Which is my way of saying that my half-orc monk is about as far from the Eastern archetype as you can get.
Born in the Dock Ward of Waterdeep, Thelonius was raised/used to employ his size and...temperment... as an
enforcer, leg-breaker and general all-around thug. He came by his fighting style in the taverns and alleyways.
It ain't always pretty, but it works for him. Although he is intelligent, he is fairly certain that a spinning-wheel kick is the
newest ale being served at The Sleeping Snake.
He usually has his faithful cudgel in his right hand and will use any other available body part (as long as it
is not still attached to someone else) for follow-up strikes. He didn't set out to become a monk, but his skill set
and the pride and sense of self he feels in winning a good fight has led him, unknowingly, down this path.
He is often as suprised as his victim when his elbow or knee appears out of the midst of a good head-bashing
and knocks his opponent to the floor.
I thought I knew why I wanted to share this, but now I'm not so sure. I guess it's beacuse I have seen many posts where
the thread (usually a question about character creation) simply devolves into an argument over definitions. "You can't
really be an X if you aren't using the Y weapon with the Z skill"
I have been playing this amazing game since 1977 and one thing I have learned is that we shouldn't get too
hung up on names/titles/definitions. I believe in RAW as much as the next person, but I also have faith in the spirit
of the game. I also belive that sometimes our characters will (and should) grow in ways that we never expected.
You may say that Thelonius is really just a fighter with the Tavern Brawler feat, and you may be right, but I won't be the one to break the news to him...
Hear hear!
You're putting a spin on your character that isn't explicitly mentioned in the Player's Handbook?
How dare you, sir? I bid you good day! Harrumph!
Mr. Tuck doesn't fit the D&D monk's mechanics terribly well, but it bugs me to see DMs and players constantly shove the Monk into Asialand, alongside alternate codes of chivalry, single-bladed curvy swords, and coins with different shapes.
The things don't necessarily go together - not just because the monk has more Chinese influence than Japanese in its memetic background, but also because the memetics of a culture in the real world don't all need to be put in the same culture in a fantasy world.
I tend to associate the classic D&D monk in my settings with elvish martial arts.
While I respect people who don't want to be constrained by the fairly narrow defintions of the classes presented in the books, I'm afraid "Friar Tuck is a monk" (or "Little John is a monk") is up there with "Aragorn was 6th level" in my list of D&D pet peeves.
I just ... don't think that the Monk class is a very good fit for a character who is generically good at unarmed fighting. If your character is big and strong then you're already investing in an Ability score that Monks strictly do not need, and as you level up you'll get a bunch of abilities that really don't seem to fit the character archetype you're describing. I mean how did being really good at pounding heads teach your character to run on water, or fall slowly, or speak all known languages? How on Earth is it going to stop you ageing?
I appreciate that if you want to play a character who is just really, really good at fist-fighting then Monk is basically the only way not to be grossly underpowered, but you're still going to be saddled with a bunch of class features that don't *really* fit with your concept.
If you want to see an example of Monk from a different persepctive, I have to suggest a short scene from The Mummy Returns. There's a flashback scene where there's a fight. Lots of interesting stances, large circular fluid motions, Exotic weapons flying around with a very middle eastern flair (although completely unauthentic, it feels authentic. It has a lot of truthiness)
"You see me comin' better step aside
A lotta men didn't; a lotta men died
I got one fist of iron, one of steel
If the right one don't get ya, the other one will."
How do I play THAT?
Maybe he is just as surprised as he always is when his abilities surpass what even he thought he could do.
2nd-level: "What is this energy I'm feeling building up inside me?"
3rd-level: "I dunno how to explain it! I was burning mad and the next thing I knew flames were shooting out of my fists."
Just because a Monk doesn't have a mystical flare from the beginning, it doesn't mean he can't learn to tap into this well of power he just started to feel.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
I could see an Elite Order of Drow Assassins being represented mechanically by the Way of Shadow Monk.
I read a short story by Tamora Pierce (awesome YA author if you haven't heard of her), that essentially took place in a fantasy Africa. Young girl is out with the herds and over the years taught herself hand-to-hand combat by watching the animals and trying to copy what they did (started by watching an Ostrich I believe it was kick some wild dogs to death and realizing she wanted to be able to kick like that). Eventually won a fight over her sisters honor which no one expected.
My point getting to, while there are traditions and ideas of what certain things mean, you can trace monks back to 3 core things. People training to achieve perfection. Needing to defend themselves from dangerous elements (beasts, bandits, ect). Learning to fight without weapons for whatever reason. When people try learning to fight they usually go two routes. Learn about the human body and figre out how to exploit that or learn from nature. Lots of western ideas (I believe) followed simply learning which ways the human body didn't bend and how to force your opponent to bend that way. We didn't put a philosophy to it, we just wanted to be effective. Eastern tended to throw in more philosophy and contemplation, and they looked at a lot of nature and how it moved and emulated what was effective for them.
