When asked a question about the monk, a class that has relied on Asian stereotypes. This was Jeremy's response:
"How we're handling the monk is connected to how we are handling all of the classes. Here's what I mean by this. The monk absolutely has had that problem and that has been something on our long list of things we're going to improve this... In many ways, I think the core of the issue is that there is not enough non-European representation in the other classes. And so one of the things that we're doing, is making it so that there is non-European representation in all of the classes, so that when you get to the monk, you no longer feel like oh, this is the Asian class! Then, we're doing the flip with the monk. We're ensuring that there is non-Asian representation in the monk."
If WoTC wants to make the monk cultural agnostic they should call it Martial Artist, a Shaolin Monk can be a Sub-class
Discipline points doesn't make any sense, because a discipline is a martial art style, they should call it something like Energy, Spirit or Focus Pts.
Limiting to simple weapons is a downplay of traditional martial arts, but access to all martial weapons may be too much.
"Martial artist" is long. Monk is short and simple.
Discipline: 1. the practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to correct disobedience; activity or experience that provides mental or physical training. 2. a branch of knowledge, typically one studied in higher education.
Almost every class in the game has an option to use martial weapons, and only monk is designed for unarmed combat. Wanna water that down?
Maybe make the kensai the martial weapons sub-class? Also, I think shying away from the Asian influence on the monk is a kneejerk reaction spurred by the perpetually outraged few. Druid refers to a specific culture, but WotC isn't shying away from that. I think monk should be a celebration of the Asian inspiration, not ashamed of it.
"Martial artist" is long. Monk is short and simple.
Discipline: 1. the practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to correct disobedience; activity or experience that provides mental or physical training. 2. a branch of knowledge, typically one studied in higher education.
Almost every class in the game has an option to use martial weapons, and only monk is designed for unarmed combat. Wanna water that down?
I didn't say those thing myself, is what is discussed on the podcast I mentioned,
I think we have a very rare opportunity to give feedback and your response is nah the first idea of WoTC is fine. Weird, but ok is feedback as well, it seems that what you don't want is change, and that is understandably very common.
Maybe make the kensai the martial weapons sub-class? Also, I think shying away from the Asian influence on the monk is a kneejerk reaction spurred by the perpetually outraged few. Druid refers to a specific culture, but WotC isn't shying away from that. I think monk should be a celebration of the Asian inspiration, not ashamed of it.
Yeah well Kensei is already that , the thing is, the Tibetan monk is such a stereotypical class that it gets boring quickly, it would be great to have a class of martial artists of any part of the world, in the end is just wording I guess, but the features sometimes it feels are focused in the Tibetan monk and with just a shift of mentality they could be more than that, and as they mentioned the Tiebatn Monk can be a subclass, Ninja another one, etc. They can celebrate the Asian culture and include other disciplines of martial arts.
A lot has been done to fix problematic elements but it has also drained a lot of flavor.
I'm not upset about the species bit, but background now feel more flavorless except for a point bonus, and species still feel a bit lackluster. It makes more sense that you gain points from your training/background and species traits like darkvision and natural weapons may happen, but there needs some more balancing out options. (a lot of the species feel like swaps for one another, and so do the backgrounds).
In the same vein, the monk is not a bad change. Martial artist is not a bad rename either.
But some of the weapons based skills could be ported to the fighter, and honestly, a pugilist (think bare fisted barbarian) or a wrestler (grapples and restraints for days) based subclass would be nice.
I think the biggest problem is that One DnD is more of a reset than anything else, going back to player's handbook progressions only with a few tweaks, and a lot for making things more PC. (again, not against these nomenclature changes, just the flavor reset is jarring).
It's also worth bearing in mind, Tasha and supplements are still usable, so........Most of the changes are semantic.
I didn't say those thing myself, is what is discussed on the podcast I mentioned,
I think we have a very rare opportunity to give feedback and your response is nah the first idea of WoTC is fine. Weird, but ok is feedback as well, it seems that what you don't want is change, and that is understandably very common.
