Why are monks associated with Hand-to-hand- combat in rpgs?
>>98170926Forced character contrivence.Martial arts is inextricably associated with asia and the !shaolin monk is the ultimate, easy to recognize idea that the character is a martial artist that uses their fists.
>>98170926Monks in D&D are shaolin monks.
Oh great, a third single sentence non-topic spam threadIf you MUST take the bait, please do your best not to bump this shit
>>98170978Huh?
Because the people who made D&D were into martial arts movies at the time they were created. You can use a search engine. I'm sure there's 50000 youtube videos explaining this. Stop making inane posts you glowie faggot.
>>98170926https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu_(1972_TV_series)
>>98170926Why do you refuse to play traditional games?
>>98170926Monk means Buddhist monk in D&D terms, Martial Artist would be more accurate but they want each class to be a single word. Pugilist works, but that implies they only punch.It might not carry the same context, but I could imagine Cultivator becoming an option, as wuxia-style cultivation stories become more popular in the west.
This is one of those stupid asinine fucking questions that is so obvious that I can't understand anyone asking it in good faithIts like asking "why is air so popular in RPGs"?
>>98172315There's a lot of different type of fighters in wuxia and shoving them all into just "monk" is a mistake imoIn wuxia movies they're usually rivals of the wudang school, Taoists and Taoism is where a lot of the cultivator stuff comes from
>>98172479The counterpoint to that would be that by replacing the Monk with a Cultivator class, they could have a wider variety of fighting styles.
>>98172467A full 80% of the people posting today weren't alive when the kind of media you posted was made.
Exactly one fag gives any level of a shit about cultivation here on /tg/ but back in the 70s everyone watched Kung Fu and then ninja movies.
>>98172558Same could be said of LotR. But OP would still look like a dumbass if they asked why elves in rpgs were commonly associated with archery.
>>98172315>>98172479>>98172496That's the problem when the idea of using your fist to fight is such an exotic thing that the only way you can justify it is to make it the exclusive aspect of a class. It's almost as retarded as making a gunslinger class.Even then, looking back on old kung-fu movies, the characters all fit various archetypes you'd find in other classes and they all used martial arts, even the literal wizards.It's really strange when you think about it. In a world of magic and dragons, punching someone is a bridge too far that some people can't overcome in their imaginations.
>>98170949Is this a Viking-style Monk? I’d love to hear more on ways Monks in other cultures might work.
>>98172599The idea is more that it's exotic being able to punch people who are armed with swords.In anything resembling real life a swordsman should automatically win against a boxer. Straight out the advantage you have is immense.There's a lot of yeahbuts like "what if the boxer also has armour" and "grappling with misericordes" and the like but Mike Tyson in ring gear vs a knight in armour should never ever result in a Tyson victory.So a monk (the archetype revolved only and specifically around the wandering shaolin archetype from Kung Fu and was specifically ignorant of basically any authentic Asian culture) combines the ability to put up a fight while unarmed and unarmoured with mystical powers that are ill-defined and different from anything known to the Western-style adventurers. The whole thing is a throwback to an earlier and considerably more ignorant era of pop culture to the one we're in now (a low bar).
>>98172635You tell me.>>98172644>The idea is more that it's exotic being able to punch people who are armed with swords.What level of "realism" are we going for here because a knight in full armor going up against some kind of troll or ogre that's throwing it's hands around doesn't seem all that much different.>But they're not humanAnd magic doesn't exist in real life. In anycase, the wondering monk would also have a weapon as well and shaolin teaches plenty of weapons skills yet the D&D monk can only use the specific "kung fu" weapons as if a sword is beyond their ability to use.In the end, it's a matter of taste and what you were exposed to and people trying to enforce some iron clad idea on how certain ideas should be expressed.
I wish monks were a sub-genre of punchfaggotry. Punchfags should be normal by default with the ability to gain supernatural stuff as a choice.
>>98172662>In the end, it's a matter of taste and what you were exposed to and people trying to enforce some iron clad idea on how certain ideas should be expressed.Yes, this exactly. That's what OP asked about, and what I've tried to explain.
