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.
"Western monks aren't fighters of any sort" is completely and totally false.
There were three ordained militant monastic orders. The members of those orders were Ordained Clergy of the Catholic Church. They were Militant organizations. They were Monastic organizations, with all of the same trappings as the Franciscans, Benedictines, etc. They were Monks in every bit the same way as the Monks of Shaolin, but with a different set of skills, tools, and weapons in their arsenal. And I bet you could even come up with a lot of parallel events (in broad strokes: travelers, involved in a major set of "wars", and ultimately suppressed by a secular authority, a great deal of fantasy and exaggeration in their modern legends) between the first group of western warrior monks and the Shaolin monks:
The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon
The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta
The order of Brothers of the German House of Saint Mary in Jerusalem
Or, as there more commonly known: The Knights Templar, the Knights Hospitaller, and the Teutonic Knights (respectively).
They are every bit "Warrior Monks" and "Western Monks who can fight." There is no way you can use the actual* definitions of either of those terms and not apply them to those 3 groups. (* meaning "dictionary definitions, and not limited to D&D cliches")
In 5e and OneD&D terms, those would all be War Domain Clerics and/or Clerics who picked the "Protector" for the OneD&D "Holy/Divine Order". Paladins can also work into that, but Paladins are a little different in their 5e and OneD&D conception, so it's not as perfect a fit as "Protector + War Domain Cleric" when talking about "Western Monks who can fight." Paladins in OneD&D and 5e are more like Galahad, Ivanhoe, and Joan of Arc: laity knights with a divine calling (ie. non-monks).
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.
Except that they're called "Unarmed Strikes" and not "Punches" exactly because unarmed strikes include kicks, elbows, knees, and head butting. It's baked into the class description (or was in the past). The main problem is more that they don't always give grappling arts as much attention as striking arts. The OneD&D rules seem to give a slight bit more nod to Monks having grappling options, but they haven't ever (as far as I recall) been limited to punch fancy pugilists.
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.
Unarmed Fighting style already exists (in 5e rules), with an application to Grappling (throws and locks/controls being in the grappling category) as well as strikes, it just needs to be brought forward for OneD&D.
Crowd control via Pole arms is probably something that should have been in PAM or a comparable feat.
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.
You're not wrong... but it's not really in the scope of the post.
The 1e "Oriental Adventures" book has a really neat and detailed unarmed fighting styles system, that could probably be mirrored by the Weapon Mastery system. A bunch of techniques that could all be written up in ways comparable to Weapon Masteries, that Monks a few of them at 1st and 2nd levels, and then a few more as they go up in level. Actually, I think I'm going to write that up for the play test 6 feedback.
There were three ordained militant monastic orders. ...
Once again, a very much appreciated history lesson.
But if we consider those Western monks, shouldn't the Monk just be an unarmed, unarmored Paladin subclass (or vice versa)?
As a matter of diction? No. As a matter of D&D classes? Again, no. I think an unarmed and/or unarmored Paladin is a bit different from a D&D Monk. Same with unarmed and/or unarmored Cleric. The D&D Monk is yet again a different archetype. The Paladin and the Cleric both have spells, and other things that enhance their martial prowess in ways that aren't really a direct mapping to a D&D Monk. And while I definitely want to see a 1/3 caster subclass of the Monk (that can pick which of the 3 main spell lists they draw from), and wouldn't mind seeing an unarmed fighter subclass for the Paladin and Cleric, I still wouldn't reduce the D&D Monk to those two subclasses.
There were three ordained militant monastic orders. ...
But if we consider those Western monks, shouldn't the Monk just be an unarmed, unarmored Paladin subclass (or vice versa)?
As a matter of diction? No. As a matter of D&D classes? Again, no. ...
So Western and Eastern warrior monks would be different classes. And the only warrior monks that qualify for the Monk class still are the Eastern ones, which makes your very long comment about the Christian monk-knights somewhat irrelevant for this topic, no?
There were three ordained militant monastic orders. ...
But if we consider those Western monks, shouldn't the Monk just be an unarmed, unarmored Paladin subclass (or vice versa)?
As a matter of diction? No. As a matter of D&D classes? Again, no. ...
So Western and Eastern warrior monks would be different classes. And the only warrior monks that qualify for the Monk class still are the Eastern ones, which makes your very long comment about the Christian monk-knights somewhat irrelevant for this topic, no?
