Also probably should mention the swordsage from Tome of Battle as it is a later monk type class that at least on message boards is seen as a monk replacement.

Oddly there are a couple minor differences between the enhanced edition and the original game of BG2 (for instance EE gives you attack and damage bonus from the magic fists while the original did not).

One other interesting bit is that punching rules were different in AD&D depending on the book and only the priest book one did not give an extra attack in specialization in punching. As far as optimization goes punching is a really good route in AD&D 2e since you could work it with punching spec, cestus, cestus specialization, tumbling, two weapon fighting, etc and you could do most of it with any class (except cestus specialization). Doing that gives you extra attacks, extra accuracy, and damage. Using the cestus allowed for a standard damage die and potential magic weapons (though of course more rare than say the long sword) and depending on which priest you chose to use before picking up fighting monk you could potentially use the cestus (which requires no prof by the way so it is free in that regard). Also being able to use any NWP is actually potent if you dumpster dive enough into books.

Also note that this is one of those weird thing where the game books themselves are not clear which you should choose to use when it comes to the exact benefits of punching specialization between the priest book and the fighter book. Either you have to take the rules in the priest book to be an explicit exception to the rules they used in the fighter book (which also shows up in combat and tactics) or it is essentially a typo or mistake that they did not list the extra attack in the priest book.

The ability to take any NWP could be potentially powerful depending on what books you are allowed to pull from.

The BG2 is a fun hodge podge of the 1e and 3e monks. As with the 1e monk it is very weak in BG1 and very strong as weapon classes go in late BG2. By the end of BG1 you start feeling pretty decent (so about 8th level though weapon use is not so great). Just so you know that the original BG2 monk is slightly different than the one in the enhanced edition but only very slightly (for instance they have kits in that one and their magic fist bonuses actually apply to accuracy and damage and not just pierce immunity). They also get extra attacks up to 4 late in the game. This is sadly offset to the immunity to haste which hurts once imp haste is a thing.

Oddly 2e is the only edition thus far where the monk is unable to acquire an evasion type ability automatically or by choice.

Good luck with the 3e article these have been very fun. Just in case you are not that familiar with it you probably will want to mention its worst flaw which is how the class is designed to be mobile but is offense is based around full attacks which prevent you from using that mobility (the full attack action is the worst thing ever foisted on weapon using classes in D&D EVER). This is a flaw that somehow lasts all the way into Pathfinder (though who knows in all the 1,000,000 different varieties of choices they give one or more of them may have fixed the problem for that one type of monk or at least gave you an alternative).

As an additional idea if you have not considered it I would recommend the Tome of Battle class of the swordsage in that article as well. It is known in many message boards as WotC’s “fixed” monk class. It does share some class space with the monk but plays very differently. It also leads somewhat into what will become the 4e monk.

I wouldn’t argue about the presence or absence of the Monk class in those (or other books). I was just bringing attention to the idea of a “core” class. And given your meaning of “core”, then your statement is correct. Not that I was saying it was incorrect in the first place. As I mentioned, I would have only removed the word “core” so that your statement would be “like all even-numbered editions, the monk is not a Player’s Handbook class.”

I really only brought it up because I believe that in 3.x, the idea of a “core” class was specifically named to mean a class that a player could take at 1st level. This was to distinguish it from a prestige class, which had all kinds of requirements to achieve over the first 6-10 levels to qualify to take levels in that class.

And I’ve also played in groups where the idea of the “core” class was simply “the class on which the character concept is based”. So any class “concept” is the “core class”.

But all of this is moot anyway.

I do look forward to the 3.x article, as I have some great memories of the Pacifist Monk and the Witch of the White Hand that were in an adventuring group together. The Monk was going around knocking people out left and right (literally) with non-lethal damage, and the Witch was oath-bound to never let a living creature suffer from wounds, so he would heal anyone, even the enemy, if they were dying on the battle field (in negative hit points). The rest of the group had a tough time with that…

I think you’ll find it tough to argue that the monk is found in the Player’s Handbook of 2e or the Player’s Handbook (1) of 4e, or that it came out in OD&D earlier than the product named Supplement II. I take “core” to mean “released in the first major product if each edition.” 🙂

It would indeed be easy to bring a 1e monk rules block forward into 2e, though I strongly recommend switching their HD to d8s as every published 2e monk does.

We’ll see how long of a wait the 3.x article is. I’ve started reading up for it, at least! But UA breakdowns are a harsh mistress. 😉

Second, my groan of “well, technically, yes, but…” to something in the article: “like all even-numbered editions, the monk is not a core Player’s Handbook class”. The term “core class” isn’t a universally defined term and so I’d “argue” that the word “core” should be removed from the statement.

But anyway, as always, great stuff here. I was particularly enamored with the Monk class in my early days of D&D (meaning the early-to-mid 80’s). I had the 1e PHB and my friend had given me a photocopy of the Monk write-up from Dragon Magazine. And when 2e came out (though I still don’t think that it felt that new/different from 1e), I still felt that the Monk was an “awesome” class and always wanted to play one, even to the point of having Monk NPCs populate pretty much every adventure I ran.

Now I enjoyed a lot of the Players Options series. I liked the Character Points system (even though many in my play group didn’t really understand how they worked, including the DMs). But I do know that it caused a lot of imbalance. Overall, though, I think that the Monk, as a class, was always somewhat out of place. Thematically, it didn’t fully fit in the common Euro-centric medieval fantasy setting that was most of D&D. I did actually play in a D&D campaign where a Monk and Samurai were in the party alongside a Dwarf Fighter and a Pagan Witch. This was a 3.5 campaign, so I’ll save any stories to share for when you get to the 3.x Monk class.

Wasn’t it an awesome movie? Everything about it is great, the soundtrack, everything. Too bad it is not that long.

Also, great write up Brandes. Eager to see 3e and beyond, in order to be in more familiar grounds.

It appears the over the top Kung Fury is getting a sequel. Can’t wait.