RP:
My character started off as a Paladin, but realized he could become a Monk and follow his religion without having to stick strictly to the path of a Paladin. In 4e its Raven Queen, while in 3.5e its Weejace(sp?)
Gameplay:
I like brawling, swinging a sword is not nearly as satisfying as knocking an opponent to the ground.
As far as gameplay goes most of my actions I try to keep in character. However I do admit I did try to trip a trap on purpose.
So what do you think? Am I being unreasonable? Should I try and change my character? Either to a wise monk or to a thick skulled fighter?
If all your friend is finiding annoying is that you play your monk not like a monk then thats his problem. Now if you in game actions are annoying everyone then that is another matter.
As long as you are not being Chaotic stupid (I think that would be the best way to describe it) then you should just concentrate on having fun with your character.
I think you should change.
Why? Because by bringing this here, by asking random people online, you demonstrate a lack of conviction about your character. So you might as well change. Just give in already & play your character how others think D&D should be played. And to the 9 Hells with what makes you happy.
If you need more proof, read the fluff of a Dragon article on monks from last year (here, if someone in your group has access to DDi). A hedonistic brawler is a perfectly appropriate way to flavor a monk's class features, and your friend is being narrow-minded.
A hedonistic brawler is a perfectly appropriate way to flavor a monk's class features, and your friend is being narrow-minded.
Agreed.
Admittedly, most of the monks that players run in my campaigns have been the stereotypical, disciplined, shaolin-esque monk. I'd relish having a player run something different, like the brawler concept described.
- - -
So here is a simple solution, play your character as you like, with all the stats and powers that a monk has, but don't call him a monk, after all, he's not really one if he does not follow the monastic path.
Present him as a self-trained brawler, with a touch of spirituality, because who ever said only monks, clerics and paladins could be religious. The core books clearly says you can rename a power to fit your roleplaying, so why not change the name of the class? As long as the mechanics stay the same.
Besides, the name of the class is just metagame in a lot of casses. Rp-wise, you don't have to present yourself as a monk just because it's written on your character sheet anymore than you have to present yourself as "someone who has 21 Dexterity" because you actually have that score in Dextirity.
Your friend is being narrow-minded, your gonna play your character the way you want to play him and no one can say other wise (well except the DM). I would lavish having someone with your kind of spunk in my group.
That said, you might want to look at the brawler fighter. Don't change if you don't want to, but it seems like it might fit your concept better. They punch, grab, knock down, and drag people around. They are also tougher then monks (being defenders), though do less damage and don't jump around as well.
if you wanna play a brawler monk do it
my monk is a Gnoll RPed as if its a dog, i dont talk in character, just do actions and enthusastic barks.
im pretty sure this isent what people think of when somone says "monk" but your friend needs to understand: the class is born of the character, the character is not born of the class.
What is "obvious" to "real" players (that a character and a class are not the same thing, and that flavor is malleable) is actually not an explicitly stated value anywhere in the rules. The DMG certainly implies it -heavily and repeatedly, in fact- but it doesn't actually say that, and while those of us here generally accept that it's a common-sense thing, it might not be so readily apparent to some.
Heck, I have a sometime-DM who's been around since the middling days of AD&D who doesn't get it. Granted, he's not the greatest DM to ever grace the planet, but still, if it's as "obvious" as people here make it out to be, you'd think experience alone would teach the lesson.
In 3.5E (the system I'm most familiar with), the only real limitations on playing a Monk I know of are the mechanical limitations on wearing armor, a Lawful alignment, and an Ability score bias toward DEX, WIS, and STR to make the best use of Monk abilities. Everything else is described in terms of "typically", "generally", "rarely", "usually", and so on. That's a lot of room to move in
Some of my favorite characters have been a Dwarf Ranger/Cleric (I styled the characters as a sort of puritanical witch-finder; no emphasis on wilderness-type skills, favored enemies were Undead, Evil Outsiders, and Aberrations), a good-humored Halfling Paladin specializing in morningstars, and a human fighter with high ability scores in INT, WIS, and CHA (skills included history, geography, and engineering). I made a lot of traditionalists mad: "there's no such thing as a Dwarf Ranger, nor a Halfling Paladin or Paladins that use morningstars... and who ever heard of an intellectual Fighter!?!?" But, I had a lot of fun playing those characters.
