Adventures, but not standard, de-facto European D&D worlds.

In Monks Are Badass movies, monks do pwn the armed and armored. But that would require a game where its all about monks (to the point where it would be good to have half a dozen classes, or at least detailed variants, for it)
I don't want to drop the monk, but I'd like to avoid that mess.

Unarmed people do not beat armed people.
This is a fucking myth. I've been training Kenjutsu for a good 4-5 years now. You know that move where you catch the blade with your palms?

I really like this part because the game d&d is in a large part meant to represent people of myth and legend. I doesn't even fucking matter because were in a world where there are magic and dragons an ultimately since physics have been drugged, raped and left on a public bathroom floor in the corner somewhere its shortsighted and dickish to be like "Oh that shit doesn't fit." when we've had it for a whole edition and a signifigant number of our members actually WANT to play those guys from the wuxia films.
4.
5.
In a sec.

[Elennsar]

1) Midnight, please don't even begin to act like you know what the difference between "monk" in the sense the Templars were and in any sense related to any RPG ever. You either don't or have forgotten.

3-5) I'm looking forward to this. With all the anticipation reserved otherwise for people who are having teeth pulled and the day before tax day.

2) You think me wanting to avoid the mess of a half dozen classes of monk or disliking the idea of monks being more capable unarmed than makes any kind of sense whatsoever means I dislike wuxia? Or someone else commenting that they don't fit a Western themed game (which may or may not even be relevant) means they do?

Whoa.

[Midnight_v]

1) Midnight, please don't even begin to act like you know what the difference between "monk" in the sense the Templars were and in any sense related to any RPG ever. You either don't or have forgotten.

2-5) I'm looking forward to this. With all the anticipation reserved otherwise for people who are having teeth pulled and the day before tax day.

I'm just saying Bullshit to the general idea of "Monks don't belong in western Fantasy"
We play in a fantasy world.  Period.
Aside from that I feel like your just being a dick. 
Though maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Frankly though since you and Sir Sinister are obviously both online and both disagree, I can just wait and pose my arguments when it won't be met with sarcasm.
*shrug*

[Shadowhowler]

1.  Just read the Knights templar in wiki. . . the first step of becoming one was to give up all worldly possesions. You sacrifice it to the order.  Wait....

 
 
 
Sounds a lot more to me like Fighter's or Paladin's who took a 'Vow Of Poverty' then any kind of D&D Monk.

[Mister_Sinister]

Again, Midnight_v, thanks for the knightly title.

First of all, please don't take Kuro out of context like that. Secondly, we do like monks, but we also understand that we are not building Wuxia d20 - we are building a new form of DnD. And, unfortunately, that means there need to be some limitations on monks and what they do. We need to make them cool and interesting, because, honestly, as they stand, they're not. At the same time, we should also keep an eye out for how we do this, so as not to make other melee-ers feel small in the pants.

Essentially, we want the same things, we really do. So let's stop talking past each other on things which really don't matter, and focus on the things that do.

[Elennsar]

As to 1, I'm not being sarcastic. No rpg that I'm aware of, particularly D&D, has ever used monk to mean what the Templars were. They were knights under monastic vows of duty and obedience.

As to the rest...frankly, your arguement leaves something to be desired. Your idea of "fluff" feels like that of someone who found out that it was "unfitting" for something you wanted to be possible, so you rebelled against having any limitations at all.

That may not be what you intended to come out looking like. It is the impression you just gave.

Shadowhowler: That's -exactly- what they were. Knights with monastic vows. Fu for you.

[Midnight_v]

Again, Midnight_v, thanks for the knightly title.

First of all, please don't take Kuro out of context like that. Secondly, we do like monks, but we also understand that we are not building Wuxia d20 - we are building a new form of DnD. And, unfortunately, that means there need to be some limitations on monks and what they do. We need to make them cool and interesting, because, honestly, as they stand, they're not. At the same time, we should also keep an eye out for how we do this, so as not to make other melee-ers feel small in the pants.

Essentially, we want the same things, we really do. So let's stop talking past each other on things which really don't matter, and focus on the things that do.

You know.. ironically... I thought that was your name, I'd read it in a nother post hmm... ah well. Congrats.

As to 1, I'm not being sarcastic. No rpg that I'm aware of, particularly D&D, has ever used monk to mean what the Templars were. They were knights under monastic vows of duty and obedience.

How is that different from the Monks of the east in real life? Ultimately its the same damn thing. In... real... life.

Despite what Elennsar is implying gentlemen, I'm not using willful ignorance to form an argument.

I've always felt that yes, the Conan "Warmasters of the East" bit did have monks (and frankly happens to be my inspriation for playing D&D I read the hobbit as a kid, and saw Conan the Barbarian. Conan won.
Robert. E Howard  > Tolkien Imo. Especially since Howard and Lovecraft were like best buds and shared the mythos world together. ...

