...couldn't they have put a more Western flavor on it rather than the Eastern flavor it currently has? Things like Step of the Wind and Ki just screams Orient and Eastern flavor and I would prefer to have something closer to the flavor of Monk in Diablo 3 (where the monk was trained in a monastic church and had some holy abilities rather than mysticism) with maybe an option to have an Eastern flair if I have that in my campaign world (which I personally do not). If I wanted to run an L5R game, that's what I'd run, not D&D with Eastern flavor.
And yes, I am sure some of you will throw the 'Well change the flavor if that's what you prefer etc etc'. That's not the point. The point is why does the Monk have to be Eastern flavored when there are plenty of examples of perfectly good Western flavored monks in the fantasy genre (even in D&D, look at the Cleric Quintet by Salvatore). Why give something an Eastern flavor in a game where every single other class is a Western design and flavor? I don't want to be forced to have an Eastern type region in my setting when I have no design space for it because my only other option at that point is to disallow the class entirely (which I did do in 3.X and I got a lot of flak over it).
I dunno it's a little pet peeve I guess. All monks in fantasy (with a few very excellent exceptions) are Eastern in flavor. It's kind of like that annoying fetish that every fantasy game in existence seems to have with making gnomes in their games tinker gnomes (see WoW, EQ2, Kingdoms of Amalur, and even GW2 sort of). Anyway just wanted to ask and get soiem feedback on this.
Oh and why does FoB HAVE to be unarmed? Where did the 'monk weapons' that could be used in place of unarmed attack go?
...couldn't they have put a more Western flavor on it rather than the Eastern flavor it currently has? Things like Step of the Wind and Ki just screams Orient and Eastern flavor and I would prefer to have something closer to the flavor of Monk in Dia
Oh and why does FoB HAVE to be unarmed? Where did the 'monk weapons' that could be used in place of unarmed attack go?
Balance and simplicity probably, but the option should be in there somewhere.
What do you imagine for a Western monk that is distinct from what cleric, paladin and the possible priest cover?Balance and simplicity probably, but the option should be in there somewhere.
...couldn't they have put a more Western flavor on it rather than the Eastern flavor it currently has?
What do you imagine for a Western monk that is distinct from what cleric, paladin and the possible priest cover?
He wants the Diablo monk, as he said, but is neglecting the part where that concept was unique to Diablo, and hadn't been done before. It's not exactly a "thing."
What do you imagine for a Western monk that is distinct from what cleric, paladin and the possible priest cover?[/quote]He wants the Diablo monk, as he said, but is neglecting the part where that concept was unique to Diablo, and hadn't been done bef
No I agree... I usually just don't allow monks in my campaigns because I find it just doesn't mesh with the Setting.
I think any eastern classes like Samurai, Ninja, Kensai etc. should be in an Oriental Handbook/Campaign Setting
No I agree... I usually just don't allow monks in my campaigns because I find it just doesn't mesh with the Setting. I think any eastern classes like Samurai, Ninja, Kensai etc. should be in an Oriental Handbook/Campaign Setting
Remember, you're free to completely ignore the flavor of the class; the only flavor that matters is the flavor the player gives his character.
I've only played one 'monk' who wasn't anything other than a basic fist-fighter/brawler. Ignore the class name, ignore the default fluff, and play your character your way.
Remember, you're free to completely ignore the flavor of the class; the only flavor that matters is the flavor the player gives his character.I've only played one 'monk' who wasn't anything other than a basic fist-fighter/brawler. Ignore the class n
Remember, you're free to completely ignore the flavor of the class;
You could ignore the flavor of your food too, since it doesn't have an effect on nutritional value. That doesn't mean it isn't an important part of the eating experience though.
For the record, I almost categorically ban the monk because I don't feel like such a class belongs in my setting, for the same reason I wouldn't put Orange Chicken and Pork Fried Rice on a Cajun menu.