>>98172671So you should have a class that is shit? There's no way having no weapon should be as good as having one. Monks need mystical bullshit to not have to deal with this basic logic leap. If you could beat a guy with swords with your fists, nobody would use swords.>but my guy is REALLY GOOD at punching!so you want supernatural stuff.
>>98172678>so you want supernatural stuff.Not that anon but why is this a hang-up? If you can do magical superhuman shit with a sword through training then doing magical, superhuman shit with your fist isn't that big of a stretch.
>>9817268And that's just the Monk. Anon is saying supernatural stuff should be optional for the punchy-guy class. I think that's retarded and you're going to do one of the following:>1. going to make it shit>2. going to make "carrying a weapon" the suboptimal choice (which is retarded)>3. going to make the supernatural fighting guy class, but you don't call any of it supernatural (which is extra retarded)
>>98172678Even your example doesn't work. Most systems still create enhanceable hand wraps to allow for augmented unarmed in the way weapons upgrade so clearly even the Monk magicfaggotry proved insufficient.Anyway my statement was more aimed at Ki Pools and more aggressively supernatural shit, not the basic suspension of disbelief stuff that a person could punch something relatively hard.
>>98172684Most of the time Fighters and Barbarians don't do anything particularly superhuman with their attacks. Just "stab really hard" and maybe "stab lots of times."
>>98172558And yet a lot of them grew up with Dragon Ball(trunks was literally a monk early on), Avatar the Last Airbender(it's why aang fights with a staff), it's literally in the name of Xiaolin Showdown. The 00s saw a resurgence in people being into martial arts again
>>98172698>Most systems still create enhanceable hand wraps to allow for augmented unarmed in the way weapons upgrade so clearly even the Monk magicfaggotry proved insufficient.That's JRPG shit so one class isn't arbitrarily excluded from equipment progression. It does not actually occur in most TTRPGs because that's retarded.
>>98172700What criteria are we using to gauge what is and isn't superhuman? I would imagine most of the shit you're expected to fight requires superhuman effort to deal with them unless you're suggesting a real life dude in full plate can square up against a dragon or a giant, or [insert D&D monster here]
>>98172714That's literally 3.5/PF1 bro. Hell, even Amulet of Mighty Fists exists because they recognized it was an issue that needed sorted but the cost was too high to justify ergo the hand wraps.
>>98172722To be fair, you're absolutely right there. Most of the monster manual should smash human combatants to bits.Fundamentally, none of the usual dungeon fantasy stuff makes a lot of sense, and we all just have blindspots from cultural indoctrination.
>>98172750It's funny. In 3.5 there were NPC classes that were low tier version of the PC classes so there was a distinct difference between a Warrior and a Fighter implying that the Warrior just didn't have the potential for power and greatness that the Fighter possessed.Also, using this point to settle another point:>If you could use punch magic everyone would be doing itEven if you were Swords McSwordman the fact that you are strong enough to do that doesn't mean you couldn't crack someone's back with your bare hands, it's just that the guy who learned punch magic is better at killing people that way better then you are with your hands and nothing stops the punch magic guy from using a sword aside from some stupid contrivence.You can also think of it this way. Is the fighter completely incapable of wielding a gun just because a gunslinger exists?
>>98172722>>98172788It's really funny how this specific pose became an entire fetish genre in Japan
>>98172315>>98172496I always liked Youxia as a new name for that kind of class.
>>98170926>why are martial artists associated with hand-to-hand combatWhy the fuck are you so retarded?