However, in reference to the Knights templar/monk... Midnight_V acting-an-ass bit.
I've always felt as though they the D&D monk got fit in initially cause of Friar tuck and his bow fighting. Though since there is about 50% of us who hear "Monk" and think "Buddah" it bled over and became what it is today.
So.. it is what it is. . .
Personally I hate the monk. I hate those wuxia movies. (I mean I like the old shaw brothers flicks but the new ones? Crouching and the such? Rubbish) but its what the people want and since we are actually balancing the game.
I feel it only right to be mechanists. and balance the game for everybody.
Whoa... for a second there it felt like I was about to declare independace from Great Britian. LOL.
 So yeah, let us not debate the "Removal" of the monk any further. The entirety of this endeavor I've been saying "lets just remove it and use Swordsage" after this small argument I almost feel like I'm back in the "Keep giant swords out of my D&D" and I realize that I have been absolutely wrong.
After the fighter is decided and posted in a finalized version. I'll go out of my way to fix the monk.
Thankfully, D&D, isn't set to encapsulate "only western mythologies" knights in shining armor and the such. Cause the game has to let you play in the fantasy realm you want to make.
Ali baba to Zeromus ... so to speak. 
And really the base game does a good job of that.

[Elennsar]

1) Because the monks of the East were NOT knights in any sense of the word, even the warrior-monks.

The Templars were knights who took some monastic vows. That's their only "monkish" aspect. They were knights first and foremost in terms of what abilities they had if one wrote them up in a game (realistic or not so realistic).

2) Saw, you say. What about read? Is anything of Howard's writting including monks? This isn't meant to be arguementive, but Howard is an author whose canon was not respected by those who wrote from bits of his stories.

3) Friar Tuck fights like a Fighter, other than the armor bit. None of the Still Mind, Deflect Arrows, Ki Strike, etc.

D&D monks are definately a reflection of the Orient. Ki strike? Ki? There's no real Western equivalant to ki.

4) The base game really doesn't. D&D is "High Fantasy with a lot of stuff that doesn't mix together and no kind of coherent setting to tie it together, here, you (to the DM) sort it out."

Personally, while I find Wuxia cool, I would rather not use monks unless they can be fitted into a coherent (but by no means necessarily quasi-European) setting where they're understandable.

As to Wuxia fans (as in, people who want to play it) and want to play monks...

I've a suggestion. Who here wants the stuff included? Not just "is interested in it'. Who here wants to mix it in and try and ensure it all makes sense together?

Anyone who says yes, its your job (though others should and can pitch in) to sort out what stuff to keep of the old monk (possibly beefed up, but what abilities).

Ultimately, I don't want to dictate "play in this setting or else" when we get our Rebalanced D&D out. But I do want a coherent setting where it all ties together so that we can show people that yes, they can work side by side, yes, it does make sense (even if not in -our- reality, the reality of the players) and is believable.

After all, a cool setting is fun to develop. And knowing what is the reason behind X existing will help define what X is.

D&D is not and never will be a generic system, though it may be one with several forms it can take. So a generic class/race/whatever would be too dull.

[Midnight_v]

1) Because the monks of the East were NOT knights in any sense of the word, even the warrior-monks.

The Templars were knights who took some monastic vows. That's their only "monkish" aspect. They were knights first and foremost in terms of what abilities they had if one wrote them up in a game (realistic or not so realistic).

2) Saw, you say. What about read? Is anything of Howard's writting including monks? This isn't meant to be arguementive, but Howard is an author whose canon was not respected by those who wrote from bits of his stories.

3) Friar Tuck fights like a Fighter, other than the armor bit. None of the Still Mind, Deflect Arrows, Ki Strike, etc.

D&D monks are definately a reflection of the Orient. Ki strike? Ki? There's no real Western equivalant to ki.

4) The base game really doesn't. D&D is "High Fantasy with a lot of stuff that doesn't mix together and no kind of coherent setting to tie it together, here, you (to the DM) sort it out."

Personally, while I find Wuxia cool, I would rather not use monks unless they can be fitted into a coherent (but by no means necessarily quasi-European) setting where they're understandable.

As to Wuxia fans (as in, people who want to play it) and want to play monks...

I've a suggestion. Who here wants the stuff included? Not just "is interested in it'. Who here wants to mix it in and try and ensure it all makes sense together?

Anyone who says yes, its your job (though others should and can pitch in) to sort out what stuff to keep of the old monk (possibly beefed up, but what abilities).

Ultimately, I don't want to dictate "play in this setting or else" when we get our Rebalanced D&D out. But I do want a coherent setting where it all ties together so that we can show people that yes, they can work side by side, yes, it does make sense (even if not in -our- reality, the reality of the players) and is believable.

After all, a cool setting is fun to develop. And knowing what is the reason behind X existing will help define what X is.

D&D is not and never will be a generic system, though it may be one with several forms it can take. So a generic class/race/whatever would be too dull.