You could ignore the flavor of your food too, since it doesn't have an effect on nutritional value. That doesn't mean it isn't an important part of the eating experience though.For the record, I almost categorically ban the monk because I don't feel
Remember, you're free to completely ignore the flavor of the class;
You could ignore the flavor of your food too, since it doesn't have an effect on nutritional value. That doesn't mean it isn't an important part of the eating experience though.
For the record, I almost categorically ban the monk because I don't feel like such a class belongs in my setting, for the same reason I wouldn't put Orange Chicken and Pork Fried Rice on a Cajun menu.
Congratulations, you missed the point, as you always do.
Such a character would not be, in concept, a monk. He wouldn't call himself a monk. Nobody else would call him a monk. He's using the monk mechanics to represent a brawling street fighter, or professional pugilist, or other unarmed fighter without the so-called 'Eastern flavor'. The class is just mechanics; the flavor is dependent on the player.
Are you trying to tell me nobody ever punches anybody in your game world?
You could ignore the flavor of your food too, since it doesn't have an effect on nutritional value. That doesn't mean it isn't an important part of the eating experience though.For the record, I almost categorically ban the monk because I don't feel
You could ignore the flavor of your food too, since it doesn't have an effect on nutritional value.
And if all you want out some-odd foodstuff is a particular mix of vitamins and proteins, there really shouldn't be anyone screaming "No!! It must taste like asparagus or you can't have it!"
And if all you want out some-odd foodstuff is a particular mix of vitamins and proteins, there really shouldn't be anyone screaming "No!! It must taste like asparagus or you can't have it!"
Remember, you're free to completely ignore the flavor of the class;
You could ignore the flavor of your food too, since it doesn't have an effect on nutritional value. That doesn't mean it isn't an important part of the eating experience though.
For the record, I almost categorically ban the monk because I don't feel like such a class belongs in my setting, for the same reason I wouldn't put Orange Chicken and Pork Fried Rice on a Cajun menu.
Congratulations, you missed the point, as you always do.
Such a character would not be, in concept, a monk. He wouldn't call himself a monk. Nobody else would call him a monk. He's using the monk mechanics to represent a brawling street fighter, or professional pugilist, or other unarmed fighter without the so-called 'Eastern flavor'. The class is just mechanics; the flavor is dependent on the player.
Are you trying to tell me nobody ever punches anybody in your game world?
it's a little disconcerting how hard it seems to get people to realize this on these boards.
i commend Salla for trying anyway though.
You could ignore the flavor of your food too, since it doesn't have an effect on nutritional value. That doesn't mean it isn't an important part of the eating experience though.For the record, I almost categorically ban the monk because I don't feel
While I agree with Salla, it can be changed, and note that I mentioned that it would come up in my original post. That's fine, and if the monk ends up with it's current flavor, I will just do as suggested and reflavor it to fit my setting, Ki becoming a form of divine enlightenment with a renaming of the manuevers. It'll be easier than the players wanting to play a monk and me having to tell them no. But it would be nice if they provided an option otherwise for those of us without that sort of flavor in our settings so DMs don't have to do the extra work.
I will say this can potentially still lead to problems. If a player decides to be obstinate and wants the flavor as dictated by the rules in the book (and I know people like this), while I'm trying the hard sell by telling them no, this is how a monk is in my setting, then it causes nothing but arguements. For people like this, having that other optional rule/flavor is nice because then I can point to it and say "That's the rule/flavor I am using" and if it's in the book, then they are usually fine with it.
@Mand - Yes I posited the Diablo monk as an example. I also gave another example within the confines of the D&D setting of a western monk - Danica (if I remember her name correctly) from the Cleric Quintet series. There are a few other places where I have seen a more western flavored monk too, Everquest 2 for example.
I would like to add (despite not wanting to drag this topic into this thread, but it helps my point) that I see some people here saying that reflavoring is fine here while arguing against the alignment restriction in another thread. How are those two things any different from one another?
While I agree with Salla, it can be changed, and note that I mentioned that it would come up in my original post. That's fine, and if the monk ends up with it's current flavor, I will just do as suggested and reflavor it to fit my setting, Ki becomin
I see some people here saying that reflavoring is fine here while arguing against the alignment restriction in another thread. How are those two things any different from one another?