You're the one who brought up western monks, not me.
The thing about "Western monks" is that there is a popular fantasy archetype associated with such people who existed in history.
Said archetype...is the Paladin~
Before 5e, you could say it was somewhat the Cleric and somewhat the Paladin, but the Paladin somewhat included the non-ordained holy knights (Galahad, Ivanhoe, and Joan for example), as well as the more martially focused ordained holy knights. Clerics were always about a sort of muddling of the militant and non-militant orders.
In 5e, it's not the Paladin at all. If someone did an Oath of the Temple (or Pilgrims), or Oath of Hospital, or Oath of the Saints, it might work, but they still wouldn't necessarily be ordained clergy unless you specifically work that into those oaths. But as it is currently written in 5e, Paladins aren't mentioned to be actual ordained clergy. They are laity, but not exactly lay knights, either. Western "warrior monks" were ordained, and not laity.
In 5e, "ordained militant monastic orders" are all on the Cleric (especially the War Domain).
Here's a thing about D&D Barbarians. They're powered by Primal magics. Oh, they're not casting spells, and they still have Rage. But if you look at their abilities, references to animals, primal instincts and nature all over the place.
Much as the Druid is a Primal mirror to the Divine Cleric, the half-caster, skirmisher Ranger a kind of mirror to the half-caster, tanky knight Paladin, I like to think of the Monk as a kind of Divine reflection of the Primal Barbarian. They're both speedsters, they both have spiritual aspects to their physical might, though one is long rest, STR based and the other is short rest DEX based.
Historic christian warrior-monks are, indeed, closer to Paladin than Monk, but Europe does have martial art traditions outside of Christianity. I'm really not a fan of holding up Christianity as an example of what D&D can do, because in all honestly? Not only is this a game, but pseudo-European fantasy stories generally aren't just inspired by Christianity. They're also inspired by Greco-roman things, with bits of Egypt, Arabia, Celtic, the Norse. And we know those had quite the number of martial-religious orders in their cultures.
And this is a fantasy game. At no point are we beholden to what actual Medieval European / Mediterranean cultures were like. Nothing stops us from adding them in. "You approach a temple to Pelor, the sun god. Inside, you find Paladins with Oaths of Devotion, Clerics who follow the Light, and warrior Monks who mediate upon the path of the Sun Soul." "Vecna has, amongst their followers, Oathbreaker Paladins, Death Clerics, and Long-Death Monks, all of whom meditate upon the mysteries of, well, Death."
I can't tell you how many times in some random anime show you randomly find a priest or nun that doesn't cast any spells, but rather they're a barefisted brawler in a smock or habit, ostensibly of the Way of Mercy so they're still healers. If anime can pull it off and it doesn't feel forced... why can't D&D?
There were three ordained militant monastic orders. ...
But if we consider those Western monks, shouldn't the Monk just be an unarmed, unarmored Paladin subclass (or vice versa)?
As a matter of diction? No. As a matter of D&D classes? Again, no. ...
So Western and Eastern warrior monks would be different classes. And the only warrior monks that qualify for the Monk class still are the Eastern ones, which makes your very long comment about the Christian monk-knights somewhat irrelevant for this topic, no?
You're the one who brought up western monks, not me.
That's not true at all! I simply responded to the one brining up western monks:
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.
...
And as you see I also mentioned that those Western monks are in fact already represented by the Cleric.
Historic christian warrior-monks are, indeed, closer to Paladin than Monk, but Europe does have martial art traditions outside of Christianity. I'm really not a fan of holding up Christianity as an example of what D&D can do, because in all honestly? Not only is this a game, but pseudo-European fantasy stories generally aren't just inspired by Christianity. They're also inspired by Greco-roman things, with bits of Egypt, Arabia, Celtic, the Norse. And we know those had quite the number of martial-religious orders in their cultures.
Is that so? Up until now we heard of european martial artists as well as european warrior monks. The former werent a religious order, the latter werent unarmed fighters. Has there actually been some sort of monastic order in Europe, that practiced unarmed martial arts?
And this is a fantasy game. At no point are we beholden to what actual Medieval European / Mediterranean cultures were like. Nothing stops us from adding them in. "You approach a temple to Pelor, the sun god. Inside, you find Paladins with Oaths of Devotion, Clerics who follow the Light, and warrior Monks who mediate upon the path of the Sun Soul." "Vecna has, amongst their followers, Oathbreaker Paladins, Death Clerics, and Long-Death Monks, all of whom meditate upon the mysteries of, well, Death."
