No monks?

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 2:02 PM


> If I were running the all-Sidhelien campaign I`ve been
> planning for some time now, I`d be giving everyone lots
> and lots of extra skills.

Knowledge of one kind or another, meaning all of the skills without a key
physical componant, are aquired a variety of ways in RL. Physical skills
are much more strongly correlated to natural ability and practice. Mental
skills, not so much. Having an active intellect is sufficient to maintain
high mental skill. I don`t need to practice my multiplication tables to
remain a proficient computer they way I need to practice my jump shot to be
a proficient basketball player. This reflects the different ways our
physical and mental abilities are retained over time. As a result, a long
lived person will aquire mental skills beyond one to one corespondance with
physical skills. Because D&D is rooted in a phsyical contest, both physical
and mental skills aquisition follow from the physical model of no-pain,
no-gain. I play basketball to get better at the game, and I drill on
fundamentals to maintain my edge and prevent atrophy. Aquiring mental
skills requires less experience (the very existing of writing means that one
person`s experience can benefit many) and mental skills atrophy much more
slowly (especially in terms of specific use) so that over time, mental
skills will begin to diverge from a curve of physical effort. In a
relatively short period of time, say the adventuring career of a human, that
might not be too great a problem, although retired adventurers should
continue to show improvement in mental ability (if they desire) whithout any
improvement (and possible decline) in physical prowess. Elves and dwarves,
on the other hand, won`t be so easily limited unless we simply don`t want to
confront the two different curves (mental and physical) of learning and
capacity. If we imagine three primary sources of learning, they might be
enrichment (how much, and how easy is it to learn new things), experience
(as in so many skill ranks per level), and the passage of time.

So a proper skills aquisition system would involve cultural bonuses
(Septentrionalis does a nice job with this), ranks per level, and annual
skill bonuses. The quadruple starting bonus is desinged to mirror this
complexity, but does so best when we have a short period of examination.
Its particularly bad at describing the aquired knowledge of long lived
anyones, particularly elves.

I would go so far as to abandon the quadruple bonus, and instead use the
following formula.
10 bonus points for cultural knowledge assinged by the culture
5 bonus points for cultural knowledge for specific classes
2 skill ranks per year alive
additional skill ranks per level.

An 18 year old 1st level human fighter would have 10+5= 15 bonuses and
2+36=38 skill ranks. Much of this would be tied up Knowledge (culture
homeland), (history homeland), (geography homeland), and Craft, Profession,
and Perform skills neccesary to function as a person. Beyond this people
will begin to aquire other skills. Again, on the human scale, we`re often
content to just assume a certain amount of knowledge about one`s home and
livelihood. This breaks down when we look at the 2500 year old 12th level
elf fighter. My suggestion above would give him 15 bonuses, and 5024 skill
ranks. Again probabaly a ton of this knowledge is historical and cultural.

Consider, when confronted by the Ring of Power, Gandalf has to go to Minas
Tirith to research the true nature of the Ring. Elrond the elf, was there
when the Ring changed hands, he just knows this (and innumerable other
things) that even a learned wizard like Gandalf has to go and look up.

Most will nod in the direction of such disparities, but will avoid
complicated formulas for skills in the name of the virtue of simplicity.
Others may throw caution to the wind and consider alternatives.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

A lot of this can be solved by simply adjusting the DC for knowledge rolls.
This is all according tothe rules on knowledge skills - something that
happened during your lifetime is not obtruse knowledge to you.

"What were the banners worn by duke so-and-so at the battle of Vemelion four
hundred years ago?"
" I have this tome with eywitness accounts here, it may say something. Or
perhaps in the heraldry section of the library..."
"Let me see if I can remember - blue and green, with some sort of white
figure - a stag I think."

In this case a human scholar would have a DC in the 30s range, while an elf
who was actually there has a DC of 5 or 10. Then again, elves will not have
witnessed much of human history simply because they were holed up in their
forests when it happened.


__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[esmdev]

I think some of the more recent posts deserve a topic of their own. :)

On the subject of monks in Birthright.

In the strictest nature of what Birthright was when originally presented, I don't think that the Monk needs to be included into the core BR setting rulebook.

However...

I do think that something along the lines of the following should be included into the header of the class section and the Monk entry removed entirely from the rulebook:

----- This is my suggestion -----
The following classes are presented to reflect those normally found in Cerilia. Through history, exploritory trade from Cerilia into the unknown, and the occassional visits from far away lands, have brought individuals with strange and unusual customs. Players wishing to run classes outside the normal scope of the setting should consult with their GM to determine if additional options are available. It should be noted, however, that individuals from the lands beyond the sea will cannot be blooded.
----- End of my suggestion -----

Just a thought.

