D&D 5E How Magical or Non-Magical Should the Monk Be?

TrippyHippy · Oct 8, 2012

....also, they really ought to have a bigger HD than d8 in my view. They should be D10, like fighters - and possibly even have a damage resistance ability at higher levels.

Sadrik · Oct 8, 2012

The only thing that I want is for the monk to not be tied to an Asian theme (punching and Asian weapons). If they are more fighter than mystical or more mystical than fighter I dont really care. The one thing I care about is I want a class that can plug into any setting without a lot of figuring out.

That said I think it would be neat to have a monk that is a basically a Jedi. Call them monk orders and perhaps depending on your build some could be more heavy fighting (sohei)- weapon master) and some could be more mystical (force push etc.)

Jeff Carlsen · Oct 8, 2012

Storywise, the monk boils down to this: a martial artist that uses their body, environment, and simple weapons along with supernatural abilities powered by an inner focus. A simple lifetime dedicated to discipline, training, and meditation are essential to their abilities.

As far as weaponry goes, it seems fitting that the monk can make even a basic weapon as effective as a sword or lance. Perhaps even improvised weapons are equally effective.

Their powers can take many forms, as determined by their tradition. Even when divorced from Asian themes, the idea that each monk devotes themselves to a school or tradition works. In addition, it allows us to borrow from all kinds of martial arts references. Some traditions would be more about a fast, strong body. Others might be throwing balls of energy around. The available traditions are based on campaign.

Tony Vargas · Oct 8, 2012

ZombieRoboNinja said:
If your point is that "all classes can be reduced to some combination of fighter, rogue, and spellcaster" that's all well and good, but it's fairly antithetical to D&D class-based design.

Nope, my point is about the Monk, specifically (though there have been a few other classes that it might also apply to). The Monk archetype is a culture-specific one - to be uncharitable, it's not even cultural so much as the mis-perception of cultures sometimes labeled 'orientalism.'

The arguments against a culture specific class (setting aside the political) include that they are too narrow to be useful, that they are redundant with other classes, and that they bring 'baggage' that 'taints' settings to which the culture is inappropriate.

I was pointing out the second one. Not that monk could be modeled with a combination of fighter, rogue & spellcaster, but that, stripped of psuedo-cultural baggage, it could be a more generic martial class (like the Fighter /or/ the Rogue, depending on concept) or simply a psionic class (like in 4e). The Monk could work as a Background, PrC, or other add-on option that captured cultural influences or otherwise let you customize to a specific concept. But a martial artist is just very good at fighting, which is the Fighter's bailiwick, and we don't need another class that's best at fighting.

Steely_Dan · Oct 8, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
Fine. If you have some reason to think that I am wrong that is not a simple anecdote and does in fact reference the rules, I'd be delighted to see it. But all you've offered is anecdotal evidence about how you liked a class that was notoriously crap.

This is obviously a personal thing, and you seem to be taking it personally, really not a big deal, you think the 1st Ed monk is crap ("notoriously", in your opinion), and I think's it'a good (just needs improvement, IME).

No need to get all ornery (we don't have to agree).

Neonchameleon · Oct 8, 2012

Steely_Dan said:
This is obviously a personal thing, and you seem to be taking it personally, really not a big deal, you think the 1st Ed monk is crap ("notoriously", in your opinion), and I think's it'a good (just needs improvement, IME).

No need to get all ornery (we don't have to agree).

A personal thing is that I really dislike bad game design. I've explained why I think the Monk is objectively badly designed. And you've been unable or unwilling to actually say why you think the monk is fit for purpose rather than a steaming turd of a class that's little more than a mislabled second rate thief with abilities that actually get in the way of using it effectively.

Now, if you have something actually good to say about the class I'd be delighted to hear it. But you are currently trying to undermine any sort of discussion by making it personal. Concentrating on my character and responses rather than saying anything except that you like the 1e monk. Do you accept that, as I demonstrated above, its class features are objectively crap until about eighth level? If so, why do you think this is acceptable? And if not, why not?

ArmoredSaint · Oct 8, 2012

I'd like the monk to be all kinds of magical...

...and for it to still fail him if he tries to go toe-to-toe with the Fighter.

Sadras · Oct 8, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
But you are currently trying to undermine any sort of discussion by making it personal.

I do not know why but he has been 'provoking/instigating' (for lack of a better word) on other threads too.

Personally I am no fan of the monk, but I can see its uses as a concept in particular settings, I just really dislike the oriental stigma attached to it. Mostly because I view the D&D classes as very medieval in design, and the monk's ki and 'snatch arrow' features of older editions smacked of an Eastern blend which did notfit in with the settings we were running. So I have grown up with that dislike.
If they called the Wizard a Wu-jen I'd have the same issue.

Although if I ever run an adventure in Ochalea (Mystara) I'd definitely use monks.

Mattachine · Oct 8, 2012

Monks are firmly entrenched in Forgotten Realms, and have been now for over a decade.
There are multiple orders, with names, traditions, associated magic items, and so on.

The D&D monk is no longer simply an Asian character archetype.