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile. Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile.Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.
I see some people here saying that reflavoring is fine here while arguing against the alignment restriction in another thread. How are those two things any different from one another?
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile. Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.
Bingo.
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile.Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.[/quote]Bingo.
But seriously folks, I remember having a lot of fun back in my 3e game (my first experience with Monks) of integrating monastaries in to that world and showing how it wasn't just some tolkien world, but a world players hadn't seen and couldn't make assumptions about. If you are a DM its not hard to redefine monks. If nothing else, the PC is special. He's the only guy around who can do what he does. Thats how I handled Tieflings when I didn't like them. Just make them unique in your world. NPCs are curious about it. make it a plot point.
If players don't like your flavor, they can run a game how they'd like as well. You're doing 90% of the work and doing the stuff most people hate. God forbid they let you make it into a cohesive story. I mean, you sort of have THEM in the bag, not the other way.
On the flip side, I never really design my campaign until I know what the characters are.
For example, in a recent playtest, no one made a human PC. So the quest was about snuffing an evil magic candle that drove humans mad (commoners, berzerkers, warriors, acolytes and such) and slowly turned them into the undead. Non-humans had to save the day. So from that stand-point DMs who are wringing their hands about PCs insisting on the "wrong" flavor might think twice before drawing a line in the sand.
God forbid a PC be from "out of town"But seriously folks, I remember having a lot of fun back in my 3e game (my first experience with Monks) of integrating monastaries in to that world and showing how it wasn't just some tolkien world, but a world pl
I played a Halfling Monk who was a bare knuckle boxer. Sort of a mix between Brad Pitt from the movie “Snach” and an old time carnival wrestler. The class was just a cultural tradition with the Halfling travelers.
I played a Halfling Monk who was a bare knuckle boxer. Sort of a mix between Brad Pitt from the movie “Snach” and an old time carnival wrestler. The class was just a cultural tradition with the Halfling travelers.
I see some people here saying that reflavoring is fine here while arguing against the alignment restriction in another thread. How are those two things any different from one another?
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile. Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.
Why? I'm disallowing the monk class; however, I will allow a new class called the Funk. It has all the abilities and stuff of the monk class. The only difference is that it has no alignment restrictions.
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile.Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.[/quote]Why? I'm disallowing the monk class; howe
I see some people here saying that reflavoring is fine here while arguing against the alignment restriction in another thread. How are those two things any different from one another?
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile. Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.
Whoa...wait...did you really just say that?
Alignment is the biggest bit of fluff in the game and always has been.
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile.Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.[/quote]Whoa...wait...did you really just say that
Maybe, maybe not. Ultimately my whole point was that the flavor as wirtten does not appeal to everyone (myself included) and that an alternative fluff could be written as a module since, you know, that's the big selling point of Next. I would think the same could be said of the alignment restriction. I think with the supposed (I say supposed because the only place we've seen it is in the healing rules) modularity of this edition we should all be able to get a monk with Eastern an Western flavors, as well as a monk with an alignment restriction and one without.
Maybe, maybe not. Ultimately my whole point was that the flavor as wirtten does not appeal to everyone (myself included) and that an alternative fluff could be written as a module since, you know, that's the big selling point of Next. I would think t
I see some people here saying that reflavoring is fine here while arguing against the alignment restriction in another thread. How are those two things any different from one another?
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile. Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.
Why? I'm disallowing the monk class; however, I will allow a new class called the Funk. It has all the abilities and stuff of the monk class. The only difference is that it has no alignment restrictions.
Or they could remove the alignment restrictions and save book space by not printing the same class twice.
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile.Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.[/quote]Why? I'm disallowing the monk class; howe
I see some people here saying that reflavoring is fine here while arguing against the alignment restriction in another thread. How are those two things any different from one another?
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile. Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.
Whoa...wait...did you really just say that?
Alignment is the biggest bit of fluff in the game and always has been.
Sorry, no. This is not fluff, this is mechanics. If it affects the character's build, it ain't fluff.