Yeah well Kensei is already that , the thing is, the Tibetan monk is such a stereotypical class that it gets boring quickly, it would be great to have a class of martial artists of any part of the world, in the end is just wording I guess, but the features sometimes it feels are focused in the Tibetan monk and with just a shift of mentality they could be more than that, and as they mentioned the Tiebatn Monk can be a subclass, Ninja another one, etc. They can celebrate the Asian culture and include other disciplines of martial arts.
Like JonROsborne said, druid in itself is a strictly Celtic term, and like Tibetan monk, it is also tied to a very specific culture and location. And the paladin is a term originating from medieval European knighthood. But who's got problem with either of those classes? Just extrapolate and reflavor these classes to any culture, it'll work. The real historical paladins were all white european christians, but nothing stops you from making a quasi-muslim paladin, communist paladin, or a Mesoamerican paladin who worships The Winged Serpent. Just the same, the fact that real historical monks were Tibetans, doesn't mean that you can't make an order of Slavic pagan monks, Samoan monks who unlock power with tattoos, or Indian battle dervishes.
If WoTC wants to make the monk cultural agnostic they should call it Martial Artist, a Shaolin Monk can be a Sub-class
Why? There are in fact both western and eastern monks. And Fighters can be Martial Artists too. The name "monk" is fine.
While there are western Monks, they are nothing like the monk represented by the dnd-class. If anything, a Christian monk would be associated with the Clerik, rather than the Monk.
I also think that a class named "Monk" should be in the Priest group, not the Warrior group, because first and foremost a real world monk is a servant to some diety - not a fist fighter! But then again, there would off course be no need for such a class because we already have the Clerik and the Paladin.
Calling the supernatural fist fighter "Monk" either implies that Monks of all dieties are supposed to be like the Shaolin (a), or it IS tieing them to a specific culture (b). The designers should decide which it's gonna be.
If (a), then Clerics should probably also have similar abilities.
If (b), there is no issue with calling it Ki and owning the fact that those culutures in the DnD universe that have those kind of Monks are derivative of the corresponding eastern cultures. Note that this might make the class setting specific...
or (c) just don't tie the class to religion and don't call it Monk (IMO the most reasonable option)
If WoTC wants to make the monk cultural agnostic they should call it Martial Artist, a Shaolin Monk can be a Sub-class
Why? There are in fact both western and eastern monks. And Fighters can be Martial Artists too. The name "monk" is fine.
While there are western Monks, they are nothing like the monk represented by the dnd-class. If anything, a Christian monk would be associated with the Clerik, rather than the Monk.
Sort of, but not really. First, "Western Monk" doesn't have to evoke "Christian Monk". Sure, in our world's real history, medieval period western monks were Christian, but we're talking about settings that are largely devoid of that influence. And Second: there is an ancient unarmed fighting tradition in the west, that has spiritual/religious tones to it, and predates Christianity (making it completely unaffected by removing Christianity from a setting).
There have been Western "Martial Artists" going as far back (at least) as Ancient Greece. They were wrestlers, boxers, and pankratiatists (practitioners of pankration). They completed in the ancient Olympics, which was a religious event, making them deeply connected to spirituality. (if you don't get that last part: during one of the Greco Persian wars, the Persians noted that the Greeks would put off or pause military conflict so that their warriors could engage in religious observations (the Olympics); the Persians considered the Greeks to be religious fanatics as a result -- one of the Persian invasions was specifically timed around that fact, in the hope that it would mean that the power houses of Greece would be busy being distracted by religious events and their warriors wouldn't be available to stop the invasion -- this is the whole reason why Pheidippides had to run the first marathon (from Marathon to Sparta), to get the Spartans to interrupt a religious festival and come to the defense of Athens). And Pankration was (in Greek Mythology) invented by Heracles and Theseus. In other words, developed by a Hero and a DemiGod. Theseus reportedly used Pankration in the defeat of the Minotaur. In the real world, the 1960s and 1970s revival and reconstruction of Pankration supposedly had a great deal of influence on early MMA.