Keep on thinking outside the box, and expanding the horizons a little, and don't let other players tie you down to stereotypes for the sake of stereotypes or Serious Business, unless it's directly tied to something in the rules or something that doesn't fit into the DM's game world.
Why a touch of spirituality? That's just fluff, too.
In fact, there isn't even any fluff about spirituality there, since they aren't "divine." I mean, if one were to summarize all the monk fluff in PHB3, it would read something like this...
Facts:
- Monks are mammals.
- Monks fight ALL the time.
- The purpose of the monk is to flip out and kill people.
Why a touch of spirituality? That's just fluff, too.
In fact, there isn't even any fluff about spirituality there, since they aren't "divine." I mean, if one were to summarize all the monk fluff in PHB3, it would read something like this...
Facts:
- Monks are mammals.
- Monks fight ALL the time.
- The purpose of the monk is to flip out and kill people.
guess that means no Dragonborn, Thri-kreen or Lizardfolk folk monks haha
There is no spoon box...
A monk is a set of martial skills. It doesn't matter where they learned them or how they use them or what the character's personality is like.
I have a psychotic halfling rogue named Ripper (translated through every edition of D&D since 2nd), who is absolutely huge for a halfling (almost the size of a dwarf), built like a body builder, and acts more like a dwarf than a halfling - he loves to brawl, sings elven love songs at the top of his lungs in orcish and carries a bastard sword taller than he is.
I haven't statted him out yet for 4E, but I'm considering MCing him into monk to powerswap for some movement abilities.
Nor shardminds, wilden, or bullywugs! Out of the question! Thems the rules.
The worst part, is I have a player who would believe that. He takes fluff as RAW.
Why a touch of spirituality? That's just fluff, too.
In fact, there isn't even any fluff about spirituality there, since they aren't "divine." I mean, if one were to summarize all the monk fluff in PHB3, it would read something like this...
Facts:
- Monks are mammals.
- Monks fight ALL the time.
- The purpose of the monk is to flip out and kill people.
The reason I said that his character had a touch of spirituallity was because the OP wanted to:
RP:
My character started off as a Paladin, but realized he could become a Monk and follow his religion without having to stick strictly to the path of a Paladin.
Now to answer those facts (I know you did not put them as actual facts, but if someone were to say it was a real rule, i'd answer that:
1. That depends on the race (does dragonborn count as mammal or reptiles?)
2. That depends on the player, and the style of campaign.
3. No, the purpose of the monk, as any D&D character, is to have fun playing it, whatever that means for the player playing it.
To go back to the spirituallity, I think you are too much focused on the rules,. You dont have to be a divine class to have spirituallity. A farmer praying every morning for good crops is spiritual, a fighter praying to Kord is spiritual. If only clerics and the likes were spiritual, they would be useless, who the hell would they preach to? Other clerics and paladins? The churches would always be empty.
Unless one argues that a cleric's only use is healing and fighting as a leader, but IMHO, limiting yourself to what's in the book (especially fourth edition) is REALLY BORRRRRING!
Talking about the books, page 8 of the 4th edition player handbook one says: You have almost limitless controll over what your character can do and say in the game.
As for rewritting fluff. here is what the same player handbook, page 55 says about flavor text:
You can alter this description as you like, to fit your own idea of what your power looks like.
Facts:
- Monks are mammals.
- Monks fight ALL the time.
- The purpose of the monk is to flip out and kill people.
Don't worry. Some of us got the joke.