[triqui]

IMHO, some people here has made some wrong statements.
First: Barbarians did exist in 2ed cerilia. They were a kit (from complete figther book) that most rjurik players took.
Second: There is no way to introduce monks in 3e cerilia. BUT there is a clear way to ADAPT them. They could be Whirling Dervish, will adapt well to the arab settings of cerilia and will need only minor changes (such as changing the weapons for jambiyas or the like). But in a Brectur, Rjurik, vos or Anuirean setting, they simply dont belong. Imho, as i said.

[geeman]

At 10:45 PM 3/9/2003 +0100, triqui wrote:

>IMHO, some people here has made some wrong statements.
>
>First: Barbarians did exist in 2ed cerilia. They were a kit (from complete
>figther book) that most rjurik players took.

Barbarians fit into the themes of the setting. Personally, I think there
should be a couple of changes to the class for Cerilian purposes. The 3e
barbarian combines what I would break up into at least two classes; the
"native warrior" and the "berserker." The specific class features of the
3e barbarian, however, may not be really the issue here. The descriptions
of at least two human races (not to mention orogs, goblins and gnolls) are
apt for that class.

>Second: There is no way to introduce monks in 3e cerilia. BUT there is a
>clear way to ADAPT them. They could be Whirling Dervish, will adapt well
>to the arab settings of cerilia and will need only minor changes (such as
>changing the weapons for jambiyas or the like). But in a Brectur, Rjurik,
>vos or Anuirean setting, they simply dont belong. Imho, as i said.

A couple of people have pointed out that if one wanted to do this kind of
thing in BR it could be done with the combination of feats that allow for
non-melee weapon combat. IMO, such a character would be a better
reflection of such non-oriental monk than an adaptation (using Western
terms and weapons) in place of those in the 3e monk character class write-up.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "triqui" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 3:45 PM


> But in a Brectur, Rjurik, vos or Anuirean setting, they simply
> dont belong.

This depends on your idea of what is essential (mechanically, not in terms
of flavor) to the monk. The monk can be viewed as just a specialist in
hand-to-hand combat. With some adjustment (and much renaming of class
features) a brawler type character fits in fine in BR.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[AnakinMiller]

> This depends on your idea of what is essential (mechanically, not in terms
> of flavor) to the monk. The monk can be viewed as just a specialist in
> hand-to-hand combat. With some adjustment (and much renaming of class
> features) a brawler type character fits in fine in BR.

You could have a brawler type character. It would be a fighter with unarmed
combat feats. The mystical magical Ki wielding monk does not belong ANY
WHERE in Cerilia. None of the cultures are geared to create the mentality
and mindset that defines the monk. If you take away the background concept
of a monk then aren`t you just trying to have a fighter with smack new Ki
skills that should not be there?

-Anakin Miller
-------------------------
"What was sundered, shall be remade.
What was stolen, shall be avenged. "
- Engraved on the Crown of Diemed

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Atarikid" <atarikid@CHARTER.NET>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 10:48 AM


> If you take away the background concept of a monk then aren`t
> you just trying to have a fighter with smack new Ki skills that
> should not be there?

Ki? Vikings belived that every weapon had its own spirit, and when you
found that spirit and learned to work with it (rather than against it), you
became a powerful warrior. Does this mean a bonus to hit? Penetration
against damage reduction? An extra damage die? Every warrior culture
describes some spirit of the warrior, or an inner power. Prior to WWI, the
French called it elan. Sure, if the monk is designed as an Asian character
type, the word "ki" makes sense, but I could just as well rename any and all
ki powers to reflect Anuire, or any other Cerilian culture. Bonuses are
just mechanics, and a rose by any other name smells just as sweetly.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 01:20 PM 3/10/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > If you take away the background concept of a monk then aren`t
> > you just trying to have a fighter with smack new Ki skills that
> > should not be there?
>
>Ki? Vikings belived that every weapon had its own spirit, and when you
>found that spirit and learned to work with it (rather than against it), you
>became a powerful warrior. Does this mean a bonus to hit? Penetration
>against damage reduction? An extra damage die? Every warrior culture
>describes some spirit of the warrior, or an inner power. Prior to WWI, the
>French called it elan. Sure, if the monk is designed as an Asian character
>type, the word "ki" makes sense, but I could just as well rename any and all
>ki powers to reflect Anuire, or any other Cerilian culture. Bonuses are
>just mechanics, and a rose by any other name smells just as sweetly.

All of which does rather beg the question, where are the Western unarmed
martial arts based monks that equate to the D&D monk character class? If
the animist thinking of Vikings equates to the Oriental concept of ki why
didn`t they punch and flip their way through Europe rather than hack and
slash? Why didn`t Joan of Arc kick (literally) the English out of France?