So, mythologically speaking, Pankration is a system of semi-divine origin, religiously observed and practiced, mixed martial art that was used to fight and defeat monsters. And it has absolutely no dependence on Christian influence, as it predates Christianity by centuries. You don't need to bring up Christian monks in any way when discussing this model of a "western D&D monk."
There is also an arguable, but hotly debated, connection in the timeline of Alexander's invasion of the middle east, which almost certainly had pankratiatists in his army, and the origins of some of India's martial arts, which may have then influenced south east asian and east asian martial arts. (but it is STRONGLY debated, because timelines aren't perfect and it would also have a lot of implications about cultural identity, which you can expect makes the arguments very controversial). But the point I'm making here is NOT that "it's all descended from pankration anyway" (which I don't believe, I just recognize that it has been debated), but instead that there is enough similarity in ancient unarmed fighting type marital arts that pankration fits right in ... so much so that some people want to try to assert that it could have been the original martial art. And it ALSO fits in with contemporary MMA fighting.
It wouldn't be difficult at all to have the D&D Monk play up the fantasy and fantastic elements of Pankration's origin myths as the basis of an western/occidental/"non-asian" martial artist archetype. Complete with spiritual and divine tones to it. Thematically, Pankration looks more like MMA than Wuxia, but Monks don't necessarily have to be Wuxia themed.
That definitely was a nice little history lesson. Thanks!
To summarize: There are western martial arts as well as western monks. As far as I understand, pancratiatists were athletes. A monk is someone who fully commits his life to spiritual work. Even though the olympics were a religious thing, and even If the greeks were religious fanatics, that doesn't make their athletes monks.
But it does establish (within the lore) that pankration is a divinely powered/derived form of combat, which is no more nor less spiritually focused than the existing Monk class.
Sure. But if you read my initial comment once more, you will see that my only issue is with the term "monk", not the concept of a spiritual unarmed fighter.
Sure. But if you read my initial comment once more, you will see that my only issue is with the term "monk", not the concept of a spiritual unarmed fighter.
But the thread isn't about the name, it's about the archetype of a western version of a spiritual unarmed fighter. The only thing that "Monk" means is that they're monastic in nature, which can be applied to a LOT of archetypes (militant, scholarly, and so on). This is just one many. And 40 years in, I doubt it makes much sense to actually change the class name.
But if they were to do that, I would probably suggest (Kick)Boxer or Pugilist. But they'd both be a little unsatisfying.
I also mentioned I wouldn’t mind the term Focus instead of discipline in another thread before I saw this video I’m sure there could be several alternatives WotC could use
They talk about Asian coded language that is a problem and also talk about point 3 above, in the OP, about simple weapons playing down traditional martial arts (I believe they specifically called out Chinese martial arts). So it’s bad to have Asian coded language but also bad they don’t have Asian coded weapons?
To be honest, I would be fine if they renamed the monk to something else. They could go complete fantasy and call them the Eldritch Fist and their discipline/Ki/sprit/focus power comes from somewhere else (not quite a warlock pact) or just the Weave or Multiverse or themselves, etc.
Sure. But if you read my initial comment once more, you will see that my only issue is with the term "monk", not the concept of a spiritual unarmed fighter.
But the thread isn't about the name, it's about the archetype of a western version of a spiritual unarmed fighter. The only thing that "Monk" means is that they're monastic in nature, which can be applied to a LOT of archetypes (militant, scholarly, and so on). This is just one many. And 40 years in, I doubt it makes much sense to actually change the class name.
But if they were to do that, I would probably suggest (Kick)Boxer or Pugilist. But they'd both be a little unsatisfying.
I disagre. IF you want western monastic traditions you have the cleric/priest. Western monks aren't fighters of any sort.
Boxer/Pugilist are basically what monks are now. It's flurry of blows, with some of those blows doing extra things, i.e., you can punch fancy.