OP: Tell your friend to get over it and play their own character. You can handle yours. I have a player who does this in my game, and I have to shut her down constantly. She does it in such an authoratative tone that my new players assume she is actually quoting rules, not just her interpretation of the 3.5 paladin's code. (That I specifically said doesn't have to be followed)
OP: Tell your friend to get over it and play their own character. You can handle yours. I have a player who does this in my game, and I have to shut her down constantly. She does it in such an authoratative tone that my new players assume she is actually quoting rules, not just her interpretation of the 3.5 paladin's code. (That I specifically said doesn't have to be followed)
That's ... incredibly annoying.
OP: Tell your friend to get over it and play their own character. You can handle yours. I have a player who does this in my game, and I have to shut her down constantly. She does it in such an authoratative tone that my new players assume she is actually quoting rules, not just her interpretation of the 3.5 paladin's code. (That I specifically said doesn't have to be followed)
That's ... incredibly annoying.
I once took my character sheet, scratched out my name and wrote the other guy's name on it, then slapped it down on the table in front of him, grabbed his character and wrote my name on it. Then told him he could now play the damn character any way he wanted to, and I'd play my "new" character any damn way I wanted to as well... (And I kept his damn character for the next two sessions, while the DM and the rest of the party laughed at him whining about it...)
I once took my character sheet, scratched out my name and wrote the other guy's name on it, then slapped it down on the table in front of him, grabbed his character and wrote my name on it. Then told him he could now play the damn character any way he wanted to, and I'd play my "new" character any damn way I wanted to as well... (And I kept his damn character for the next two sessions, while the DM and the rest of the party laughed at him whining about it...)
Kind of awesome.
I've never been pushed that far, though I have recently been forced to try to explain to someone that not all characters adhere to stereotypes. I apparently performed the heresy of using the ranger class to represent a sharpshooter/marksman rather than a 'warrior of the wilderness'. No, I'm not trained in Nature, Perception, or Stealth*. Then why do I call myself a ranger? I DON'T. I call myself a sharpshooter or marksman; I have not once, in-character or out-of-character, referred to the character as a 'ranger'. Thank you, and have a nice day.
*To be fair, I was moderately stealthy just because my Dex was cranked to the max.
Honestly, just play the character the way you want to play it and ignore what your friend says. If he wants an ascetic monk, he can play his own.
Just because you play a monk doesn't mean you are playing a 'monk'. You don't have to be the archtype of Kung Fu to be a monk. Like previously mentioned, bring up Friar Tuck to the table and how loud and brash and un-monk like he was.
The reason I said that his character had a touch of spirituallity was because the OP wanted to:
Oh, yes, I know. I was just emphasizing that there is no inherent connection between the Monk class (or any class, really) and spirituality, and that the OP is perfectly fine disregarding that, if they felt so inclined. If the OP had included that out of obligation, I am merely reinforcing the point that he shouldn't feel obligated.
el oh el sarcasm.
The problem here is that your friend has an idea of what a monk should be but he's irritated that someone else's understanding doesn't line up. If he has a problem with that, you shouldn't just shrug him off, but you should remember that you define your character; hear out what he has to say, but at the end of the day, he doesn't get to decide that. And if he thinks he does, then let him make his own monk and play it that way. It sounds to me like he's either one of those "Stop-having-fun-guys" types, or he just doesn't get that you have a certain character in mind when you play him.
Maybe a good exercise would be to sit down and write out characterization notes for your monk; it helps to round him out, and explain why he is who he is. It'll be good for yourself as a player, and if you feel the need to explain your character's personality to your friend, it'll make that easier.
The point I'm trying to make is that Tempi is clearly a "monk" type character. His meditation and training prove that. But being a mercenary and starting bar room brawls just to prove a point is, according to your friend, not a "monk" type character. Yet this character obviously makes it work.
If it's how you want to play your monk, then do so. Your friend be damned.
Dude, if your having fun... what does your friend care? He must have it pretty good if this is the worst thing he's seen in your gaming group. My gaming groups suck, if they can even be called groups. More like "find a game online and hope for the best".