I like that approach!
I still don't find it convincing though that apparently every monk practices unarmed combat (as a way to follow their faith) but neither Clerics nor Paladins share those practices. Also, while this may be fine for a fantasy setting, it is still obvous that the concept is based on a specific type of Asian monks - whether thy call it Ki or not.
Historic christian warrior-monks are, indeed, closer to Paladin than Monk, but Europe does have martial art traditions outside of Christianity. I'm really not a fan of holding up Christianity as an example of what D&D can do, because in all honestly? Not only is this a game, but pseudo-European fantasy stories generally aren't just inspired by Christianity. They're also inspired by Greco-roman things, with bits of Egypt, Arabia, Celtic, the Norse. And we know those had quite the number of martial-religious orders in their cultures.
Is that so? Up until now we heard of european martial artists as well as european warrior monks. The former werent a religious order, the latter werent unarmed fighters. Has there actually been some sort of monastic order in Europe, that practiced unarmed martial arts?
And this is a fantasy game. At no point are we beholden to what actual Medieval European / Mediterranean cultures were like. Nothing stops us from adding them in. "You approach a temple to Pelor, the sun god. Inside, you find Paladins with Oaths of Devotion, Clerics who follow the Light, and warrior Monks who mediate upon the path of the Sun Soul." "Vecna has, amongst their followers, Oathbreaker Paladins, Death Clerics, and Long-Death Monks, all of whom meditate upon the mysteries of, well, Death."
I like that approach!
I still don't find it convincing though that apparently every monk practices unarmed combat (as a way to follow their faith) but neither Clerics nor Paladins share those practices. Also, while this may be fine for a fantasy setting, it is still obvous that the concept is based on a specific type of Asian monks - whether thy call it Ki or not.
A few things to keep in mind. Historic European martial arts have largely been lost or transformed across time. And I'm far from an expert on the matter. But there's been martial religious orders throughout history and across religions. A number of which were poor (thus focusing on unarmored and unarmed fighting, just like old Asian renelous monks and modern Krav Maga designed to fight soldiers with guns.
Unarmed combat really isn't a way to follow faith. Rather, the monk archetype is based on the idea that the religious orders sided with peasants against opression because of their faith. They couldn't afford fancy weapons or armor (or has vows of poverty).
Thus the simple weapons based on peasant tools and unarmed, unarmored fighting against evil.
There's also traces of Buddhism in that Enlightenment and detachment from the materialism/worldly desires brings a level of mystic connection to the power of the heavens, which is very D&D.
Friar Tuck is a Western Monk, and frequently given that label. He also, in several tales, kicked a lot of ***, including Robin Hood's. The archetype exists. "Monk" is fine.
“But this redefinition clearly ties the Monk to specific (Asian) real world cultures.”
In the real world, but not in DnD. In this fantasy setting monasteries seem to practice a lot of martial arts. The Scarlet Brotherhood isn’t Asian. Most DnD settings have an analogue to Asia. Most DnD settings are Eurocentric (knights, dragons, fairies, the list goes on) but they don’t have to be and the rules favor the choice but don’t actually demand it.
Players can play wuxia monks, samurai fighters, ninja rogues, or any number of Asian folklore/pop culture types. But they can also westernize ‘martial arts’ any way they like. I think Jeremy Crawford was right: the issue of providing different players the ability to follow their own imaginations in ways that track traditions in the real world is as much about options available (or emphasized) in other classes as it is about the monk class.
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.
The only paladin that matters is a gunslinger, he has a gun and he will travel.
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.
Just thought I'd point out: "Tibetan Monk" isn't the basis of the class. It's "Shaolin Monk" as stereotyped in the "Kung Fu" tv series, and mixed with the presentation of the story in the movie "Circle of Iron" (both being derived from ideas created by Bruce Lee), and heavily influenced by the "Destroyer" book series. A _ton_ of the 1e flavor for the class comes from "Circle of Iron".
Shaolin isn't in/near Tibet, and the form of Buddhism taught at Shaolin isn't even Tibetan Buddhism (it's Chan Buddhism). Tibetan Monks aren't really known for Martial Arts (there are one or two variants of Kung Fu that are associated with Tibetans outside of Tibet, but not with Tibetan Buddhism). In that regard, Tibetan Monks are more like non-militant Western Monks in that they're cloistered, religious, and focused on knowledge and spiritual pursuits (but with a very different religion and monastic practice, obviously).