I think calling it a martial artist actually opens up possibilities in subclasses that are otherwise missed, like I said before with grappling pushed to the forefront of new sublasses. You want something else that might be interesting? an unarmed (or pole arm) fighting style for crowd control/ throwing.
Technically these unarmed fighting mechanics exist (and have existed back since probably AD&D IIRC), but are underutilized and if anything, could really be a lot of fun, especially if you can utilize terrain for added damage or bonuses (tossing someone of a cliff, sure, but also just tossing 10 feet away from you and prone, with a possible dazed status, OR slam them into a wall for extra damage. Sentinel but range is 10 feet radius from your character rather than adjacent).
I just feel there's a lot left on the table that could be explored that simply isn't.
Sure. But if you read my initial comment once more, you will see that my only issue is with the term "monk", not the concept of a spiritual unarmed fighter.
But the thread isn't about the name, it's about the archetype of a western version of a spiritual unarmed fighter. The only thing that "Monk" means is that they're monastic in nature, which can be applied to a LOT of archetypes (militant, scholarly, and so on). This is just one many. And 40 years in, I doubt it makes much sense to actually change the class name.
But if they were to do that, I would probably suggest (Kick)Boxer or Pugilist. But they'd both be a little unsatisfying.
The thread is about the class, and the name of the class is clearly part of it. In particular when the cultural implications thereof are the point of the discussion. Also note that the initial post explicitly suggested renaming the class.
More importantly: According to wikipedia, "A monk (/mʌŋk/, from Greek: μοναχός, monachos, "single, solitary" via Latin monachus)[1][2] is a person who practices religious asceticism by living a monastic lifestyle" (emphasis mine). Although this might not be the strictest definition, at least the common interpretation of "monk" clearly ties it to religion. It is worth mentioning though, that the monks description int the PHB doesn't even mention religion...
However, even if you were to use a wider definition of the term monk, s.th. it just means isolation, meditation, ascetism, etc. not every monk is a fighter of any kind. In fact, only a very small subset of monks would qualify to be part of the Monk class. So this would be as if the Wizard class would be called Scholar, or the Rougue would be simply Expert.
Sure. But if you read my initial comment once more, you will see that my only issue is with the term "monk", not the concept of a spiritual unarmed fighter.
But the thread isn't about the name, it's about the archetype of a western version of a spiritual unarmed fighter. The only thing that "Monk" means is that they're monastic in nature, which can be applied to a LOT of archetypes (militant, scholarly, and so on). This is just one many. And 40 years in, I doubt it makes much sense to actually change the class name.
But if they were to do that, I would probably suggest (Kick)Boxer or Pugilist. But they'd both be a little unsatisfying.
Even if you were to use a wider definition of the term monk, s.th. it just means isolation, meditation, ascetism, etc. not every monk is a fighter of any kind. In fact, only a very small subset of monks would qualify to be part of the Monk class. So this would be as if the Wizard class would be called Scholar, or the Rougue would be simply Expert.
Or if the Cleric were called Cleric. Or if the Bard were called Bard. Or if the Barbarian were called Barbarian. Oh, wait...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Not sure what you mean here. Are there clerics in the dnd universe that don't qualify to be in the Cleric class?
The text of the bard specifically states that "not every musician is a Bard". So here the lore clearly distinguishes between real life bards and dnd Bards by restricting the term Bard to a specific subset of musicians.
With Barbarian it's actually the same issue as with the monk. Barbarian is a term the Romans used to describe the uncivillized (by their standards) peoples of Europe. So it is (a) a somewhat offensive term and (b) not every member of an uncivillized culture is a raging, axe swinging warrior. However, the term "barbarian" is associated with this archetype for decades far beyond the dnd community. This is not true at all for the term "monk". I guess that most (non-Asian) people , that aren't into anime, when they hear that you can play a monk in dnd, their first reaction might be something like "why would you play a monk?".