>>98172599>Even then, looking back on old kung-fu movies, the characters all fit various archetypes you'd find in other classes and they all used martial arts, even the literal wizardsBecause it's its own genre with its own conventions and archetypes. You got shaolin monks who are bound by pacifism so they only fight in self defense and don't use swords, then you got wandering swordsmen with some basic martial arts, or guys who only use martial arts and sometimes can shoot chi or literally fly, then you got taoists who can go full xianxia depending on the work, and guys literally flying on swords.D&D managed to shove centuries of fantasy into itself, but because martial arts movies were pretty new and just starting to influence western stuff(like Kung Fu), all of THAT got shoved into one class
>>98170926I think monk works best when you focus less on the punchy (although I do love the punchy) and more on the willpower/wisdom. The character doesn’t need armor or weapons because their force of will is their armor/weapon. “Oh you have full plate and 30 ways to stab me, I don’t fucking care, I’m still going to bitchslap you. Oh you wanna fling spells now too? Don’t give a fuck. Is that a dragon? Hold my beer imma go choke it out” Weaponized stubbornness is what it’s all about
>>98172704Not trunks, krillin, I'm a retard
>>98172865But putting hands on an enemy is not something that is new and is present in most works. Beowulf chocking the shit out of Grendel, Conan bashing dudes with his bare hands when he didn't have a weapon immediately on hand.The core problem is that punching was made an exclusive trait of one class rather than the class being uniquely expert in one aspect of the game's mechanics. A rogue could punch people but they can't (and shouldn't) punch people like a Monk because somehow punching and wrestling are treated as "unrealistic" things you'd do in combat against a guy in full plate and a sword in a world where you are expected to fight demons and one-eyed floating heads with eye stalks that can shoot disintegration beams at you.
If OP was an human, I would find kinda based that he fully expected monks in dnd to be western monks tough
>>98172895>>98172788If fighting someone with your bare hands is as viable as fighting them with weapons, there is no reason to have weapons.>but not everyone would have the skills in hand to hand combat to equal the guy with weapons!Yes. And that's the Monk class. Duh. They are the guys who are punchy. If the rogue could punch as good as them that would be retarded, because now the rogue doesn't even fucking need a knife.
>>98172924I've heard some people say that's what they imagined, assuming it was supposed to be the fat monk guy from Robin Hood since he was a fighter
>>98172969Are you literally retarded and physically incapable of reading? The ability to punch and wrestle things shouldn't itself be an eclusive thing but the monk being able to do it better is a given as much as the wizard being the best at doing magic.Also your argument is retarded because you could just as well say >Using magic is better than fighting with a weapon, everyone would be using magic.You see how stupid that sounds?
>>98172978You know, does Friar Tuck in any big adaptation actually even fight? The Russel Crowe one, I think?He didn't in the ninties one (quite sensibly, I'll add) altough he was big and all
>>98170926Why is OP associated with sucking cocks in imageboards?
>>98172996Unarmed attacks are available for other classes, anon.
>>98172599>It's almost as retarded as making a gunslinger class.It's actually a similar problem, though also the inverse of it.If you put guns in your game, and they're just objectively better than every other weapon, then nobody is going to use swords or bows. If the game designer wants swords and bows, then locking them to a designating class is a way to restrict it.And conversely, while anyone in the world can throw a punch, it's generally worse than using almost any sort of real weapon. If that's modeled realistically and any given character is better off swinging a sword than throwing a punch, then nobody is going to punch monsters. And likewise, if the game designer wants punching, then having a designated class that specializes in punching is a way to buff it. >>98172662>people trying to enforce some iron clad idea on how certain ideas should be expressed.That's the function of a class system. There's no intrinsic reason why a Wizard has to wear robes and can't cast healing spells. The class only serves to express a specific fantasy archetype by restricting what a given character can and cannot do. Were you confused by that concept or something?
>>98170926because that's what they do? obviously?
>>98172704There was a resurgence in 00, you mean. It didn't see anything. It's a year. It can't see.
>>98173529>pendant faggotry but can't even quote the correct postlmao
>>98172599Yeah, swords and magic are cool. Punching is fucking lame
>>98172678No, Martial Arts (Trained) with the same ranks as Strike (Sword, Trained) is equally effective.
>>9817353100s you mean. It's a decade. Not a single year, it's ten.
>>98173548No, not at all, since I was quoting the post I replied too.
>>98173550Nope. 00s is the 2000s year of our lord, ten years.
See above.
>>98173585Who are you quoting?
Pedant faggot got out pedant'd lmao
>>98170926Because nerds watched some kung fu movies in the 70s.
Yeah, you did. lmao
>>98172315>PugilistThere's actually a Pugilist class being tested.
>>98178033I could imagine Puglist as a subclass for Fighter, but not it's own thing.