Personally, I don`t get the same vibe from the animism and other
interpretations of esprit/elan that I get from the concept of ki and
oriental philosophy that leads to the monk. However, the problem with
Cerilian monks isn`t really the animist/spiritual aspect. That kind of
thing is a commonality of human experience, every culture has some aspect
of that in it. One can come at that from several different angles, and
reinterpret things so as to allow for a monk-like character class in just
about any culture, no matter how much less extensively the real life
analogy was emphasized in that culture. More often than not that would
lead me to the conclusion that a Western (and Cerilian) version of the
unarmed martial arts would be better reflected using the fighter and
unarmed combat feats rather than a separate, crypto-religious class like
the monk, but that`s largely a matter of taste and interpretation. I guess
one really need not even have a spiritual interpretation of the monk. One
could interpret most of his abilities in a sci-fi kind of way, ignoring ki
entirely.

The big issue to me is that there is no wide-spread, rigorously enforced
(socially and/or legally) restriction on military weapons that leads to the
centuries long development of an extensive tradition of unarmed (or crudely
armed) martial arts. There could certainly be a few individuals breaking
boards with their fists rather than axes, but that doesn`t really equate to
the extent of effort and energy that went into the development of the
oriental martial arts traditions. Ki then represents the extensive
development and effort into the concept that exists in all cultures, but is
more greatly emphasized due to various cultural conditions. One could, of
course, include such a system of weapon restrictions on a Western society
and have it develop its own version of the monk, but by and large I think
that really just shifts the culture away from the Western paradigms they
were intended to represent in the first place.

There is also a bit of a stutter IMO in that martial arts are generally
developed for humans to use on other humans. In a D&D setting one has many
opponents with vastly different anatomical arrangements than is typical of
a martial art`s emphasis. The ability to hit hard and fast is, of course,
always useful in a fight and would, I suppose, be generally useful against
any opponent, but the idea of a man punching a stone giant somewhere around
the lower thigh... well, it just strikes me as humorous in a way that
stabbing that same stone giant just doesn`t. It might just be me. YMMV.

As an aside: I do recall many years ago an article in a martial arts
magazine (_Black Belt_, IRRC) that described how one might use various
standard martial arts kicks and punches against dogs or other animals,
including diagrams and photographs with guys in martial arts poses next to
animals that sometimes looked bewildered but more often somewhat
bemused. It was one of the funnier things I`ve ever seen, and set me to
giggling so much I couldn`t hardly perform a kata that day.... While I
guess there`s no technical reason why someone`s Monkey style kung-fu
wouldn`t actually work if used against real monkeys it just seems a strange
thing to want to role-play in a Western campaign setting.

The *real* question, though, is whether or not such a character class
should be included in the BRCS. To me the monk would be useful if one was
purposefully doing a sort of BR/OA crossover. I did at one point play out
some adventures in a OA continent on the opposite side of Aebrynis from
Cerilia, so it`s not like the game mechanics can`t or won`t work. That it
seems more apt to a crossover or alternate continent campaign, however, is
pretty good evidence for why it should not go into the core BRCS text.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[DanMcSorley]

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Gary wrote:
> All of which does rather beg the question, where are the Western unarmed
> martial arts based monks that equate to the D&D monk character class? If
> the animist thinking of Vikings equates to the Oriental concept of ki why
> didn`t they punch and flip their way through Europe rather than hack and
> slash? Why didn`t Joan of Arc kick (literally) the English out of France?

The same reason they didn`t do these things in east Asia. Warriors there
went armed and armored, just as they did in Europe. Asians soldiers
learned to kick and punch, too, but you couldn`t show me a knight in
Europe who didn`t know how to throw a punch or apply steel boot to ass.

Yeah, various Asian cultures were at times oppressed, and forbidden to use
weapons, so they worked with what they had, and developed a wide variety
of unarmed techniques, but overall, if you go to war, you take a weapon.
What nobody mentions in this history of unarmed combat is that for most of
Asian history, China had the biggest army, and Korea and Japan and Okinawa
depended on China`s goodwill. Then the Japanese got the best army, and
China and Korea and Okinawa, with their ancient traditions of mystical
martial arts, were mostly Japanese provinces right up until 1945, or for
Okinawa, modern times. Must be something to that armed-combat stuff.

The reason we westerners ascribe magic powers to martial arts is because
it`s exotic, and we`re gullible. We don`t think boxers and Greco-Roman
wrestlers have special powers, so why do we think that ninjas and Buddhist
monks do?
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.