Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Llathos 11-03-04, 02:20 PM	Not to be narrow-minded, but it's really the concept that bothers me. In D&D (Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms, at least), the flavor is heavily tilted towards a Tolkien-esque vaguely european medieval style. There are castles and high fantasy and elves and wizards and great warriors in shining armor on huge steeds doing battle with giant demons and dragons. Then there's a monk. He walks (at super speed which is hard not to imagine looking like sped up tape of speed-walking exercise nuts) into battle and punches said demon or dragon. With his hand. Due to some mythical pseudo-eastern philosophy ki capability, this actually hurts said creature as much as being cleaved by a giant axe. Then, due to some additional force beyond our understanding, he has a terrific armor class making it hard for said knight, elven archer, or monster to hit him. Add to that other bizarre mental images surrounding abundant step, quivering palm (Bruce Lee anyone?), etc. The monk seems so out of place it's ridiculous. Is it balanced? Sure. Is it colorful? Sure. Does it make sense? No. I'm a very descriptive DM. I like to describe the weapon's impact with the creature, the wound caused, the creature's shriek, etc. The violence of the battle is key in my mind to making the game immersive. When I get to the monk, though....it feels forced. "You punch the dragon in the flank, cracking scales and sending shockwaves through its side". Of course it can be done, but in the end....you're still PUNCHING it. I'm sorry, that just feels stupid to me. In short, it is my opinion that it should have stayed in an OA supplement.
MaverickWolf 11-03-04, 02:24 PM	I stand somewhere in the middle. While I like the monk, and the general concept, it does indeed feel out of place in a medieval European style setting. However, if they didn't stick it in the PHB, there would be no unarmed/martial artist styled warrior, as fighters, even with well chosen feats, make crappy unarmed combatants. Therefore, it was stuck in the PHB so no one had to come up with a non super-natural martial artist (which does fit into a European setting, as boxing and other similar activities have always been popular in one form or another).
Llathos 11-03-04, 02:34 PM	Your right, there would have been no martial arts master...because it belongs in the OA splat book. While boxing has been around a long...long time, you didn't see them sending out boxers to fight the heavy calvary. Well, if you did, the boxers didn't last long. I know D&D isn't about history or about realism, but continiuity in style and flavor is important.
MaverickWolf 11-03-04, 02:36 PM	While I understand this, the typical D&D player (myself included) isn't going out to fight the heavy calvalry. Besides, the idea of someone unarmed and unarmored beating on some fullplate wearing, greatsword wielding fighter is quite fun. If it were done in a less mystic manner (and didn't require a lawful alignment, damn it), it would probably fit well into the current classes. Although I'd prefer to see better unarmed options for current classes without a whole new class (I'd love to see an unarmed barbarian...).
Daemon27330 11-03-04, 02:44 PM	I agree that monks are out of place here as well, but I have a friend who is a monk and he is brought down to 0 hp all the time.
Llathos 11-03-04, 02:52 PM	Daemon, my argument wasn't that they are broken, overpowered, or invincible by any means. My statement is simply that they don't belong in core rules, in my opinion, due to flavor reasons. I agree that unarmed combat should be an option for the uber-strong raging berserker type. It could be a fun character type to play. However, weapons exist for a reason. There is a REASON why people would train for years to properly use a greatsword or scimitar. It's because fighting with your fist is simply inferior. If you take away that truth, then it undermines the purpose of weapons, armor, and most of the existing combat system.
Pain The Unbeliever 11-03-04, 03:01 PM	Ive never liked the monk, flavor wise. i think the class has interesting mechanics, but your right about it just not fitting in with the rest of the PHB classes.
MaverickWolf 11-03-04, 03:09 PM	It's because fighting with your fist is simply inferior.While I agree with your original statements in this thread that specifically pertain to the monk, I'm going to have to give this comment a really big WRONG. Fighting with your fists is in many ways superior to fighting armed. Trust me, I've done both, and am capable of fighting both unarmed and with a sword. Unarmed, when done properly (note that I said properly, not expertly, as I'm not expert) is just as effective as armed, if not moreso.