>>98173396This idea of one weapon option being better than another is always brought up as if guns have to do more damage than swords and bows because no one has ever fired a gun in their fucking life.Rather than focus on damage die the real power should come from options you can do with said weapons.For instance, having an option where you can make an arrow that pops out serrated edges to inflict and exacerbate bleeding or bullets that can reliably pierce armor but has a chance to knock you on your ass from the recoil and damage your gun.It seems weird to me that such ideas don't come naturally to everyone else.
>>98178847That _might_ work in a pastiche of the flintlock era. Repeating firearms make the whole melee part of combat vestigial. The situations where a sword trumps a rifle are very very rare.
>>98178862Whatever the flavor of your game/setting is whatever but what does that have to do with a tabletop game? Unless you're pushing for realism a machine gun may as well be as good as a sword.
>>98178876A machine gun is conceptually better than a sword. It attacks faster, more easily, over longer distances, and it must be at least comparable in damage to other lethal weapons. The only way you can have them coexist is by arbitrarily deciding you think it's cool and then stopping your ears to the obvious contradictions.
>>98178887>A machine gun is conceptually better than a sword.Highly doubt.
>>98178968>>98178887Jokes aside when armor technology outpaces weapon technology melee tends to come back into the fore. It's not impossible to imagine a fantasy or sci-fi setting where ranged weapons take a back-seat or both have equal battlefield roles.
>>98178992Who was joking, retard?
>>98179161You are so funny anon.
yep he's mad KEK
>>98178089>SubclassI'm so sick of this limp-dicked design strategy where instead of making a new or more interesting class, they make a handful of minor abilities and call it new content.
>>98178033They need a whole class for one power? lol
>>98170926Because monks aren't known to carry weapons.
>>98179656If you're making a class, it needs to have the design space to have multiple subclasses unless you're actively going against the 5e norm and making a class without them. Puglist is too narrow to make the 3 subclass minimum I'd consider before making a custom class, especially since it would be fighting Monk for the same flavor.
>>98179855>Puglist is too narrow to make the 3 subclass minimumGrappler (disabling/disarming, throws, counters)Thousand Cuts (quick strikes, dodges, and combos)Hammerfist (slow heavy blows, stunning, armor piercing)Ezpz
>>98180011>Brawler>Rush>Beast
>>98180011>Might / Agility>Martial Arts>Martial ArtsWhy do people play games with classes again?
>>98180064>all 3 subclasses of the martial artist class involve martial artsDamn...Next you'll moan that all wizards use spells...>Why do people play games with classes again?tbqh I hate the way DnD classes operate so I'm in partial agreement with you here
>>98173531You should really kill yourself if you act like this in every thread
>>98172895>Beowulf chocking the shit out of Grendel, Conan bashing dudes with his bare hands when he didn't have a weapon immediately on hand.They don't dedicate themselves to esoteric Buddhism nor cultivate their chi to be one with the Tao If different classes carry different weapons, they can also have different methods of fighting with their hands
>>98180534It's weird. It's almost like that's the point I've been trying to get across because, for a lot of people it seems, martial arts is an exclusively asian deal and doesn't have to look like typical kung fu/wushu theater fighting.Boxing, wrestling, and stomping the shit out of people is perfectly acceptable and something I'm sure some burly nordic warrior is capable of doing as much as any other and is an option you have along side whatever weapons you use.
>>98180659>for a lot of people it seems, martial arts is an exclusively asian deal and doesn't have to look like typical kung fu/wushu theater fighting.We are talking about monks here, so east asian martial arts is presumed. Even the idea of "every martial artist = monk" is a misconception deriving from the fact that it's a character from a completely different genre
>>98172996what system? you can punch and wrestle without being a monk in DnD (if we're still talking about DnD) in fact in 5e barbarian, bard and rogue were probably better than monk at wrestling. And I made a battlerager who was outdamaging the monk at unarmed attacks
>>98170926monk is just a name, Gygax and co associated it with shaoling monks because someone wanted to play a Kungfu dude in early D&D and it stuck. But you can name it Martial Artist, Tao, Punchy McKi, etc if monk offends you
>>98180064So you can have defined roles that complement each other readily available for you players. All team games require those especially one that deals in tactics.