Not sure what you mean here. Are there clerics in the dnd universe that don't qualify to be in the Cleric class?
The text of the bard specifically states that "not every musician is a Bard". So here the lore clearly distinguishes between real life bards and dnd Bards.
With Barbarian it's actually the same issue as with the monk. Barbarian is a term the Romans used to describe the uncivillized (by their standards) peoples of Europe. So it is (a) a somewhat offensive term and (b) not every member of an uncivillized culture is a raging, axe swinging warrior. However, the term "barbarian" is associated with this archetype for decades far beyond the dnd community. This is not true at all for the term "monk".
Yes, most clerics in D&D are not actual capital-c Clerics.
Definition of cleric from the Oxford English Dictionary: "a priest or religious leader." From the class's description: "Not every acolyte or officiant at a temple or shrine is a cleric. Some priests are called to a simple life of temple service, carrying out their gods’ will through prayer and sacrifice, not by magic and strength of arms. True clerics are rare in most hierarchies."
Same problem arises with Bard, if you're using dictionary definitions.
Definition of bard from the Oxford English Dictionary: "a poet, traditionally one reciting epics and associated with a particular oral tradition." From the class's description: "True bards are not common in the world. Not every minstrel singing in a tavern or jester cavorting in a royal court is a bard."
So, if you're willing to accept new in-game definitions for those two words, why should Monk be any different?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Ah, right. Ok, so then it's the same for the Cleric as for the Bard. They explicitly distinguish between common priests and Clerics.
The difference for Cleric and Bard is, that they don't just redefine it without explicitly mentioning that it is a redefinition. IRL cleric and bard are somewhat synonym to other terms such as priest or musician. And they simply use the synonyms for the general case and preserve Cleric and Bard for those members of the respective group which also fullfill some additional criteria to qualify as a Cleric or Bard.
For the monk, they simply toss out the common interpretation of the term and use it to describe a martial artist. They don't even address the existence of regular monks that just serve a diety in a monastery. Maybe there simply is no such thing in the dnd universe and here, monk is simply a term used for acetic martial artists and maybe everyone in the dnd universe who lives an ascetic lifestyle automatically develops unarmed fighting skills.
But I guess that the most important point with the class name is actually only coming up when discussing the point of this thread: You can redefine Bard as those types of (real world) bards that can also use their music to do magic, Cleric as those types of (rw) clerics that can perform wonders, and Monk as those types of (rw) monks that also do martial arts. But this redefinition clearly ties the Monk to specific (Asian) real world cultures.
Very interesting discussion of the no Asian approach for the Monk by The Asians Represent Podcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u03o11iyWmE
In summary
When asked a question about the monk, a class that has relied on Asian stereotypes. This was Jeremy's response:
"How we're handling the monk is connected to how we are handling all of the classes. Here's what I mean by this. The monk absolutely has had that problem and that has been something on our long list of things we're going to improve this... In many ways, I think the core of the issue is that there is not enough non-European representation in the other classes. And so one of the things that we're doing, is making it so that there is non-European representation in all of the classes, so that when you get to the monk, you no longer feel like oh, this is the Asian class! Then, we're doing the flip with the monk. We're ensuring that there is non-Asian representation in the monk."
Maybe make the kensai the martial weapons sub-class? Also, I think shying away from the Asian influence on the monk is a kneejerk reaction spurred by the perpetually outraged few. Druid refers to a specific culture, but WotC isn't shying away from that. I think monk should be a celebration of the Asian inspiration, not ashamed of it.
Check out my books on Amazon - Jon R. Osborne
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-YXqOMcVirc
Yeah well Kensei is already that , the thing is, the Tibetan monk is such a stereotypical class that it gets boring quickly, it would be great to have a class of martial artists of any part of the world, in the end is just wording I guess, but the features sometimes it feels are focused in the Tibetan monk and with just a shift of mentality they could be more than that, and as they mentioned the Tiebatn Monk can be a subclass, Ninja another one, etc. They can celebrate the Asian culture and include other disciplines of martial arts.