mean_liar 11-03-04, 03:38 PM	The Greyhawk and FR settings both have incorporated Monks. Greyhawk's Scarlet Brotherhood is much more interesting (and also not very Eastern in flavor), and the FR monks feel extraneous to the setting. Its all about how big your setting scope is. Is it only one culture? In Greyhawk, the Scarlet Brotherhood are isolated and alien and represent something entirely different than anywhere else in the setting. For comparison, FR is set in a world where almost all cultures are mutant mirrors of existing Earthern cultures within its European setting - non-European elements are consciously separated into Al-Qadim and Kara Tur, making monks as-presented by DnD an oddity. The setting has chosen to limit the bounds of its metaphors and mythical dynamic to Western arechtypes, whereas Greyhawk's slapdash approach to setting development led to multiple countries with extremely odd cultural disparities side-by-side. I have no troubles explaining monks in my personal setting because the setting operates to a significant degree from its own mythic structure, not extant Western myths. Basically, if you don't 'get' the monk as a concept, its not going to make sense in any campaign you generate. Your cultural processing doesn't digest it, and therefore it doesn't get reflected in a sensible manner in the game because it doesn't make much sense to you personally. Regarding weaponry, it depends. My only exposure to fighting as a discipline is within the context of Chinese martial arts, where unarmed combat forms the fundamentals and weapons are added as extensions and refinements to the base motions. To that, I've punched, elbowed and kneed wooden dummies and done (unsuccessfully!) Iron Shirt training and can feel chi passively at rest, in movements and in strikes. You haven't lived until you feel your insides literally move around and dance after you've been hit - its the most nauseating and painful thing ever. Essentially, if you don't understand the Eastern elements underlying the monk, then you can't possibly interpret them effectively into a Western setting and the Monk is doomed to being 'off'. But translating them from the perspective of understanding bears much more pleasant conclusions.
Cross Hatch 11-03-04, 04:09 PM	I happen to agree that Monks, as written, are not very Eastern European. Fortunately, not much about any of the characters in the PHB is Eastern European so it doesn't seem that out of place.
caeruleus 11-03-04, 04:13 PM	I agree that the monk does not fit in a campaign with a European flavor. But why is that reason to take the monk out of the Player's Handbook? Following that reasoning, we'd have to remove a large chunk of the monsters out of the Monster Manual, not to mention the magic items in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Yes, much of the core books assume a pseudo-European setting, but there's no reason to force those who want something else to buy other books. I think there should be more variety in the core books. I'm not suggesting adding more core classes, just that variety is not a bad thing. And quite frankly, I find the insistence that monks be restricted to an "oriental only" book to be rather racist (whether intended or not).
Sensei Gith 11-03-04, 04:23 PM	I don't see a problem. You just have to use some creativity to fit them in. FR does it rather well, for example.
tiggrhoo 11-03-04, 04:33 PM	Llathos, I think I see your point. If I had to pick one class that isn't like the others, I would certainly pick the monk. However, I think it is very nice that it was included for those people who do want an unarmed combat specialist with mystical / ki powers. For precedent, you can always point to the People of the Black Circle from the Conan novels. There never seemed to be very many of them, and they were from far away. Yes, they were different.
Llathos 11-03-04, 05:31 PM	While I agree with your original statements in this thread that specifically pertain to the monk, I'm going to have to give this comment a really big WRONG. Fighting with your fists is in many ways superior to fighting armed. Trust me, I've done both, and am capable of fighting both unarmed and with a sword. Unarmed, when done properly (note that I said properly, not expertly, as I'm not expert) is just as effective as armed, if not moreso. Again, I'm thinking medieval warfare here. People wear armor. They have spears and swords and crossbows and longbows....and you have your fist. You're trying to tell me that you would survive more than 3 seconds should combat break out? I'm sorry, I don't buy it. If all it took were training, it would have been widespread because it's cheaper to fight barehanded than with expensive armor and expensive weapons. They exist because they are superior in effect. Getting punched can hurt. Getting hacked by a bastard sword kills you. It's easier to kill someone or maim them with a 3-4' sword than it is with your hand. Of course, the argument can be taken another step: it doesn't matter if you can punch well, because you died at 150 feet away when a crossbow bolt slammed into your chest. Regardless, my point was simply that the class doesn't seem to fit in. FR made an effort, but they still just stuck a "monastary" somewhere in the wilderness, gave the organization a name, and suddenly it was integrated in concept. Didn't really work for me. I won't even respond to the idiotic statement that my concern over the class is racist.
mean_liar 11-03-04, 05:41 PM	No one in Asian cultures (even in the Shaolin legends) fights unarmed or unarmored in a war or even a planned battle. Then again, no one really casts fireballs, either.