>>98178033For what system? If you're not going to say which one, I can point out there are multiple systems that have already made a Pugilist.
>>98181097It’s always 5e, but that class is a 3rd party homebrew class that some people like so they probably saw it online
>>98181075None of which requires classes. Great job.
>>981709261. Unique class identity, none of the other melee classes go weaponless.2. If the class identity is about channeling energy through your body and hitting the enemy, it makes sense to attack with your body instead of a weapon.
>>98179855That's bullshit and you're coping. Most of the base classes aren't even fucking good and they keep getting updates in the form of even more subpar subclasses that don't address the real problems.
>>98182197Sure they do.
>>98179855>grappling>fat guy>magic fists>ninja shitYou're not even trying.
>>98182489Don't, rather.
>>98182532Elaborate.
>>98182539Why? You haven't.
>>98182540If someone did would you? Everyone knows the answer.
>>98182547Yes, I know you wouldn't, because you can't.
>>98182550>he can't tell anons apartAutism lol
>>98182602Ironic, lol
>>98182540Well I haven't because I presented a thesis that you disregarded without actually engaging with it.Let's start with>All team games require those(defined roles that complement each other) especially one that deals in tactics.You agree with this part and so you accept that each player in a team based tactics games should have a defined role that complements the other players defined roles.Were you disagree is that you need classes in order to do so. I ask you to elaborate because to continue further I have to assume what you think and that cheapens my argument. I will avoid doing so to the best of my ability.A player in a TTRPG makes a character by picking and choosing various traits that define said character. A class is a predetermined set of traits build to fulfill a specific role(or a set of roles) and not others. A class is designed by the games designers that know how the game is supposed to be played and what roles need to be filled by the players and how they complement each other so they can engage with the games mechanics as intended. The other approach is to not have premade trait packages and instead let the players pick and choose what traits they want from the list. This is inefficient because either the players will fail to fill in the roles needed and thus have a subpar experience of the team and tactics aspect of the game or just be forced to create the packages that should exist in the first place. Another fault of systems that fail to offer tight packages or they offer way too many character build options is that they lead players to engage way too much with the character creation aspect of the game which is not playing the game and it's a team experience.
>>98182700Let's review :You don't need classes to communicate how the game is supposed to be played.You don't need classes to allow players to fulfill roles.Not using classes isn't inefficient, and that doesn't mean anything.There are no "needed roles", since it's not a video game. If the game falls apart because no one wants to be a healbot, your game is bad.Creating characters is playing the game, and classless results in easier, faster character creation so you spend less time creating characters.Anything else?
>>98182736>You don't need classes to communicate how the game is supposed to be played.No, but it sure does help a lot. A classes tactics game will have a far harder time to acclimate players, especially new ones. If you give a player a class you also give them their job description.>You don't need classes to allow players to fulfill roles.Technically not, but it's far easier to accomplish that with classes and you eliminate user error in this area.>Not using classes isn't inefficient, and that doesn't mean anything.Yes it does. I explained it. The explanation comes after the "because" word.>Creating characters is playing the gameNo, you can play any ttrpg just fine using premade characters. You can completely remove character creation and have essentially the same game.>and classless results in easier, faster character creation so you spend less time creating characters.How is picking a single unified package from a small poo l of choices more complicated and slower than picking x number of traits from a larger pool? Make it make sense.>There are no "needed roles", since it's not a video game. A sport team has roles, a military unit has roles, wargaming has roles(for units), ttrpgs have roles because wargaming has roles and vidya has roles because of all the above. If you have a group of people that try to accomplish a goal you need to assign roles to those people. If you don't do that you just have a mob. Not a team.