I'm on the fence.
A lot has been done to fix problematic elements but it has also drained a lot of flavor.
I'm not upset about the species bit, but background now feel more flavorless except for a point bonus, and species still feel a bit lackluster. It makes more sense that you gain points from your training/background and species traits like darkvision and natural weapons may happen, but there needs some more balancing out options. (a lot of the species feel like swaps for one another, and so do the backgrounds).
In the same vein, the monk is not a bad change. Martial artist is not a bad rename either.
But some of the weapons based skills could be ported to the fighter, and honestly, a pugilist (think bare fisted barbarian) or a wrestler (grapples and restraints for days) based subclass would be nice.
I think the biggest problem is that One DnD is more of a reset than anything else, going back to player's handbook progressions only with a few tweaks, and a lot for making things more PC. (again, not against these nomenclature changes, just the flavor reset is jarring).
It's also worth bearing in mind, Tasha and supplements are still usable, so........Most of the changes are semantic.
Like JonROsborne said, druid in itself is a strictly Celtic term, and like Tibetan monk, it is also tied to a very specific culture and location. And the paladin is a term originating from medieval European knighthood. But who's got problem with either of those classes? Just extrapolate and reflavor these classes to any culture, it'll work. The real historical paladins were all white european christians, but nothing stops you from making a quasi-muslim paladin, communist paladin, or a Mesoamerican paladin who worships The Winged Serpent. Just the same, the fact that real historical monks were Tibetans, doesn't mean that you can't make an order of Slavic pagan monks, Samoan monks who unlock power with tattoos, or Indian battle dervishes.
Why? There are in fact both western and eastern monks. And Fighters can be Martial Artists too. The name "monk" is fine.
I prefer "Spirit" too, but "Disc" is easier to shorten so I don't care that much. Whatever they land on will likely be an improvement over "ki."
While there are western Monks, they are nothing like the monk represented by the dnd-class. If anything, a Christian monk would be associated with the Clerik, rather than the Monk.
I also think that a class named "Monk" should be in the Priest group, not the Warrior group, because first and foremost a real world monk is a servant to some diety - not a fist fighter! But then again, there would off course be no need for such a class because we already have the Clerik and the Paladin.
Calling the supernatural fist fighter "Monk" either implies that Monks of all dieties are supposed to be like the Shaolin (a), or it IS tieing them to a specific culture (b). The designers should decide which it's gonna be.
If (a), then Clerics should probably also have similar abilities.
If (b), there is no issue with calling it Ki and owning the fact that those culutures in the DnD universe that have those kind of Monks are derivative of the corresponding eastern cultures. Note that this might make the class setting specific...
or (c) just don't tie the class to religion and don't call it Monk (IMO the most reasonable option)
Sort of, but not really. First, "Western Monk" doesn't have to evoke "Christian Monk". Sure, in our world's real history, medieval period western monks were Christian, but we're talking about settings that are largely devoid of that influence. And Second: there is an ancient unarmed fighting tradition in the west, that has spiritual/religious tones to it, and predates Christianity (making it completely unaffected by removing Christianity from a setting).
There have been Western "Martial Artists" going as far back (at least) as Ancient Greece. They were wrestlers, boxers, and pankratiatists (practitioners of pankration). They completed in the ancient Olympics, which was a religious event, making them deeply connected to spirituality. (if you don't get that last part: during one of the Greco Persian wars, the Persians noted that the Greeks would put off or pause military conflict so that their warriors could engage in religious observations (the Olympics); the Persians considered the Greeks to be religious fanatics as a result -- one of the Persian invasions was specifically timed around that fact, in the hope that it would mean that the power houses of Greece would be busy being distracted by religious events and their warriors wouldn't be available to stop the invasion -- this is the whole reason why Pheidippides had to run the first marathon (from Marathon to Sparta), to get the Spartans to interrupt a religious festival and come to the defense of Athens). And Pankration was (in Greek Mythology) invented by Heracles and Theseus. In other words, developed by a Hero and a DemiGod. Theseus reportedly used Pankration in the defeat of the Minotaur. In the real world, the 1960s and 1970s revival and reconstruction of Pankration supposedly had a great deal of influence on early MMA.