And it's a huge, ridiculous step backwards.
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile.Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.[/quote]Whoa...wait...did you really just say that
The mention of Ki is my biggest disappointment, 3rd Ed started that, too culturally specific for me, I like the The Bloodguard (Bannor) vibe.
So don't call it Ki. Call it Chi...or Pee...or The Force. The name "Ki" may have first appeared in 3rd edition (which, btw, was 12 years ago...so 1/3 of the existance of D&D) but the abilities which it supports have been there since day 1. They just lumped them into a category and labeled it. Call it what you like.
So don't call it Ki. Call it Chi...or Pee...or The Force. The name "Ki" may have first appeared in 3rd edition (which, btw, was 12 years ago...so 1/3 of the existance of D&D) but the abilities which it supports have been there since day 1. They just
So don't call it Ki. Call it Chi...or Pee...or The Force. The name "Ki" may have first appeared in 3rd edition (which, btw, was 12 years ago...so 1/3 of the existance of D&D) but the abilities which it supports have been there since day 1. They just lumped them into a category and labeled it. Call it what you like.
Greek life force - Anima/Animus (fairly direct yin/yang parralells ... but meaning life force ) Personally I think CON could be the basis of it.
Wis gives you control Con gives you amount... hmmm
Greek life force - Anima/Animus (fairly direct yin/yang parralells ... but meaning life force ) Personally I think CON could be the basis of it.Wis gives you control Con gives you amount... hmmm
So don't call it Ki. Call it Chi...or Pee...or The Force. The name "Ki" may have first appeared in 3rd edition (which, btw, was 12 years ago...so 1/3 of the existance of D&D) but the abilities which it supports have been there since day 1. They just lumped them into a category and labeled it. Call it what you like.
Greek life force - Anima/Animus (fairly direct yin/yang parralells ... but meaning life force ) Personally I think CON could be the basis of it.
Wis gives you control Con gives you amount... hmmm
Seriously they should just call it "Focus" and be done with it.
Greek life force - Anima/Animus (fairly direct yin/yang parralells ... but meaning life force ) Personally I think CON could be the basis of it.Wis gives you control Con gives you amount... hmmm [/quote]Seriously they should just call it "Focus" and
I see some people here saying that reflavoring is fine here while arguing against the alignment restriction in another thread. How are those two things any different from one another?
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile. Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.
Whoa...wait...did you really just say that?
Alignment is the biggest bit of fluff in the game and always has been.
Sorry, no. This is not fluff, this is mechanics. If it affects the character's build, it ain't fluff.
And it's a huge, ridiculous step backwards.
Salla, you're one of the few posters here that I highly respect, but I have to disagree with part of this statement. But first I will agree that yes, it is a step backwards and I hope they reverse course before the paladin, as I have never (ever) put an alignment restriction on them since I have paladins for each of my settings gods. But I had no problems removing it back then and I won't have a problem now. The part I disagree on is alignment being a mechanic. How? It dictates absolutely nothing in gameplay, it is, and always has been, a role-play tool/crutch/guideline/whatever. Thus, fluff.
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile.Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.[/quote]Whoa...wait...did you really just say that
So don't call it Ki. Call it Chi...or Pee...or The Force. The name "Ki" may have first appeared in 3rd edition (which, btw, was 12 years ago...so 1/3 of the existance of D&D) but the abilities which it supports have been there since day 1. They just lumped them into a category and labeled it. Call it what you like.
Greek life force - Anima/Animus (fairly direct yin/yang parralells ... but meaning life force ) Personally I think CON could be the basis of it.
Wis gives you control Con gives you amount... hmmm
Seriously they should just call it "Focus" and be done with it.
I like pointing out even when the highly eastern flavor is used the core meaning of it has been bouncing around the west even so. Focus is a perfectly reasonable term for other pure martial flavored classes fighters or whatever.. to use too by the way
Greek life force - Anima/Animus (fairly direct yin/yang parralells ... but meaning life force ) Personally I think CON could be the basis of it.Wis gives you control Con gives you amount... hmmm [/quote]Seriously they should just call it "Focus" and
If you can't gain levels in Monk, then that's impacting your gameplay. How is it not a mechanic?