>>98182841>ttrpgs have roles because wargaming has rolesExtremly retarded take even for 2026 /tg/
>>98182841>No, but it sure does help a lot. A classes tactics game will have a far harder time to acclimate players, especially new ones. If you give a player a class you also give them their job description.Any reason we should believe you, or are you just going to assert it will be harder with no reasoning?>Technically not, but it's far easier to accomplish that with classes and you eliminate user error in this area.Any reason we should believe you, or are you just going to assert it will be easier with no reasoning?>Yes it does. I explained it. The explanation comes after the "because" word.And your explanation was false, like I said. It's not inefficient, because players don't have to worry about filling arbitrary roles in good games.>No, you can play any ttrpg just fine using premade characters. You can completely remove character creation and have essentially the same game.And you're still playing a game while creating characters for a game.>How is picking a single unified package from a small poo l of choices more complicated and slower than picking x number of traits from a larger pool? Make it make sense."I want to be good at tripping people"Bad game : Okay, make sure you plan out your entire character from 1st to 20th level, you need exactly these feats in this order, and make sure you pick up these classes at exactly these levels or you'll be bricked. Also you won't be good at anything but that, lol.Good game : Okay, that's something anyone can do by default. You can use an attack or one of your powers to perform a combat stunt.>A sport team has rolesExactly. The players aren't a team. They're several individuals with their own lives, and their own concerns, and they might choose to work together if it suits their purposes, because they're people and not game pieces.In a good game, everyone can be a fire wizard, or a martial artist, or a computer hacker, and there are no problems at all.
>>98182605>that's a different anon that misuses commas the same way in every postOkay
>doesn't know how commas workIronic, lol.
>play classless system>take all archery abilities>I am now the archer class within the partyYou can't avoid classes.
>>98182967Can, rather.
>>98182974Explain how you make a wizard without making yourself a wizard.
>>98182995Install Gentoo.
>>98182995"Wizard"? What's that?
>>98183014You might not be ready for tabletop games if you don't know what a wizard is.
>>98182995Wait til you're 30.
they're so close to getting it, lol
>>98182921>Any reason we should believe you,or are you just going to assert it will be easier/harder with no reasoning?Navigating a larger possibility space is harder than navigating a smaller possibility space.>And your explanation was falseAny reason we should believe you, or are you just going to assert it is false with no reasoning?>And you're still playing a game while creating characters for a game.No, you are preparing to play the game. Preping is not playing the game. >"I want to be good at tripping people"3.5 was never an example of a good class based game. The way it encouraged multiclassing, especially with later supplements made it more of a a convoluted classles game than a class based game. Nor the idea of tripping being universally accessible is an indication of classless game. You example is bad and you should feel bad.>Exactly. The players aren't a team.Yes they are. Almost all ttrpgs start with that assumption in mind if they don't outright state it. The reason(heh) is simple. A ttrpg where the PCs don't share a main goal in every level of the game (encounter, session, scenario, campaign) is unplayable simply because they wouldn't team up (get it?) in order to accomplish said goal and they would live their own separate lives and thus the players would not bother to gather around the same table to play the same game. >In a good game, everyone can be a fire wizard, or a martial artist, or a computer hacker, and there are no problems at all.Any reason we should believe you, or are you just going to assert a good game works that way with no reasoning?
>>98183441>Navigating a larger possibility space is harder than navigating a smaller possibility space.Then you agree classless is faster, since a couple dozen options is easier to understand then several thousand split up across multiple books.>And your explanation was falseAny reason we should believe you, or are you just going to assert it is false with no reasoning?Reasoning is right there. Players don't have to fill arbitrary roles, so your explanation is false. Try to keep up.>No, you are preparing to play the game. Preping is not playing the game.Yes, you are playing. Creating characters is playing.>3.5 was never an example of a good class based game. The way it encouraged multiclassing, especially with later supplements made it more of a a convoluted classles game than a class based game. Nor the idea of tripping being universally accessible is an indication of classless game. You example is bad and you should feel bad.No, you don't get to pick, sorry. It's bad, so you're wrong.>Yes they are. No they're not.>Any reason we should believe you, or are you just going to assert a good game works that way with no reasoning?Yeah. Being able to play whatever you want is objectively better than not being able to do that, a priori. I have reasoning and you don't, and I'm better looking than you. You lose.