Hand-to-hand combat was not unique to asia, it simply is more famous. You could be a western style boxer and still use many of the monk concepts without any dissonance. Immune to Disease? Healthy living and strength of spirit (classicaly presented european explorer not what really happened to the poor saps)
In another thread regarding an entirely unrelated concept, I described reflavouring the monk as an example of a compromise.
Monks may instead be called Psychic Warriors. They are a secret order of psychic assassins and inquisitors of the Shadow King. These characters study for years learning the art of telekinetically controlling their limbs like a marrionette (think Eric Doyle from Heroes, but controlling your own body instead of another persons). Once such skills are mastered, they can force their body to perform any action they can imagine, regardless of training or routine practice. Charging their fists with psionic energy, they telekinetically perform feats of unarmed prowess they would be otherwise incapable.
Another example is the main character from Assassins Creed. The Hassassin order in AC could easily act as an order of monks.
Speaking of Friar Tuck, I once played a tonsured monk who followed Xavi, from Sengoku Basara. Instead of being a badass martial artist flying around and spin-kicking guys, he would manifest crosses and cherubs and stuff and swing a book around. All while singing and telling everyone that he loves them. That was glorious.
I see the handbook as a series of rules to keep the game fair. What all those numbers translate to is totally up to you; everything else is just suggestions. I cannot understand when people act like they're handcuffed to the names and descriptions of things as presented.
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
the difference betweeen a monk and a Monk, and a cleric and a Cleric. If an order of Wizards has a job title called dragon, that doesn't mean he's a Dragon, or even that they have similiar temperments or abilties. I don't disagree with the premise, but it's mostly trying to fit mechanics to the concept, as opposed to just matching job titles. A friend of mine used to be an Inventory Control Specialist, sounds great, but it means he's a stock boy. And Friar Tuck was a Friar, a part of the main four mendicant orders. A monk is a very generic term for a religious ascetic, while Friar is very specific in scope, focus, and goal.
elebritch wrote:
Setzer and Thoughts;
Both of you have made very valid points and I do now see some of the errors made in my assumptions/argument.
I do somehow feel obligated to stand by my statements as generalized concepts but acknowledge that they lack the strengths
needed to stand on their own as specfics.
I still don't want to tell Thelonious though, he has enough self-worth/abandonment issues as it is!
Thanks all for a fun discussion.
I'm not telling you not to. It'd be fine at my table, I was just saying that you would need better arguments to avoid confusion. Your OP said it all well, I would just want you to have your ducks in their rows when you pitch it to your GM.
"You see me comin' better step aside..."
This is a person who regularly moves sixteen tons without receiving valuable pay. Variant Human, standard point buy.
"A lotta men didn't, a lotta men died..."
Not terribly charming, is he? Smart, either. Or wise. Strength 15, Dexterity 15, Constitution 15, Intelligence 8, Wisdom 8, Charisma 8. Ability boosts to Strength and Constitution.
"I got one fist of iron and one of steel..."
Barroom Brawler feat. And a custom Background that takes the Pirate's reputation feature and throws in Athletics, Intimidation, Miner's Tools, and Dice.
"If the right one don't get ya, the other one will."
This is not a finesse guy. This is a guy who beats people up, simple, dirty, and bloody. Not a Monk. This is a Barbarian.
"You move sixteen tons, what do you get?"
I'm pretty sure a playable build.
I really feel like a lot of arguement about this could be avoided if there was some sort of template or feat available to all the classes that gave them the monks martial arts feature and unarmed damage progression but not necessarily any of their other class skills. Mayhaps trading away your classes normal weapon proficencies for it?
So some of us can make a barbarian that gets mad and punches peoples uvula's out the back of their skull and other's can quit bitching about asian sillyness in their super origional Eurocentric fantasy setting.
After all a good compromise should leave no one fully happy.
The Monk's martial arts feature only works while unarmored. Classes that typically wear armor (Fighters, Paladins, etc) would gain no benefit out of this in 99% of combats. Barbarians may find some use depending on whether they take advantage of their Unarmored Defense ability or not.
With that being said, I have no problem with an Unarmored Fighting Style something like the following.
Unarmored
You can use your Dexterity Modifier plus Constitution modifier when determining your AC.
If I were your DM, I'd be super happy with that guy. I'd say "we'll call the class street fighter, and rename ki to rage." I may, though, with the absense of strict training such as the monk class indicates, restrict progression to Open Hand.
I seriously love fluff characters and do whatever I can to make them work for the player. I feel like every DM should think the same way, but I guess I can't fault the ones that don't -- it's their game, not mine. :D
Also, you should stat the guy out and add him to the pregen character thread. He'd make a great NPC ally (or foe)!