Manikus' Monks

[Funky Dynamite]

Bards are in my 2e Player's Handbook. I remember seeing them for the for the first time, almost having a mild heart attack

[manikus]

You're right, they're there in their entry under Rogues.

In my defense, the very first line of their entry reads "The bard is an optional character class..." In my paper copy, the entry is in light grey, which meant that I skipped over it, though I see that in the last printing of the 2e PH, the light grey was dropped so it wouldn't appear to be optional.

It's not going to happen as a class of it's own in DC, though you can approximate it with a fighter/magic user/thief (this can be renamed to "bard").

[Uatu]

Yeah - those 2e ninjas are especially, um, funky, I guess...

1e changed rangers and bards considerably, with both versions fairly interesting (but often one more powerful than the other)...

1e rangers were powerful warriors with 2d8 hp at 1st level (hard to kill) who did wallops of damage to giants and humanoids, could cast both druid and magic-user spells (druid spells were more combative in those days), and were trackers.

2e rangers were sort of nature scouts who had affinity with animals and could cast plant/animal spells and track.

1e bards were very difficult classes to join, but eventually were fighter/thieves who had druid spells, magical charm abilities, and so on, but had a very strict hierarchy.

2e bards were very interesting - sort of pseudo-thieves (or tinkers) with good fighting and general magic-user ability (as they used the thief XP tables, they got to higher levels quickly).

Some people like to keep all versions in their 1e/2e campaigns, but I guess one could rename these to make them work with each other...

[manikus]

Was it 3e when bards got bardsong? That was kind of cool, at least in the computer version of AD&D (I've not played a 3E bard in p and p AD&D).

[Funky Dynamite]

Originally Posted by manikus Was it 3e when bards got bardsong? That was kind of cool, at least in the computer version of AD&D (I've not played a 3E bard in p and p AD&D).

My wife plays one, one of her favorite classes. Though I -barely- got her playing D&D because the fiasco her last DM made of his campaign.
3e D&D p&p bards, well, to put it nicely, suck.
They really have sucky HD (I believe it is the Thief's, true, but they make up for it with sneak attacks and other abilities), their spellcasting has been taken away and their bardic abilities almost have no battle applications. So, in basic terms, their mages without the spellcasting. Really...bad.... They were handled badly.
I have the 2e Ninja's Handbook. It's good, but a bit...quirky. Ninjas, in IMHO, have no place outside of Kara-Tur.

[manikus]

I think ninjas have a place in super hero and master spy type stories, though not in AD&D fantasy.

In NiverWinter Nights, bards are good support characters as their bardsong helps the warrior classes quite a bit. Monks in 3e kick ass in hand to hand combat but bite it big against magic users and ranged attacks. Plus, I don't think they fit in well in the "Western" world - why would monks be the only ones with martial arts skills? Plus, I can't figure out how being an adventurer fits into the monk credo. Or in the druid's credo for that matter.

[Uatu]

What is bardsong? It sounds like one of those silly 3e words to me (I suppose it is the bard's ability to sing to raise certain statistics?). The ability wasn't very useful in 2e as it required several rounds of singing before effect.

Monks were always kind of stupid - why would anyone be stronger without weapons than with? (Actually, I have heard of one person in history that was like this - he would start losing a battle with a weapon, and then just drop it - quickly disarming the other guy barehanded instead. Still, it was just ONE person...)

[manikus]

I've always wondered why the monks were the only non-European class. I wish they would have done Western monks, like Friar Tuck from Robin Hood. They could only brawl or use a staff, they would get some abilities as they progressed, but would not cast spells.

Hmm, maybe I should create a class - I could feature them in a DC Newsletter.

Ooh! Ooh! I could feature some bizarro creatures as well...

[Funky Dynamite]

Originally Posted by Uatu What is bardsong? It sounds like one of those silly 3e words to me (I suppose it is the bard's ability to sing to raise certain statistics?). The ability wasn't very useful in 2e as it required several rounds of singing before effect. Monks were always kind of stupid - why would anyone be stronger without weapons than with? (Actually, I have heard of one person in history that was like this - he would start losing a battle with a weapon, and then just drop it - quickly disarming the other guy barehanded instead. Still, it was just ONE person...)

Yes, bardsong raises Morale I think, along with providing some bonuses to saving throws, I believe.
It is important to note that D&D is not at its core a historical game, it is a game of myth and legends. The person you mentioned might have started a legend. At any rate, I don't recall (in 3e at least, I could be wrong, I don't have the 3e Player's Handbook handy, my wife buried it) it saying they're stronger unarmed (again, in 3e p&p at least, I could be wrong, my experience with 1e/2e monks is limited, and it shouldn't be, I played one, but my memory fails me on this subject), -just- that they can inflict lethal damage with their bare hands. They can use about every weapon you've ever seen in a kung fu movie.

Originally Posted by manikus I've always wondered why the monks were the only non-European class. I wish they would have done Western monks, like Friar Tuck from Robin Hood. They could only brawl or use a staff, they would get some abilities as they progressed, but would not cast spells.

One has to remember the spirit of the class, perhaps I am just seeing it differently, my campaign is a lot looser than most. I actually have a few "Superheroes" and other weirdness running around my campaign. To me, Monks are akin to Clerics; They meditate, worship and pray to their god(s), scribe, go about their duties, but they can pull out a can of kick butt when they need to. I think Monks adventure to go on a journey of self discovery, to test themselves against varied opponents. (Think about the possibilities of discovering things about yourself after defeating a dragon -barehanded-.) After all, the path the Monk takes is just another fork in the road....
On a secondary note, sometimes I think "Monk" is a bit of a misnomer, "Martial Artist" I think is a better title.

[Uatu]

In 1e, monks did a set amount of barehand damage per level; this surpassed the amount of damage they did with weapons somewhere mid-level (plus, they had multiple attacks that way). At high levels, it was ridiculous!

Another thing is that monks were limited to a set of pseudo-Asian weapons like kama, bo sticks, etc., while in reality they used almost any weapon (swords, spears, hook swords, etc.).

I agree that "monk" should have been more generalized, but I can't think of a nice, general term as per "cleric" or "magic-user"!