DM Zoc 11-03-04, 05:49 PM	Again, I'm thinking medieval warfare here. People wear armor. They have spears and swords and crossbows and longbows....and you have your fist. You're trying to tell me that you would survive more than 3 seconds should combat break out? I'm sorry, I don't buy it. If all it took were training, it would have been widespread because it's cheaper to fight barehanded than with expensive armor and expensive weapons. They exist because they are superior in effect. Actually, it's much cheaper to fight with crossbows than with a sword or unarmed. Manufacturing costs are small next to the cost of training.
The Grinning Pint 11-03-04, 05:49 PM	Then again, no one really casts fireballs, either. Then again, if you actually watched medievel combat, it isnt quite what you thought itd be. I think its quite funny, especially when they start hitting each other with the hilt (which was a viable and actually used technique)
Stuntman 11-03-04, 05:51 PM	The direction that WotC has taken with 3E+ is to increase the options available to players. There are way fewer restrictions in 3E compared to eariler editions of D&D. To omit the Monk from the PH will in turn limit the players to only playing a Monk in the Oriental Settings. D&D does allow players and DM's to alter what is available to suite the setting. If you feel that the Monk or any other class does not fit in your campaign, then you can prohibit the class in your game. If you feel that a Paladin should be a prestige class then you can do that in your game as well. If you look at the Dragonlance setting, you will see some changes in the classes that are available because it suits that particular campaign. The default setting for D&D is Greyhawk. All of the base classes in the PH have a place in the Greyhawk setting. As already mentioned, the Scarlet Brotherhood is an organisation that does consist of Monk as presented in the PH. If you want to argue that the Monk should not be in the PH, then you would have to argue that there should not be Monks in the Greyhawk setting.
GRAOUH !!! 11-03-04, 05:55 PM	Even the weapon selection of the monk is exotic. They should have create a monk type class built around the use of the staff and fists, and leave the kama, feet and else for oriental corners of the campaigns. It's not racism to point the great cultural differences between these two feudal systems. Arthur Pendragon and his knights against the evil ninjas. It sounds stupid, no ? Unarmed peasants who learns to fight. They would all have been killed in Europe by the nobles who were the only ones allowed to carry a sword. In european feudal system, war and protection of the land were the nobles affairs.
Mentar 11-03-04, 06:06 PM	Personally, I don't like having the monk or the sorcerer as core. Sorcerer seems to be a view on the wild mage, and most monk weapons are oriental rather then western. Best idea, if you don't like them then don't play them. If you DM your own world, don't allow them. I would have accepted the monk easier if other oriental style classes were included, or at least hinted to in other classes.
Cross Hatch 11-03-04, 06:39 PM	I think its a very good idea to have a Western campaign. Of course, to do it you have to remove the Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Rogue, and Wizard. None of those are Western except in name only. That leaves, what? the Fighter, the Ranger, the Paladin, and the Sorcerer. That's rather limited, but I guess its feasible.
thepuregamer 11-03-04, 06:57 PM	I think the incorrect assumption here is that Dnd is medieval european. It is more a mystical medieval european. The monk makes perfect sense in this setting. The path of the monk is one of a mortal becoming an outsider. The mechanics make perfect sense for this. If greyhawk and FR were medieval european settings, they wouldn't be polytheistic. They are only medieval in the sense that the worlds are low tech. But magic and supernatural forces all make a monk an understandable.
Sh0t 11-03-04, 06:59 PM	I typically envision a fantasy setting that is not very dependent on the european middle ages. That said, I don't like the monk as a class. I think that the monks abilities should be broken into feats and abilities players can choose to round out their character. For instance, Fighters should have the option, through specialization and such, to become adept unarmed fighters, sword-swingers, etc.
danielinthewolvesden 11-03-04, 07:13 PM	Not to be narrow-minded, but it's really the concept that bothers me. In D&D (Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms, at least), the flavor is heavily tilted towards a Tolkien-esque vaguely european medieval style. There are castles and high fantasy and elves and wizards and great warriors in shining armor on huge steeds doing battle with giant demons and dragons. Then there's a monk. Blame "Kung-Fu". Younger folks saw that, and everyone wanted to be a "monk". I agree they are best left in their setting- most of the time. An occasional wandering martial artist is OK.