I expect that the Kensei will be renamed "Warrior of Weapons", "Warrior of Blades", or something like that.
Also, while this may be fine for a fantasy setting, it is still obvous that the concept is based on a specific type of Asian monks - whether thy call it Ki or not.
I guess you are right with the assumption - and one of the reasons why I personally dislike the monk class. It feels like a stereotype but that has more to do with the naming convention and myself than with the "class"
Because when this discussion comes up i always mention a very well known western drunken fighter monk - just change the word monk to friar and think of Robin hood ! :)
Is very interesting to see that everyone argument is "is fine the way is now" like just for the sake to keep tradition, nor because is good choice, but I won't go to discuss that as is in human nature.
What I do would like to see is a way to create other style martial artists and since you want to make impossible from this class, It would be nice to have a martial arts feat.
For example, there is a paladin call Oath of Glory, based on athletes on the antique Greece, this athletes were good on many disciplines, one of the them is the pankration, a form of box and wrestling combined, so having this feat and using unarmed strikes only, and using smite with punch would be cool. And before you say multiclass, no that is very MAD, but ok let's keep the classes concepts the way they are because tradition.
Just thought I'd point out: "Tibetan Monk" isn't the basis of the class. It's "Shaolin Monk" as stereotyped in the "Kung Fu" tv series, and mixed with the presentation of the story in the movie "Circle of Iron" (both being derived from ideas created by Bruce Lee), and heavily influenced by the "Destroyer" book series. A _ton_ of the 1e flavor for the class comes from "Circle of Iron".
Shaolin isn't in/near Tibet, and the form of Buddhism taught at Shaolin isn't even Tibetan Buddhism (it's Chan Buddhism). Tibetan Monks aren't really known for Martial Arts (there are one or two variants of Kung Fu that are associated with Tibetans outside of Tibet, but not with Tibetan Buddhism). In that regard, Tibetan Monks are more like non-militant Western Monks in that they're cloistered, religious, and focused on knowledge and spiritual pursuits (but with a very different religion and monastic practice, obviously).
Oh thanks I tough they were the same, very cool to learn this!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"Western monks aren't fighters of any sort" is completely and totally false.
There were three ordained militant monastic orders. The members of those orders were Ordained Clergy of the Catholic Church. They were Militant organizations. They were Monastic organizations, with all of the same trappings as the Franciscans, Benedictines, etc. They were Monks in every bit the same way as the Monks of Shaolin, but with a different set of skills, tools, and weapons in their arsenal. And I bet you could even come up with a lot of parallel events (in broad strokes: travelers, involved in a major set of "wars", and ultimately suppressed by a secular authority, a great deal of fantasy and exaggeration in their modern legends) between the first group of western warrior monks and the Shaolin monks:
Or, as there more commonly known: The Knights Templar, the Knights Hospitaller, and the Teutonic Knights (respectively).
They are every bit "Warrior Monks" and "Western Monks who can fight." There is no way you can use the actual* definitions of either of those terms and not apply them to those 3 groups.
(* meaning "dictionary definitions, and not limited to D&D cliches")
In 5e and OneD&D terms, those would all be War Domain Clerics and/or Clerics who picked the "Protector" for the OneD&D "Holy/Divine Order". Paladins can also work into that, but Paladins are a little different in their 5e and OneD&D conception, so it's not as perfect a fit as "Protector + War Domain Cleric" when talking about "Western Monks who can fight." Paladins in OneD&D and 5e are more like Galahad, Ivanhoe, and Joan of Arc: laity knights with a divine calling (ie. non-monks).
Except that they're called "Unarmed Strikes" and not "Punches" exactly because unarmed strikes include kicks, elbows, knees, and head butting. It's baked into the class description (or was in the past). The main problem is more that they don't always give grappling arts as much attention as striking arts. The OneD&D rules seem to give a slight bit more nod to Monks having grappling options, but they haven't ever (as far as I recall) been limited to punch fancy pugilists.
Unarmed Fighting style already exists (in 5e rules), with an application to Grappling (throws and locks/controls being in the grappling category) as well as strikes, it just needs to be brought forward for OneD&D.