So, mythologically speaking, Pankration is a system of semi-divine origin, religiously observed and practiced, mixed martial art that was used to fight and defeat monsters. And it has absolutely no dependence on Christian influence, as it predates Christianity by centuries. You don't need to bring up Christian monks in any way when discussing this model of a "western D&D monk."
There is also an arguable, but hotly debated, connection in the timeline of Alexander's invasion of the middle east, which almost certainly had pankratiatists in his army, and the origins of some of India's martial arts, which may have then influenced south east asian and east asian martial arts. (but it is STRONGLY debated, because timelines aren't perfect and it would also have a lot of implications about cultural identity, which you can expect makes the arguments very controversial). But the point I'm making here is NOT that "it's all descended from pankration anyway" (which I don't believe, I just recognize that it has been debated), but instead that there is enough similarity in ancient unarmed fighting type marital arts that pankration fits right in ... so much so that some people want to try to assert that it could have been the original martial art. And it ALSO fits in with contemporary MMA fighting.
It wouldn't be difficult at all to have the D&D Monk play up the fantasy and fantastic elements of Pankration's origin myths as the basis of an western/occidental/"non-asian" martial artist archetype. Complete with spiritual and divine tones to it. Thematically, Pankration looks more like MMA than Wuxia, but Monks don't necessarily have to be Wuxia themed.
That definitely was a nice little history lesson. Thanks!
To summarize: There are western martial arts as well as western monks. As far as I understand, pancratiatists were athletes. A monk is someone who fully commits his life to spiritual work. Even though the olympics were a religious thing, and even If the greeks were religious fanatics, that doesn't make their athletes monks.
But it does establish (within the lore) that pankration is a divinely powered/derived form of combat, which is no more nor less spiritually focused than the existing Monk class.
Sure. But if you read my initial comment once more, you will see that my only issue is with the term "monk", not the concept of a spiritual unarmed fighter.
But the thread isn't about the name, it's about the archetype of a western version of a spiritual unarmed fighter. The only thing that "Monk" means is that they're monastic in nature, which can be applied to a LOT of archetypes (militant, scholarly, and so on). This is just one many. And 40 years in, I doubt it makes much sense to actually change the class name.
But if they were to do that, I would probably suggest (Kick)Boxer or Pugilist. But they'd both be a little unsatisfying.
I also mentioned I wouldn’t mind the term Focus instead of discipline in another thread before I saw this video I’m sure there could be several alternatives WotC could use
They talk about Asian coded language that is a problem and also talk about point 3 above, in the OP, about simple weapons playing down traditional martial arts (I believe they specifically called out Chinese martial arts). So it’s bad to have Asian coded language but also bad they don’t have Asian coded weapons?
To be honest, I would be fine if they renamed the monk to something else. They could go complete fantasy and call them the Eldritch Fist and their discipline/Ki/sprit/focus power comes from somewhere else (not quite a warlock pact) or just the Weave or Multiverse or themselves, etc.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I disagre. IF you want western monastic traditions you have the cleric/priest. Western monks aren't fighters of any sort.
Boxer/Pugilist are basically what monks are now. It's flurry of blows, with some of those blows doing extra things, i.e., you can punch fancy.
I think calling it a martial artist actually opens up possibilities in subclasses that are otherwise missed, like I said before with grappling pushed to the forefront of new sublasses. You want something else that might be interesting? an unarmed (or pole arm) fighting style for crowd control/ throwing.
Technically these unarmed fighting mechanics exist (and have existed back since probably AD&D IIRC), but are underutilized and if anything, could really be a lot of fun, especially if you can utilize terrain for added damage or bonuses (tossing someone of a cliff, sure, but also just tossing 10 feet away from you and prone, with a possible dazed status, OR slam them into a wall for extra damage. Sentinel but range is 10 feet radius from your character rather than adjacent).