The alignments themselves are not mechanics. The restriction is simply a mechanic tied to the fluff. Remove the fluff and then either remove and/or change the mechanic tied to it. It's the same as refluffing in 4e.
Edit - The point is to give the options so that DMs don't have to do the extra work of removing and/or changing fluff or mechanics. We have enough to do when we prepare a game.
The alignments themselves are not mechanics. The restriction is simply a mechanic tied to the fluff. Remove the fluff and then either remove and/or change the mechanic tied to it. It's the same as refluffing in 4e.Edit - The point is to give the opti
I don't care what it is called, I just want it to exist. A force of inner power that allows one to break "mortal" limits. Ki, Chi, Essence, Force, Spirit, Grit, Vita, anything really. Call it whatever you want, I just want some "martial" classes to use it (and not use expertise dice). I also think it should be a quickly recovering mechanic and not arbitrarily limited to daily uses.
I don't care what it is called, I just want it to exist. A force of inner power that allows one to break "mortal" limits. Ki, Chi, Essence, Force, Spirit, Grit, Vita, anything really. Call it whatever you want, I just want some "martial" classes to u
I see some people here saying that reflavoring is fine here while arguing against the alignment restriction in another thread. How are those two things any different from one another?
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile. Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.
Why? I'm disallowing the monk class; however, I will allow a new class called the Funk. It has all the abilities and stuff of the monk class. The only difference is that it has no alignment restrictions.
I don't know who you are, but if I start getting 70's music in my head during my next game, know that I will shake my fist to the sky in your direction.
(well, I'll be shaking it upwards, so unless you are on a space station or flying over head, not likely your exact direction)
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile.Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.[/quote]Why? I'm disallowing the monk class; howe
Such a character would not be, in concept, a monk. He wouldn't call himself a monk. Nobody else would call him a monk. He's using the monk mechanics to represent a brawling street fighter, or professional pugilist, or other unarmed fighter without the so-called 'Eastern flavor'. The class is just mechanics; the flavor is dependent on the player.
Like putting teriyaki sauce on mashed potatoes. A brawler without all that training should function significantly differently. Maybe this is jusy my personal experience talking, but there is a gigantic world of difference bewteen a street fighter and a martial artist. They don't think the same way, they don't move the same way, they don't have the same toolkit, they don't fight the same way.
Are you trying to tell me nobody ever punches anybody in your game world?
Honestly, it is kind of rare. People generally punch in my setting when no other option is available. Unless I'm running an Oriental game. Then fists will ****ing fly. Generally, people who focus on their fists in my settings are fighters with the right feats, and maybe a prestige class or two. Dwarven battleragers for example, are awesome.
Take a moment and ask yourself why you felt the need to type this.Like putting teriyaki sauce on mashed potatoes. A brawler without all that training should function significantly differently. Maybe this is jusy my personal experience talking, but th
You could ignore the flavor of your food too, since it doesn't have an effect on nutritional value.
And if all you want out some-odd foodstuff is a particular mix of vitamins and proteins, there really shouldn't be anyone screaming "No!! It must taste like asparagus or you can't have it!"
I see some people here saying that reflavoring is fine here while arguing against the alignment restriction in another thread. How are those two things any different from one another?
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile. Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.
Bingo.
Yank the restrictions? Use a module that doesn't have them? I'm not even going to bother trying to make my case for why those mechnacal restrictions should be part of the class because this thread isn't supposed to be about alignment. I think we should try and keep that discussion out of this thread, and at least for now, simply say that modules are good and useful for a variety of reasons.