Blackrazorblade 11-03-04, 07:26 PM	one thing people are forgetting, not that it matters a whole lot, the monk uses all body parts to fight, feet, arms, chest, kidneys etc. while it doesn't fit in a european setting it works fien in just a generic DnD setting with wizards casting fireballs.
Lina_Inverse 11-03-04, 07:27 PM	the monk fills a role thats needed.that is the unarmed fighter.fighters cant do it,feats do not make the fighter,magic items do.and being that you cant enchant your fists a class that DOES innately enchant there body works well.this explains alot of the monks supernatural powers,there infuseing more and more magic into there bodys.and then at level 20,they have infused so much they simply cease to be human.
Zee'Tah 11-03-04, 08:29 PM	Personally I love playing the monk and of course I will defend them. An unarmed fighter is not as out of place in medieval Europe legend as one might think. If anyone remembers from any old English or European courses they might have taken the epic poem BEOWULF features a Norse warrior who only uses a sword out of necessity and otherwise choose to grapple with monsters. (if you can get passed the language change it is a great story) Now the monk is depicted in the PHB as oriental which is I think is slightly prejudice and of course, added to this is his weapon selection. I treat a monk as a fighter (in the roleplaying sense) who's totally committed to his study of combat. He never differs from his path of making himself stronger. The only roleplaying problem with this is that it leaves little room for motivation on its behalf. It is quite simple to get rid of the "oriental" appearance to the monk through description, where his school is and the history of the monk. In one game I played monk who was of a school of worriers who were imprisoned and had to teach themselves how to fight without weapons. The only weapons they had were their fists and farm tools that they used in slave labor. Then through years of imprisonment they managed to hone their skills they managed to escape and then never went back to using weapons because they thought they were obsolete. Monks don't have to be oriental if you have a different history for them. Monks are simply disciplined light weapon fighters. If you still cannot get over the use of "foreign" weapons. If this really is a problem then make different weapons with similar abilities. Kamas are similar to farm sickles and in historical terms actually derived from them so that should not be to hard too incorporate. As for shurikens they can be replaces darts or throwing daggers as a monk weapon. Sianghams can be replaced by fine stabbing daggers, and nunchakus can be replaced with ball and ropes (a heavy metal ball on each end of a rope). Monks are more malleable that one might originally think. All those Jackie Chan movies have just corrupted the minds of American youth. DARN HIM Ah yes and the last point of your argument. How could they have such a high armor class and hit with such force. It was difficult until version 3 were you no longer had declared locations of hit. Monks would assumingly know as part of their training where it really hurts to be hit (AKA pressure points). Trust me my friend who is a black belt can paralyze me for a minute or so with a proper hit on the neck. Still how could a punch his as hard as a sword. One, have you ever been to a renaissance fair and seen people fight with those swords. They are the clumsiest things ever and they really are not as sharp, even back then as you might think. Now, the new swords that you buy today are sharpened with higher technology and thus much, much more sharp. Knight's swords had to be dull for a reason. They were smashing against armor and if they were too sharp they would break very easily. They still could cut but not like anything you would see to day. (Samurai swords though were sharp because they acutely only wore wooded armor to deflect arrows. It was considered more important for them to have mobility than metal armor). Between pressure points that they know and their honed skills they can do more damage. That clears up damage but what about the monks high AC? Monks kept have a high AC because they know how to dodge a sword. They hone their mind and body in training to be as instant as possible. Also, against a large sword it is also not that hard to jump aside. In a suit of full plate armor (if you ever can see someone fight in full plate it is very funny, and I don't mean the fake stuff they use at medieval times) a fighter really has zero mobility and thus movements are exceptionally slow. Lastly, their supernatural skill (I am assuming because this is a fantasy world) would come from their constant training and focus to be so great that they adapt some psionic or magic (same type as a sorcerer) powers. These accumulate until the monk's body has become so self-controlled that the monk is considered an outsider of another plane. In summery Monks are self-determined warriors that perfect their body and reflexes until they become essentially pure.