Crowd control via Pole arms is probably something that should have been in PAM or a comparable feat.
You're not wrong... but it's not really in the scope of the post.
The 1e "Oriental Adventures" book has a really neat and detailed unarmed fighting styles system, that could probably be mirrored by the Weapon Mastery system. A bunch of techniques that could all be written up in ways comparable to Weapon Masteries, that Monks a few of them at 1st and 2nd levels, and then a few more as they go up in level. Actually, I think I'm going to write that up for the play test 6 feedback.
Once again, a very much appreciated history lesson.
But if we consider those Western monks, shouldn't the Monk just be an unarmed, unarmored Paladin subclass (or vice versa)?
As a matter of diction? No.
As a matter of D&D classes? Again, no. I think an unarmed and/or unarmored Paladin is a bit different from a D&D Monk. Same with unarmed and/or unarmored Cleric. The D&D Monk is yet again a different archetype. The Paladin and the Cleric both have spells, and other things that enhance their martial prowess in ways that aren't really a direct mapping to a D&D Monk. And while I definitely want to see a 1/3 caster subclass of the Monk (that can pick which of the 3 main spell lists they draw from), and wouldn't mind seeing an unarmed fighter subclass for the Paladin and Cleric, I still wouldn't reduce the D&D Monk to those two subclasses.
I gave my suggestion for an overhaul of the OneD&D Monk over in the "Pugilistic Propositions" thread.
So Western and Eastern warrior monks would be different classes. And the only warrior monks that qualify for the Monk class still are the Eastern ones, which makes your very long comment about the Christian monk-knights somewhat irrelevant for this topic, no?
You're the one who brought up western monks, not me.
Before 5e, you could say it was somewhat the Cleric and somewhat the Paladin, but the Paladin somewhat included the non-ordained holy knights (Galahad, Ivanhoe, and Joan for example), as well as the more martially focused ordained holy knights. Clerics were always about a sort of muddling of the militant and non-militant orders.
In 5e, it's not the Paladin at all. If someone did an Oath of the Temple (or Pilgrims), or Oath of Hospital, or Oath of the Saints, it might work, but they still wouldn't necessarily be ordained clergy unless you specifically work that into those oaths. But as it is currently written in 5e, Paladins aren't mentioned to be actual ordained clergy. They are laity, but not exactly lay knights, either. Western "warrior monks" were ordained, and not laity.
In 5e, "ordained militant monastic orders" are all on the Cleric (especially the War Domain).
Here's a thing about D&D Barbarians. They're powered by Primal magics. Oh, they're not casting spells, and they still have Rage. But if you look at their abilities, references to animals, primal instincts and nature all over the place.
Much as the Druid is a Primal mirror to the Divine Cleric, the half-caster, skirmisher Ranger a kind of mirror to the half-caster, tanky knight Paladin, I like to think of the Monk as a kind of Divine reflection of the Primal Barbarian. They're both speedsters, they both have spiritual aspects to their physical might, though one is long rest, STR based and the other is short rest DEX based.
Historic christian warrior-monks are, indeed, closer to Paladin than Monk, but Europe does have martial art traditions outside of Christianity. I'm really not a fan of holding up Christianity as an example of what D&D can do, because in all honestly? Not only is this a game, but pseudo-European fantasy stories generally aren't just inspired by Christianity. They're also inspired by Greco-roman things, with bits of Egypt, Arabia, Celtic, the Norse. And we know those had quite the number of martial-religious orders in their cultures.
And this is a fantasy game. At no point are we beholden to what actual Medieval European / Mediterranean cultures were like. Nothing stops us from adding them in. "You approach a temple to Pelor, the sun god. Inside, you find Paladins with Oaths of Devotion, Clerics who follow the Light, and warrior Monks who mediate upon the path of the Sun Soul." "Vecna has, amongst their followers, Oathbreaker Paladins, Death Clerics, and Long-Death Monks, all of whom meditate upon the mysteries of, well, Death."
I can't tell you how many times in some random anime show you randomly find a priest or nun that doesn't cast any spells, but rather they're a barefisted brawler in a smock or habit, ostensibly of the Way of Mercy so they're still healers. If anime can pull it off and it doesn't feel forced... why can't D&D?
edit - cassock, not smock
That's not true at all! I simply responded to the one brining up western monks:
And as you see I also mentioned that those Western monks are in fact already represented by the Cleric.