And if all you want out some-odd foodstuff is a particular mix of vitamins and proteins, there really shouldn't be anyone screaming "No!! It must taste like asparagus or you can't have it!"[/quote]Modules.Because alignment restriction makes reflavor
Salla, you're one of the few posters here that I highly respect, but I have to disagree with part of this statement. But first I will agree that yes, it is a step backwards and I hope they reverse course before the paladin, as I have never (ever) put an alignment restriction on them since I have paladins for each of my settings gods. But I had no problems removing it back then and I won't have a problem now. The part I disagree on is alignment being a mechanic. How? It dictates absolutely nothing in gameplay, it is, and always has been, a role-play tool/crutch/guideline/whatever. Thus, fluff.
Telling you what classes you can and cannot be most definitely dictates something in gameplay.
Telling you what classes you can and cannot be most definitely dictates something in gameplay.
Like putting teriyaki sauce on mashed potatoes. A brawler without all that training should function significantly differently. Maybe this is jusy my personal experience talking, but there is a gigantic world of difference bewteen a street fighter and a martial artist. They don't think the same way, they don't move the same way, they don't have the same toolkit, they don't fight the same way.
Talk to an MMA fighter sometime, and they will tell you something quite different. The amount of focus and dedication to the art between a boxer and a karateka is quite similar. There are differences in philosophy, but the basic exercise of throwing a punch or kick is the same whether you are practicing Tae Kwan Do or Savate. The rules of leverage apply equally whether you are practicing Jujiutsu or Greco Roman wrestling.
Almost none of my 4E Monks, and I have made a few, are grounded in Eastern philosophy. Most of them are brawlers and pugilists.
Talk to an MMA fighter sometime, and they will tell you something quite different. The amount of focus and dedication to the art between a boxer and a karateka is quite similar. There are differences in philosophy, but the basic exercise of throwing
I see some people here saying that reflavoring is fine here while arguing against the alignment restriction in another thread. How are those two things any different from one another?
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile. Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.
Why? I'm disallowing the monk class; however, I will allow a new class called the Funk. It has all the abilities and stuff of the monk class. The only difference is that it has no alignment restrictions.
I don't know who you are, but if I start getting 70's music in my head during my next game, know that I will shake my fist to the sky in your direction.
(well, I'll be shaking it upwards, so unless you are on a space station or flying over head, not likely your exact direction)
Glad to be of assistance. I've achieved my purpose on these forums then.
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile.Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.[/quote]Why? I'm disallowing the monk class; howe
So despite some disagreements I guess at this point I'll ask if we are in consensus of having more options for both fluff/flavor (Eastern and Western options both available) and mechanics tied to fluff (alignment restriction/no restriction both available)?
So despite some disagreements I guess at this point I'll ask if we are in consensus of having more options for both fluff/flavor (Eastern and Western options both available) and mechanics tied to fluff (alignment restriction/no restriction both avail
So despite some disagreements I guess at this point I'll ask if we are in consensus of having more options for both fluff/flavor (Eastern and Western options both available) and mechanics tied to fluff (alignment restriction/no restriction both available)?
to the first point, you can already fluff the character however you like. As I stated, I've only once played an 'Eastern' monk, and played several 'bare-knuckle brawler' characters using the monk mechanics.
To the second, there should be no alignment restrictions on anything (as there should be no alignment). If a player chooses to restrict his character, or the DM chooses to restrict his table, they can do so.
to the first point, you can already fluff the character however you like. As I stated, I've only once played an 'Eastern' monk, and played several 'bare-knuckle brawler' characters using the monk mechanics.To the second, there should be no alignment
The mention of Ki is my biggest disappointment, 3rd Ed started that, too culturally specific for me, I like the The Bloodguard (Bannor) vibe.
So don't call it Ki. Call it Chi...or Pee...or The Force. The name "Ki" may have first appeared in 3rd edition (which, btw, was 12 years ago...so 1/3 of the existance of D&D) but the abilities which it supports have been there since day 1. They just lumped them into a category and labeled it. Call it what you like.
The Schwartz it is.