Guess what? He needn't look far to find not-so disciplined monk brawler types. Your typical shonen anime will attest to that. Dragonball Z, Fist of The North Star, etc. They're arrogant, narcissistic, and ready to fight. They party hard.
I mean yes, I can understand your friend's point. This kind of crap happens all the times over paladins. Why do paladins get to have all the butthurt? Noone asks if a monk, a druid, or a barbarian is a true scotsman despite the same alignment restrictions!
But the same way I'd tell them to get over it when a paladin wasn't acting how they perceived or how anyone perceived lawful good, I say the same thing about the monk. When did D&D stop being about DOING WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?! When did the rules become more important then the desire to play? This is supposed to be a game where your little sister could roll up a character and make an ass out of herself. It deserves all the negative press it receives for basement dwelling nerds when it's hardly at all about fun and imagination, and more so about staying within the lines of book keeping, and being involved in a poorly written school play. A poorly written school play, where the plot can change occassionally with a bad dice roll. Thats basically what D&D is. The difference is, this ISN'T a play, the rules are only there to be a guideline, and the main inregdient is fun. I can't stress that enough. DMs, other players, what is your aversion to fun?
So I can't say your friend is completely wrong, I get a bit annoyed myself at mary sue characters. You know the type... Female rogues, pretty much female anything. Pacifists also annoy me. Chaotic neutral annoys me more then evil, because at least evil is likely to amuse me. Chaotic neutral is just an excuse to attack me unprovoked and be an all around jerk. I don't like it.
But I try to let people have their fun and worry about myself, and my own fun. I even keep it to myself when other players are being twats, because I figure maybe the DM or other players will bring it up, or maybe it'll turn out for the best plot wise. It never does... but I try to pragmatic. You should just explain this to your friend. I mean, he's really your friend right? Not just a guy you happen to see at the gaming table?
He probably isn't super mad, just slightly annoyed. I mean lets be real, would you REALLY want a stuck up xiaolin monk in the group? Acting all pompus and not really contributing anything to the dialogue or the action? No... I want a monk who's crazy as ****, and will freak out. Hells yeah. I want a barbarian, your monk, a warmage, and myself. And with this song;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFk_59wbYyk
And we don't even remember what the hell we were supposed to be doing. But it doesn't matter, cause whoever the big bad guy was is clearly dead now. Or at the very least, there won't be a world for him to take over by the time we're done with it. Yeah! Metal... I seriously don't understand why there isn't more D&D games like this. Cause I'm not really suggesting hack n' slash, but just, don't get all caught up in the seriousness.
I've never been pushed that far, though I have recently been forced to try to explain to someone that not all characters adhere to stereotypes. I apparently performed the heresy of using the ranger class to represent a sharpshooter/marksman rather than a 'warrior of the wilderness'. No, I'm not trained in Nature, Perception, or Stealth*. Then why do I call myself a ranger? I DON'T. I call myself a sharpshooter or marksman; I have not once, in-character or out-of-character, referred to the character as a 'ranger'. Thank you, and have a nice day.
I did that with a rogue in 3.5. (Actually with a few levels of fighter.) She was a playwrite who fought a lot of duels, and like to adventure. Basicaly a swashbuckler. I picked rogue because of the skill points, and I didn't take the Swashbuckler prestige class because it wasn't as interesting as staying in rogue. I had no thief skills at all except for tumble.
I did that with a rogue in 3.5. (Actually with a few levels of fighter.) She was a playwrite who fought a lot of duels, and like to adventure. Basicaly a swashbuckler. I picked rogue because of the skill points, and I didn't take the Swashbuckler prestige class because it wasn't as interesting as staying in rogue. I had no thief skills at all except for tumble.
Yeah, I was once in a game where the DM assumed that just because I was a rogue, I was also a thief (despite referring to my character as a 'fencer' constantly). The group goes to sleep, and the DM tells me that 'I got 12 gp from the fighter', just assuming that I was going to rob the party because it said 'rogue' on my sheet (conveniently ignoring that it also said 'lawful good').
Cue argument.