>>98183508>Then you agree classless is faster, since a couple dozen options is easier to understand then several thousand split up across multiple books.You are comparison is insincere. I can play that game too. Lets compare the possibility space a class based game like OSE core book only with the possibility space of a classless game like ,lets say, every GURPS book ever published. > Players don't have to fill arbitrary rolesThe roles aren't arbitrary. Nothing is arbitrary in an even remotely competently designed game.>No, you don't get to pick, sorry. It's bad, so you're wrong.Any reason why? Or are you just going assert that i don't get to pick with no reasoning? >No they're not.Any reason we should believe you? Or are you just going assert that they aren't with no reasoning?>Yeah. Being able to play whatever you want is objectively better than not being able to do that, a priori.You are still able to play whatever you want from the choices the game allows for regardless of it being class based or not. That was never a point of this discussion. What you wanted to say is that "More choice good/Less choice bad" is an inherently true statement. And it isn't as you very accurately stated with your 3.5e example.
>classI'm a swordsman and my character sheet says so>classlessI'm a swordsman and my character sheet says soI don't think any of you play games.
>>98183647>You are comparison is insincere. I can play that game too. Lets compare the possibility space a class based game like OSE core book only with the possibility space of a classless game like ,lets say, every GURPS book ever published. No, my comparisons are the correct ones. Yours are inferior.>The roles aren't arbitrary. They are.>Any reason why? Or are you just going assert that i don't get to pick with no reasoning? Of course. The reason is you don't have my permission, and I cannot be disobeyed, by anyone.>Any reason we should believe you? Or are you just going assert that they aren't with no reasoning?You first.>You are still able to play whatever you want from the choices the game allows forAnd that's why your game sucks shit. My game doesn't have any such limits. The choices are infinite, in a finite space, without causing confusion or paralysis.
>>98183668>swordsmanOf course you would.
>>98183668Ironic, lol.
>>98183693You reasoning is impeccable and your game divine. I concede to you.
Yep, he's mad as fuck lol
>>98170974Yeah, but Shaolin monks use weapons all the time, and I'm sure they used weapons even back when they actually fought rather than merely performed like circus animals.
>>98183786D&D monks can use weapons if they want. They always could. It is just that people who pick the class want to play a character whose hands are deadlier than weapons.
>>98183786And Monks in AD&D got damage bonuses with weapons that made fighters look like pussies. They also had ritual combat, and limited options past eighth level to further simulate the Shaolin stylization of it. it was only after 2nd edition that they became useless, and have remained so outside of non-D&D games such as Rolemaster, Pathfinder Unchained, PF2e, and GURPS,
I wish I had a ninja gf
>>98183828>Pathfinder Unchained MonkMy beloved. It fixed so many of the issues the OG had.
Because the monk in gaming is an idealized form of existence. It perfectly embodies the philosophical and practical principles of Zen and the martial arts.The core of Zen is stripping away the superfluous to reach the essential. The fist is the ultimate expression of self-reliance. It is an extension of the body, a tool that requires no external gathering or manufacturing. A monk who is dedicated to rigorous self-mastery would find dependence on a large, complicated, and easily broken external weapon to be a distraction. The monk brings the weapon with them; they are the weapon. Relying on one's own, trained body is the most reliable (though still impermanent) asset in a chaotic world. This also forces a player right into the enemy's personal space. This is a terrifying place, but the monk must approach the inevitable suffering (the danger of the blow) with a composed mind, demonstrating mastery over fear and achieving a state of "oneness" with the opponent's movements.Historically, Buddhist monks (especially those associated with Shaolin Chan/Zen) incorporated rigorous physical training into their spiritual practice. For the Zen-influenced warrior, the fight itself becomes a form of meditation. Every block, every punch, every dodge is a moment of pure awareness. The fist makes this literal, as the damage comes directly from the focused energy of the monk's body.The fist is not a weapon of choice for the Zen monk; it is a weapon of necessity and principle. It forces the monk to be totally self-reliant, constantly in the moment, and to use their rigorous spiritual training as their best defense.
>>98184075Undeniably based Monkfag.
>>98180659I too like to make up imaginary positions nobody has ever once professed and then argue against my own strawman take like an insane person. Unlike you, I don't lose the argument tho.