So don't call it Ki. Call it Chi...or Pee...or The Force. The name "Ki" may have first appeared in 3rd edition (which, btw, was 12 years ago...so 1/3 of the existance of D&D) but the abilities which it supports have been there since day 1. They just
Like putting teriyaki sauce on mashed potatoes. A brawler without all that training should function significantly differently. Maybe this is jusy my personal experience talking, but there is a gigantic world of difference bewteen a street fighter and a martial artist. They don't think the same way, they don't move the same way, they don't have the same toolkit, they don't fight the same way.
Talk to an MMA fighter sometime, and they will tell you something quite different. The amount of focus and dedication to the art between a boxer and a karateka is quite similar. There are differences in philosophy, but the basic exercise of throwing a punch or kick is the same whether you are practicing Tae Kwan Do or Savate. The rules of leverage apply equally whether you are practicing Jujiutsu or Greco Roman wrestling.
Almost none of my 4E Monks, and I have made a few, are grounded in Eastern philosophy. Most of them are brawlers and pugilists.
Well, call an MMA fighter a "street fighter" or a "brawler" and see the sort of response you get.
Talk to an MMA fighter sometime, and they will tell you something quite different. The amount of focus and dedication to the art between a boxer and a karateka is quite similar. There are differences in philosophy, but the basic exercise of throwing
Like putting teriyaki sauce on mashed potatoes. A brawler without all that training should function significantly differently. Maybe this is jusy my personal experience talking, but there is a gigantic world of difference bewteen a street fighter and a martial artist. They don't think the same way, they don't move the same way, they don't have the same toolkit, they don't fight the same way.
Talk to an MMA fighter sometime, and they will tell you something quite different. The amount of focus and dedication to the art between a boxer and a karateka is quite similar. There are differences in philosophy, but the basic exercise of throwing a punch or kick is the same whether you are practicing Tae Kwan Do or Savate. The rules of leverage apply equally whether you are practicing Jujiutsu or Greco Roman wrestling.
Almost none of my 4E Monks, and I have made a few, are grounded in Eastern philosophy. Most of them are brawlers and pugilists.
Belt of the Brawler to use improvised items like clubs + Iron Soul monk to use clubs for various bonuses basically makes you into Jackie Chan.
Incredibly unlikely. At least some part of the staff will block it as too different to be D&D.Talk to an MMA fighter sometime, and they will tell you something quite different. The amount of focus and dedication to the art between a boxer and a kara
Well, call an MMA fighter a "street fighter" or a "brawler" and see the sort of response you get.
You would probably be surprised. Fighting for pure survival and training for MMA are likely remarkably similar in approach and philosophy. Use what works, chuck what doesn't.
I used to train with a guy who mixed Tae Kwan Do, Kenpo and Boxing. Because of the way he bobbed and weaved, it was almost impossible to land a solid blow on him.
You would probably be surprised. Fighting for pure survival and training for MMA are likely remarkably similar in approach and philosophy. Use what works, chuck what doesn't.I used to train with a guy who mixed Tae Kwan Do, Kenpo and Boxing. Because
Well, call an MMA fighter a "street fighter" or a "brawler" and see the sort of response you get.
Seen reports of martial artists beat up by street fighters.. so egos aside, being unpredictable can be handy.
Hence the difference between a fighter and a monk...doesn't mean one has to be a higher level than the other...just that they're different things.
Seen reports of martial artists beat up by street fighters.. so egos aside, being unpredictable can be handy.[/quote]Hence the difference between a fighter and a monk...doesn't mean one has to be a higher level than the other...just that they're diff
Well, call an MMA fighter a "street fighter" or a "brawler" and see the sort of response you get.
You would probably be surprised. Fighting for pure survival and training for MMA are likely remarkably similar in approach and philosophy. Use what works, chuck what doesn't.
I used to train with a guy who mixed Tae Kwan Do, Kenpo and Boxing. Because of the way he bobbed and weaved, it was almost impossible to land a solid blow on him.
Actually MMA and things meant entirely for combat superiority & survival are very different. MMA works under certain rules and controlled conditions, so it is prudent to train, study & practice for those conditions. Training for all-out combat is a totally different beast. For instance, an MMA fighter will not train to land groin shots whenever and where-ever possible....practical krav maga, on the other hand, aims heavily to strike at the groin when possible.