I just feel there's a lot left on the table that could be explored that simply isn't.
The thread is about the class, and the name of the class is clearly part of it. In particular when the cultural implications thereof are the point of the discussion. Also note that the initial post explicitly suggested renaming the class.
More importantly: According to wikipedia, "A monk (/mʌŋk/, from Greek: μοναχός, monachos, "single, solitary" via Latin monachus)[1][2] is a person who practices religious asceticism by living a monastic lifestyle" (emphasis mine). Although this might not be the strictest definition, at least the common interpretation of "monk" clearly ties it to religion. It is worth mentioning though, that the monks description int the PHB doesn't even mention religion...
However, even if you were to use a wider definition of the term monk, s.th. it just means isolation, meditation, ascetism, etc. not every monk is a fighter of any kind. In fact, only a very small subset of monks would qualify to be part of the Monk class. So this would be as if the Wizard class would be called Scholar, or the Rougue would be simply Expert.
Or if the Cleric were called Cleric. Or if the Bard were called Bard. Or if the Barbarian were called Barbarian. Oh, wait...
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Not sure what you mean here. Are there clerics in the dnd universe that don't qualify to be in the Cleric class?
The text of the bard specifically states that "not every musician is a Bard". So here the lore clearly distinguishes between real life bards and dnd Bards by restricting the term Bard to a specific subset of musicians.
With Barbarian it's actually the same issue as with the monk. Barbarian is a term the Romans used to describe the uncivillized (by their standards) peoples of Europe. So it is (a) a somewhat offensive term and (b) not every member of an uncivillized culture is a raging, axe swinging warrior. However, the term "barbarian" is associated with this archetype for decades far beyond the dnd community. This is not true at all for the term "monk". I guess that most (non-Asian) people , that aren't into anime, when they hear that you can play a monk in dnd, their first reaction might be something like "why would you play a monk?".
Yes, most clerics in D&D are not actual capital-c Clerics.
Definition of cleric from the Oxford English Dictionary: "a priest or religious leader."
From the class's description: "Not every acolyte or officiant at a temple or shrine is a cleric. Some priests are called to a simple life of temple service, carrying out their gods’ will through prayer and sacrifice, not by magic and strength of arms. True clerics are rare in most hierarchies."
Same problem arises with Bard, if you're using dictionary definitions.
Definition of bard from the Oxford English Dictionary: "a poet, traditionally one reciting epics and associated with a particular oral tradition."
From the class's description: "True bards are not common in the world. Not every minstrel singing in a tavern or jester cavorting in a royal court is a bard."
So, if you're willing to accept new in-game definitions for those two words, why should Monk be any different?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Ah, right. Ok, so then it's the same for the Cleric as for the Bard. They explicitly distinguish between common priests and Clerics.
The difference for Cleric and Bard is, that they don't just redefine it without explicitly mentioning that it is a redefinition. IRL cleric and bard are somewhat synonym to other terms such as priest or musician. And they simply use the synonyms for the general case and preserve Cleric and Bard for those members of the respective group which also fullfill some additional criteria to qualify as a Cleric or Bard.
For the monk, they simply toss out the common interpretation of the term and use it to describe a martial artist. They don't even address the existence of regular monks that just serve a diety in a monastery. Maybe there simply is no such thing in the dnd universe and here, monk is simply a term used for acetic martial artists and maybe everyone in the dnd universe who lives an ascetic lifestyle automatically develops unarmed fighting skills.
But I guess that the most important point with the class name is actually only coming up when discussing the point of this thread: You can redefine Bard as those types of (real world) bards that can also use their music to do magic, Cleric as those types of (rw) clerics that can perform wonders, and Monk as those types of (rw) monks that also do martial arts. But this redefinition clearly ties the Monk to specific (Asian) real world cultures.