Is that so? Up until now we heard of european martial artists as well as european warrior monks. The former werent a religious order, the latter werent unarmed fighters. Has there actually been some sort of monastic order in Europe, that practiced unarmed martial arts?
I like that approach!
I still don't find it convincing though that apparently every monk practices unarmed combat (as a way to follow their faith) but neither Clerics nor Paladins share those practices. Also, while this may be fine for a fantasy setting, it is still obvous that the concept is based on a specific type of Asian monks - whether thy call it Ki or not.
A few things to keep in mind. Historic European martial arts have largely been lost or transformed across time. And I'm far from an expert on the matter. But there's been martial religious orders throughout history and across religions. A number of which were poor (thus focusing on unarmored and unarmed fighting, just like old Asian renelous monks and modern Krav Maga designed to fight soldiers with guns.
Unarmed combat really isn't a way to follow faith. Rather, the monk archetype is based on the idea that the religious orders sided with peasants against opression because of their faith. They couldn't afford fancy weapons or armor (or has vows of poverty).
Thus the simple weapons based on peasant tools and unarmed, unarmored fighting against evil.
There's also traces of Buddhism in that Enlightenment and detachment from the materialism/worldly desires brings a level of mystic connection to the power of the heavens, which is very D&D.
Friar Tuck is a Western Monk, and frequently given that label. He also, in several tales, kicked a lot of ***, including Robin Hood's. The archetype exists. "Monk" is fine.
“But this redefinition clearly ties the Monk to specific (Asian) real world cultures.”
In the real world, but not in DnD. In this fantasy setting monasteries seem to practice a lot of martial arts. The Scarlet Brotherhood isn’t Asian. Most DnD settings have an analogue to Asia. Most DnD settings are Eurocentric (knights, dragons, fairies, the list goes on) but they don’t have to be and the rules favor the choice but don’t actually demand it.
Players can play wuxia monks, samurai fighters, ninja rogues, or any number of Asian folklore/pop culture types. But they can also westernize ‘martial arts’ any way they like. I think Jeremy Crawford was right: the issue of providing different players the ability to follow their own imaginations in ways that track traditions in the real world is as much about options available (or emphasized) in other classes as it is about the monk class.
The only paladin that matters is a gunslinger, he has a gun and he will travel.
But where does he roam? Somewhere far, far from home?
Just thought I'd point out: "Tibetan Monk" isn't the basis of the class. It's "Shaolin Monk" as stereotyped in the "Kung Fu" tv series, and mixed with the presentation of the story in the movie "Circle of Iron" (both being derived from ideas created by Bruce Lee), and heavily influenced by the "Destroyer" book series. A _ton_ of the 1e flavor for the class comes from "Circle of Iron".
Shaolin isn't in/near Tibet, and the form of Buddhism taught at Shaolin isn't even Tibetan Buddhism (it's Chan Buddhism). Tibetan Monks aren't really known for Martial Arts (there are one or two variants of Kung Fu that are associated with Tibetans outside of Tibet, but not with Tibetan Buddhism). In that regard, Tibetan Monks are more like non-militant Western Monks in that they're cloistered, religious, and focused on knowledge and spiritual pursuits (but with a very different religion and monastic practice, obviously).
I expect that the Kensei will be renamed "Warrior of Weapons", "Warrior of Blades", or something like that.
Thank you, John. history is always interesting.
I guess you are right with the assumption - and one of the reasons why I personally dislike the monk class. It feels like a stereotype but that has more to do with the naming convention and myself than with the "class"
Because when this discussion comes up i always mention a very well known western drunken fighter monk - just change the word monk to friar and think of Robin hood ! :)
Is very interesting to see that everyone argument is "is fine the way is now" like just for the sake to keep tradition, nor because is good choice, but I won't go to discuss that as is in human nature.
What I do would like to see is a way to create other style martial artists and since you want to make impossible from this class, It would be nice to have a martial arts feat.
For example, there is a paladin call Oath of Glory, based on athletes on the antique Greece, this athletes were good on many disciplines, one of the them is the pankration, a form of box and wrestling combined, so having this feat and using unarmed strikes only, and using smite with punch would be cool. And before you say multiclass, no that is very MAD, but ok let's keep the classes concepts the way they are because tradition.
Oh thanks I tough they were the same, very cool to learn this!