caeruleus 11-03-04, 11:14 PM	I won't even respond to the idiotic statement that my concern over the class is racist. You just did. I won't mention how such arrogant dismissals of the topic of racism are very indicative of a racist mindset. Oh wait... I just did. ;)
Zolgar 11-04-04, 02:44 AM	Meh.... THAT is why I don't think there should be any sort of campaign setting in the core rules.Just the rules there, pure and simple. The best way to define monk flavor is that they are much akin to clerics (or psions), only that the energy they channle comes through in their physical power, not the compacity to blow things up. If you are to add a magical level to classic martial artists, they would be much akin to monks.. Now, how 'out of place' they are. Okay, I can see that if you have a historical, or tolkien campaign setting. But guess what, they're there! Guess what, there ARE monks in Forgotten Realms, there are monestaries. Maybe to YOU they don't fit. In a Tolkien setting though, a sorcerer or wizard it out of place. I mean, if Gandalf had HALF the power of a D&D wizard, those orcs would have been NO threat.. Besides which, they needed to be put in, because of the people who want to play an unarmed fighter, without being screwt.
True Archon 11-04-04, 07:34 AM	I don't have a problem with monks fitting in with a campaign setting at all. If I did, I'd add paladin to that list. That's not including the "Complete..." books with Samurai, Hexblade (which I'm definitely not a fan of), Shugenja, and what not. The reason I can play D&D with monks is for one simple way that I look at the game. It's a fantasy setting. Not a European setting. Not an Oriental setting. Not an Arabian setting. Not a New World setting... etc, etc, etc. The big thing with D&D is that almost everything is taken from some myth or legend in the world. Here's some monsters, for example: Minotaur.... Greece; Banshee... Irish; Bugbear... English; Ki-rin... Chinese; Kraken... Scandinavian; Mermaid... Babylonian; Manticore.... Persian; Naga... Hindu; Phoenix... Assyrian; Mummy... Egyptian; Sphinx... Egyption; Troll... Norse; Djinn... Middle Eastern; Doppleganger.... German; Dragons... Everywhere; Vampires... European & Asian; Zombies... Haitian/African; Werewolves... European & Asian. Of course, if we based D&D mostly off of the monsters alone, the setting would be more Greek or Roman than widespread Europe. Bye-bye paladins! Explaining away a monk's special powers in a fantasy setting is not that difficult, either. Imagine Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. In a world where knights and woodsman cast divine magic, storytellers cast spells, thieves are able to dodge lightning bolts regulary (how fast does a lightning bolt travel?), barbarians shrug off the stab of a dagger without injury (a dagger does 1d4 damage, a barbarian can have DR 5... so did the blade just bounce off his skin?)... a monk's abilities don't seem that far-fetched. Just think of D&D as a world-wide fantasy game... not a medieval European game with magic and monsters. That's how you can look pass the Oriental origins of the monk.
PsionicMonk 11-04-04, 07:55 AM	granted yes the setting feels more of a Western fantasy setting, with dragons paladans, fighters, barbarians and the like. The training required for unarmed combat is really extesive, and training all of your poor conscripts how to fight, in like a few weeks from an inpending attack would be rather well insane, where you can give people a sword or axe or mace and say see them go smash them, (axe would be good cause of tree cutting, mace acts like an axe but dents the heck outa armor, which isnt fun to fight in, and a sword because its pretty) its for the people who want to play an Eastern chr, im currently makeing a monk4/wilder15 to memic DBZ =) (yea i'm hopeless) but really if you dont like it in your setting or you can "justify it" in your mind dont allow it, but make a class that can physicaly counter mages fireballs, thats the reason for teh incressed speed, is to get behind a group of fighters, and pound the fireballs outa them, and still be able to dodge there spells and fireballs that they will be forced to attack you on
thepuregamer 11-04-04, 09:50 AM	You just did. I won't mention how such arrogant dismissals of the topic of racism are very indicative of a racist mindset. Oh wait... I just did. ;) I am just gonna call it as it is. Caeruleus, that was an mean and pointless comment. The other guy was right. This is not a thread about racism but about the monk. Accusing people of being racist does nothing for this thread.