You would probably be surprised. Fighting for pure survival and training for MMA are likely remarkably similar in approach and philosophy. Use what works, chuck what doesn't.I used to train with a guy who mixed Tae Kwan Do, Kenpo and Boxing. Because
For awesome monk style and variety the designers should be stealing liberally from Fist of the North Star. Seriously, that should be the template.
Incredibly unlikely. At least some part of the staff will block it as too different to be D&D.
Then their short-sightedness is quite unfortunate.
Something like Hokuto No Ken displays the sort of versatility and range a class should have in it. As they stand, traditional D&D monks are WAY too narrow in scope and approach.
Incredibly unlikely. At least some part of the staff will block it as too different to be D&D.[/quote]Then their short-sightedness is quite unfortunate.Something like Hokuto No Ken displays the sort of versatility and range a class should have in it
Well, call an MMA fighter a "street fighter" or a "brawler" and see the sort of response you get.
In my home town we have an MMA fighter who wears a mask and body armor and starts street fights. This distinctions between traditional martial arts, MMA, and street fighting have become rather blurred.
In my home town we have an MMA fighter who wears a mask and body armor and starts street fights.This distinctions between traditional martial arts, MMA, and street fighting have become rather blurred.
Talk to an MMA fighter sometime, and they will tell you something quite different. The amount of focus and dedication to the art between a boxer and a karateka is quite similar. There are differences in philosophy, but the basic exercise of throwing a punch or kick is the same whether you are practicing Tae Kwan Do or Savate. The rules of leverage apply equally whether you are practicing Jujiutsu or Greco Roman wrestling.
Almost none of my 4E Monks, and I have made a few, are grounded in Eastern philosophy. Most of them are brawlers and pugilists.
I was counting boxing as a martial art, because, well, it's a martial art. Now, my initial thought could have done with some fleshing out in retrospect. A warrior NPC class would probably be best for a straight-up brawler. But since someone mentioned straight-up brawler, and not MMA fighter, I was trying to give treatment to what was mentioned. If we want to talk MMA, a fighter is still a better choice for that than the monk.
Not due to different levels of effort or dedication required for success, but due to a completely different style of training and fighting. In fact, if you wanted, you could build a straight-up brawler or an MMA fighter with the actual fighter class, just using different feats.
As for talking about the similarities of strikes in martial art, and using Tae Kwan DO and Savate as an example for that, those two styles specifically are in fact quite similar, but a side-kick in Wing Chun or Jeet Kune Do is actually pretty different than the kind of kicks thrown in MMA same for the punches.
I favor Jeet Kune Do, and I know some people who practice MMA (not professionals but as a hobby, and they aren't world class or anything but they are proficient) and even the way we throw strikes is quite different. The way we think about distance is also pretty different, though not as different as Wing Chun vs. MMA.
Well, call an MMA fighter a "street fighter" or a "brawler" and see the sort of response you get.
In my home town we have an MMA fighter who wears a mask and body armor and starts street fights. This distinctions between traditional martial arts, MMA, and street fighting have become rather blurred.
Professional MMA fighters have commented on street fights before, and at least some of them seem to think they're different. I've heard one professional fighter call an out-of-the-ring brawl between two trained fighters, "the most technical street fight ever." It's not that blurred, at least not all the time.
I was counting boxing as a martial art, because, well, it's a martial art. Now, my initial thought could have done with some fleshing out in retrospect. A warrior NPC class would probably be best for a straight-up brawler. But since someone mentioned
Well, call an MMA fighter a "street fighter" or a "brawler" and see the sort of response you get.
In my home town we have an MMA fighter who wears a mask and body armor and starts street fights. This distinctions between traditional martial arts, MMA, and street fighting have become rather blurred.
I think you're confusing "MMA fighter" with "moron".
In my home town we have an MMA fighter who wears a mask and body armor and starts street fights.This distinctions between traditional martial arts, MMA, and street fighting have become rather blurred.[/quote]I think you're confusing "MMA fighter" wit