Sorry there not a poll system El... and even if you took a vote what good would it do?
People are going to fix and discuss what they want to fix and discuss, you and I. We're not going to disagree, so we may as well move on, to something we might agree on.
For the record, no I read, Howard, and there are "monks" of both kinds. Or at least esoteric fighters or whatever but really it all blends in. Also I'm done with the line by line argument between us. Its all so nitpicky

However, I will leave you with a parting breakdown...

Ultimately, I don't want to dictate "play in this setting or else"

Seems to me you ultimately "do". YMMV

When we get our Rebalanced D&D out.

I like that. A very hopefull setimient

But I do want a coherent setting where it all ties together so that we can show people that yes, they can work side by side, yes, it does make sense (even if not in -our- reality, the reality of the players) and is believable.

1.
Aber-Toril: Faerun. Unapproachable east. Mulholarand. Calisham. Chult.
And Earth: Europe. Bablyonia/Persia. Asia. Eygypt. Africa/South America
I belive we can have coherence without having to play "Anglo-Saxon" land thank you. Much like real life, worlds are diverse. Sense is relative. Sense is what you make it. In your case... not much this time.
Unless you're telling me you find earth a non "coherent setting"
2. It is more generic than you give it credence for being. D&D is not a Fantasy world Europe. Or at least it doesn't have to be. You seem to want it to be but its not.
We have info and tech, and ideas enough, that it is indeed generic. 27-ish classes in the core, complete, and phb 2 alone... + the TOB and more if we look.
 So basically, you telling me "D&D's not meant to be generic." Is the same as what you say above about MonksD&D+Europe. Largely opinion, largely irrelavent. *shrug*.
It may not has started out with the intent to be, but as it is now it has enough parts to allow for character representation of almost all we want to play. Which is important... as people will want to make...
Whats that main characther from Bleach? Yeah him.  and others. I don't gel with the grognard logic.

[Elennsar]

Broken down just for convenience (on my part).

1) It would indicate who wants to do it, rather than the "Um, there are people, we don't see any..." No point working on something that none of the people doing cares about.

2) No, I don't. If I did, I'd be very blunt about it.

3) Ja.

4) The coherence issue is that monks -in Cormyr- are completely out of synx with the quasi-European nature of Cormyr, and that the cosmos is ill defined in regards to "the nature of the universe and all".

5) It is High Fantasy. That, alone, makes it anything but generic. This is not to say generic is a good thing, but High Fantasy by nature is specific. High powered characters, high magic, active gods, objective morality, lots of different races...

[Mister_Sinister]

I would be all for incorporation of the monk in a coherent fashion.

[Kuroimaken]

Elennsar, evidently this shitty debate isn't going anywhere really fast. So let's cut the crap and get to the real work - making the monk NOT suck massive amounts of donkey penis, to quote another member. 

Now let's see. What, if anything, does the current monk have that does NOT utterly suck, besides his saves?

[AfterCrescent]

Unarmed strike Damage

[Shadowhowler]

Now let's see. What, if anything, does the current monk have that does NOT utterly suck, besides his saves?

 
Hm... Their enhanced movement and free feats?

[Mister_Sinister]

Essentially, in order to fix the monk, we need to make him compete with other melee classes, which it really is one of. My suggestion is simple - give them full BAB already! It would go a long way toward alleviating many issues.

Also, make them less MAD. One of the ways to do this is not make them so Dex-reliant. As they depend on Wis exclusively to provide the benefit of AC, they need a 16 there to MATCH the rogue, while the rogue can gratuitously ignore Wis and still get the same damn benefits. So let's power that AC bonus the monk gets into something meaningful, and dissociate the Wis from AC.

That is something I consider to be the bare minimum.

[Midnight_v]

Elennsar, evidently this shitty debate isn't going anywhere really fast. So let's cut the crap and get to the real work - making the monk NOT suck massive amounts of donkey penis, to quote another member. 

Now let's see. What, if anything, does the current monk have that does NOT utterly suck, besides his saves?

Spell resistance.


I dont' think its a full bab class. I think its a skirmisher. Supposed to be spring attacking and the such. We could also give the monk wis to ac in light armor?

[Mister_Sinister]

Ok, as a skirmisher, it has no way to do decent damage, like the rogue, it's not really a skill monkey (unless you wanna be even MORE MAD), and SR is acquired so late, it might as well not be there, not to mention the fact that I have already said that how SR works in DnD is silly and should be burned.

And a Spring Attacking monk deals so little damage to ANYTHING you may as well not bother, honestly. The fact of the matter is, the monk beats stuff up. It is closer to the fighter than the rogue, by a long, LONG way.

[Elennsar]

Immunity to Disease and immunity to poison are nice, but unless your DM makes these things a big deal (and they have high saving throws), not spectularly. Its more "I'm glad to have this." than "I would take levels to get this."

Frankly, the monk's biggest problem is that it neither has the defensive skills or the offensive skills to be a good, solid "I take names and get head" class.

Its firmly in the "I give head" realm.

[Mister_Sinister]

Or 'penetrate hymen DR' category. Remember, ANY body part...