MasterZelgadis 11-04-04, 09:50 AM	Hope it hasn't been said yet, didn't read the complete thread... I think the monk does make sense. It is like the threadstarter said a balanced and colorful character. It is a lot of fun playing a monk. Well the extremely good ac although wearing no real armor other than his clothes isn't impossible. The AC doesn't only display the quality of the armor the character wears, it also indicates his ability to dodge attacks (from the DEX modifier). He is very fast and agile, so he can evade an incoming arrow just by leaning his body to one side. The good attack value while carrying no weapon could be possible, because he really has this near magical power called "ki", but it could also be that he can focus his attacks to very weak points or vital points of the enemy's body. So I think the monk is a good character, with a lot of posibilities for role playing
GRAOUH !!! 11-04-04, 10:32 AM	thepuregamer : I think the incorrect assumption here is that Dnd is medieval european. It is more a mystical medieval european. The monk makes perfect sense in this setting. The path of the monk is one of a mortal becoming an outsider. The mechanics make perfect sense for this. If greyhawk and FR were medieval european settings, they wouldn't be polytheistic. They are only medieval in the sense that the worlds are low tech. But magic and supernatural forces all make a monk an understandable. What I wanted to say is that they should have linked the "monks" to the sword and magic flavour of D&D. The medieval Europe non polytheistic : Arthur Pendragon was twisted between his ancient celtic (polytheistic) culture and the new religion of his wife. Christians don't have exterminated all others cultures in one day. If they put a monk class, if think they have to justify, even a little, why it is here. Sorcerers : dragon blood, it's enough there are a lot of dragons in D&D. Clerics : it's ok, there are some gods too. Monks : nothing, the fact there are a lot of fists and feet in D&D is not enough. They know how to use some exotic weapons, why ? If monks were linked to the same world as others core classes, they would have developed their skills with the same standard weapons. On a side they decide to put the psychic powers outside the core books and on another side they put in a class with a flavour that doesn't match with the other core classes.
DM Zoc 11-04-04, 11:57 AM	On a side they decide to put the psychic powers outside the core books and on another side they put in a class with a flavour that doesn't match with the other core classes. Two points: First of all, the Expanded Psionics Handbook is a core book. Second of all, from what I recall, the monk class made it into the original game because it was intended to be something unusual. The party goes into a dungeon and finds some dude in robes who can't even cast spells, at which point they are all very confused. It was supposed to be something to throw the party off-guard.
Kaedarn Everdark 11-04-04, 12:24 PM	Although we assume the default fantasy setting for D&D is a western european medieval world, the core rules need to function well for ANY fantasy setting that the DM can come up with. Having an unarmed combat specialist helps to round out the posibilities. Some fantasy settings require monks, others do not. Want to set up an order of mage hunters, who better than a monk? Want to mimic the "weirding way" from the Dune novels (not the 1980's movie), the monk works wonderfully there as well. In summary, the core rules should provide the ability to create anything you would like, but in no way force you to use everything. Kaedarn Everdark
CzarGarrett 11-04-04, 12:38 PM	I've played monks several times, and rarely do I give it much of an Asian feel. I have played one monk more like a WWF wrestler. Huge and hulking and drop-kicks people in the face. Not very traditionally monk-like, is it? Another that I played was kinda odd. Because with a weapon as a body, you don't have to draw a weapon, so I played it as a very dark shadowy character that would get people to charge him then suddenly move and smash them in the face. Almost an arrogant rake-like character. Monks don't have to be Asian or OA types.
GRAOUH !!! 11-04-04, 01:08 PM	Two points: First of all, the Expanded Psionics Handbook is a core book. Second of all, from what I recall, the monk class made it into the original game because it was intended to be something unusual. The party goes into a dungeon and finds some dude in robes who can't even cast spells, at which point they are all very confused. It was supposed to be something to throw the party off-guard. I'm wrong on the core books, What I really wanted to say is that psychic powers should have been in the player handbook. About the monk, I just say that the form is wrong not the class by itself. They are unarmed combattant, ok, but the flavour is the one of the asian monk where it needs a more general flavour, like the druids (druids have just the love for nature in common with real worlds druids).
MaverickWolf 11-04-04, 01:16 PM	Two points: First of all, the Expanded Psionics Handbook is a core book. Second of all, from what I recall, the monk class made it into the original game because it was intended to be something unusual. The party goes into a dungeon and finds some dude in robes who can't even cast spells, at which point they are all very confused. It was supposed to be something to throw the party off-guard.Actually, the Expanded Psionics Handbook was released as a supplement to the three core books. The entire thing is an option. It is not technically core.
MasterZelgadis 11-04-04, 04:07 PM	I've never read it...think that's why one of my players want to play a psionic :confused: because I'm not familiar with it.... erm....oops, back to topic ^^