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

Steely_Dan · Oct 11, 2012

Salamandyr said:
A monk is someone raised in a monastery who has taken vows. It's actually a lot simpler background than being the son of landed gentry.

The D&D monk has always transcended the real world dictionary definition of "Monk" (think Bannor/The Bloodguard).

Like many other class titles in D&D.

mlund · Oct 11, 2012

Steely_Dan said:
The D&D monk has always transcended the real world dictionary definition of "Monk" (think Bannor/The Bloodguard).

Like many other class titles in D&D.

Marrying Background to a Class is definitely one of the things D&DNext seeks to do away with (as seen here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/330395-d-d-next-q-11oct.html) so count on seeing various aspects of the AD&D / 3E Monk carved out. I certainly hope that, as with the Warlord, it also leads to removing bad class-names just because they were once used as class names.

your background tells the story of what you were really good at before something came along and changed your life, pushing you into the career of being an adventurer

...

Your class then tells you what you can do that makes you the protagonist of the story.

So many of the featues that propped up the Christmas Tree Monk in some editions are just background or disposable gimmicks that have little to do with what you are capable of as a good protagonist in the setting in a party setting.

- Marty Lund

MoonSong · Oct 11, 2012

I find it increasingly funny how the monk's nature as a class is being so hotly debated and even outright thought as something that won't happen, when Mearls (or was Montecook?) claimed the very first and easiest class to be designed was the Monk. Not the fighter, wizard or rogue (who are still a work in progress) but the Monk.

Now the 3e monk is very underpowered, so far it is the only class I haven't figured out how to fix on my houseruled edition.

Steely_Dan · Oct 11, 2012

mlund said:
Marrying Background to a Class is definitely one of the things D&DNext seeks to do away with (as seen here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/330395-d-d-next-q-11oct.html)

Yes, and I dig it, but the Monk as the class is not a Background, any more than Paladin or Ranger are.

Not to say you can't make a Fighter-Monk/Paladin/Ranger type, it's just not the real deal.

GreyICE · Oct 11, 2012

KaiiLurker said:
I find it increasingly funny how the monk's nature as a class is being so hotly debated and even outright thought as something that won't happen, when Mearls (or was Montecook?) claimed the very first and easiest class to be designed was the Monk. Not the fighter, wizard or rogue (who are still a work in progress) but the Monk.

Now the 3e monk is very underpowered, so far it is the only class I haven't figured out how to fix on my houseruled edition.

*cough*replacewithswordsage*cough*

Also I assume you just took a pair of scissors and cut the druid class in half, into "wildshaper with companion" and "Guy who casts spells" which would actually make two viable and strong classes.

Steely_Dan · Oct 11, 2012

Yeah, Mearls mentioned the Monk being the easiest of classes to design so far for 5th Ed.

i guess they released the Sorcerer and Warlock first (which still irks me) to appease the non-Vancain crowd?

Salamandyr · Oct 11, 2012

Steely_Dan said:
The D&D monk has always transcended the real world dictionary definition of "Monk" (think Bannor/The Bloodguard).

Like many other class titles in D&D.

Yes, and I'm okay if they continue that tradition, as long as its explicit that their abilities are magical, and not a result of martial training.

GreyICE · Oct 11, 2012

Steely_Dan said:
Yeah, Mearls mentioned the Monk being the easiest of classes to design so far for 5th Ed.

i guess they released the Sorcerer and Warlock first (which still irks me) to appease the non-Vancain crowd?

Why does it irk you?

Steely_Dan · Oct 11, 2012

Salamandyr said:
Yes, and I'm okay if they continue that tradition, as long as its explicit that their abilities are magical, and not a result of martial training.

Yes, as I said, the original Monk was sort of a Druid/Rogue/Psionic deal.

They do not train like a fighter.

Salamandyr · Oct 11, 2012

Steely_Dan said:
Yes, as I said, the original Monk was sort of a Druid/Rogue/Psionic deal.

They do not train like a fighter.

Not sure where the druid thing comes in? Because they were called Grandmaster of Flowers?

The original monk was written because somebody in Dave Arneson's game wanted to play Kaine from Kung Fu.

I guess it would be arguable whether you consider they "train like a fighter". Both the D&D monk and the fighter train to overcome their opponents using martial skill. That sounds the same to me. The fighter recognizes the frailty of the human form and the necessity for using tools to enhance ones deadliness. Because when the game got going, everybody still had Victorian ideas about medieval European martial skills (ie, they thought they had none), the fighter is absolutely useless without his equipment.

The D&D monk, rather than recognizing human frailty, somehow trains his body to overcome that and be as deadly and a sword, and as hard as iron mail. My question is...How? Does this mean the fighter is some kind of slacker, who if he really applied himself wouldn't need the sword and armor? Does the monk utilzie some magic tradition where instead of casting spells, their body is enhanced? Or maybe its psionics? It's really the mental power of their mind, and without their magic they would be as dependent on equipment as the knight?

I heartily prefer one of the latter two arguments.