Here Comes . . . the Monk!

mlund · Nov 13, 2012

GX.Sigma said:
That does sound like an awesome character, but I wouldn't call it a Monk.

You're totally correct on that count. That's because "Monk" is a background - someone who lives in a monastery. "Martial Artist" is an awesome character that beats down bad-guys with martial arts and possibly supernatural abilities. Sometimes there's overlap like Kwai Chang Caine or Wong Fei Hung, but they don't justify their own class niche but for David Arneson having a player who liked the 70s Kung Fu TV series and wanted to literally lift Kwai Chang Caine into Blackmoor.

You don't need to have lived in a monastery and spent years of your life navel-gazing or have the Lawful alignment to function in this class niche.

On the whole, this Monk works. It even has the least-offensive silly immunity powers bolted on and a daily power-pool. The level progression needs a little work. It doesn't need a dead level at 8 and it should get extra maneuvers at 3, 6, and 9.

Level 2: Undaunted Strike
Level 3: Maneuver
Level 4: Ki (2/day)
Level 5: Purity of Body
Level 6: Maneuver
Level 7: Ki 3/day
Level 8: Clear Mind
Level 9: Maneuver
Level 10: Ki 4/day

Also, all this "your size category or smaller" stuff needs to die in a fire. That's unnecessary "realism" for a fantasy class like this. Don't dump on Halfling Monks. All the powers default to working on Medium creatures and escalate from there.

Chris_Nightwing said:
More expertise dice. I'm out.

I greatly prefer Expertise Dice to going back to the bad old days when scaling damage was only about Power Attack, breaking into the next multiple of 5 in BAB, and spell buffs and have To Hit scale instead. I hated the pointlessly dragging HP-sink combat contrasting all the good 1-shot save-or-die effects. Having a damage-scaling mechanic for non-casters and the ability to trade out boring damage for combat maneuvers is definitely a selling point of DNDNext for me.

- Marty Lund

GX.Sigma · Nov 13, 2012

mlund said:
You're totally correct on that count. That's because "Monk" is a background - someone who lives in a monastery. "Martial Artist" is an awesome character that beats down bad-guys with martial arts and possibly supernatural abilities. Sometimes there's overlap like Kwai Chang Caine or Wong Fei Hung, but they don't justify their own class niche but for David Arneson having a player who liked the 70s Kung Fu TV series and wanted to literally lift Kwai Chang Caine into Blackmoor.

You don't need to have lived in a monastery and spent years of your life navel-gazing or have the Lawful alignment to function in this class niche.

Totally. If this were a new game, I might have a Martial Artist class, or put it as an option under Fighter. But this is D&D, and D&D needs to have a class called Monk, and it needs to be what people expect a Monk to be.

It's one of those problem classes, like the Paladin and the Druid. A mechanical answer would be to have the generic forms as options under the big classes. A metagame answer would be to encourage reflavoring. A cop-out answer would be to make these classes generic while still giving them the traditional names. An unrealistic answer would be to make these classes generic and give them new generic names.

mlund · Nov 13, 2012

GX.Sigma said:
Totally. If this were a new game, I might have a Martial Artist class, or put it as an option under Fighter. But this is D&D, and D&D needs to have a class called Monk, and it needs to be what people expect a Monk to be.

Traditionally, the Monk has been a crappy 5th wheel that flailed around aimlessly and specialized in nothing but avoiding getting himself killed. There's something to be said for breaking from tradition.

We shouldn't marry Sacred Cows, but rather build a better hamburger.

It's one of those problem classes, like the Paladin and the Druid. A mechanical answer would be to have the generic forms as options under the big classes. A metagame answer would be to encourage reflavoring. A cop-out answer would be to make these classes generic while still giving them the traditional names. An unrealistic answer would be to make these classes generic and give them new generic names.

I'm going to go with a cross between the Mechanical Answer and the Cop-Out answer. No alignment requirements. In the first paragraph of descriptive text you describe the martial artist and note that the most widely known schools are associated with monasteries so practitioners are usually referred to as "Monks" by lay-persons. Mention lone-wolf type archetypes such as the sole survivor and dojo-crasher. Mention legends of a shadowy cult of obsessed killers seeking enlightenment in bloodshed and madness just for good measure.

- Marty Lund

Evenglare · Nov 14, 2012

I think it's funny everyone talks about sacred cows (alignments?), yet people hate them, and they want a game that resembles 2nd edition which has all the sacred cows that make it unique , but they also want a game that caters to everyone which is looking impossible to do. Also they add this expertise dice that is a fundamental for melee characters which has never been in any edition of the game,and wizards wants the basic rules to be a ground work for more of these modules which are supposed to add the more complex rules which is what the expertise dice feels like to me.

Now I'm starting to see a cluster(explicative) of ideas that sounds nothing like what they were aiming for. Wizards is trying to go against the whole "You cant please everyone all of the time". You just can't .

Mirtek · Nov 14, 2012

Blackbrrd said:
He uses Dex for attacks, damage and defense and gets an AC bonus from wis to make up for the lack of armor. That's a pretty low level of MAD in my eyes.

Add in Con for hp and that's a MAD as 5e gets so far.

Other classes can get by with just one stat for Atk/Def and con for hp. Poor clerics are now equally MAD with Str/Dex; Wis & Con

Personally I would like to see the monk class being able to use weapons as well as his unarmed strike

GX.Sigma said:
Totally. If this were a new game, I might have a Martial Artist class, or put it as an option under Fighter. But this is D&D, and D&D needs to have a class called Monk, and it needs to be what people expect a Monk to be.

And I'd bet there are just as much (if not more) more people that expect the D&D monk to be a chaotic type like Jackie Chan or the american shaolin guy (from that movie) than a law abiding asceticism guy

mlund · Nov 14, 2012

Evenglare said:
I think it's funny everyone talks about sacred cows (alignments?), yet people hate them, and they want a game that resembles 2nd edition which has all the sacred cows that make it unique , but they also want a game that caters to everyone which is looking impossible to do.

The thing is, the fluff Sacred Cows cost basically nothing to include. You're trying to get the best juice for the squeeze. If that means adding in some stupid things players and DMs can freely ignore without impacting game pacing or balance then so be it.

Also they add this expertise dice that is a fundamental for melee characters which has never been in any edition of the game

Something has to give if you want to advance the causes of simplicity, game pacing, and excitement. Some classes are traditionally under-powered and boring and have to be jazzed up. Some classes relied on high-scaling To-Hit Bonuses and Multi-Attacks that aren't compatible with the simplification goals, so they had to have metrics switched around a bit.

As far as I can see, though neither BAB nor THAC0 have provoked Sacred Cow reactions recently.

- Marty Lund

ZombieRoboNinja · Nov 14, 2012

mlund said:
As far as I can see, though neither BAB nor THAC0 have provoked Sacred Cow reactions recently.

Um, BAB is still there... They just got rid of the "base" part and ramped down the rate of increase.

Obryn · Nov 14, 2012

mlund said:
The thing is, the fluff Sacred Cows cost basically nothing to include. You're trying to get the best juice for the squeeze. If that means adding in some stupid things players and DMs can freely ignore without impacting game pacing or balance then so be it.

My issue is that I think Alignment should be fluff.

In all too many editions of D&D - and 3.5 specifically was the worst offender - it's a central mechanic that spreads into every other aspect of the game.

(Edit: This is because not only was it central to several class features and spells as it had been before, it seeped into the damage reduction mechanics, too.)

-O

Blackbrrd · Nov 14, 2012

Mirtek said:
Add in Con for hp and that's a MAD as 5e gets so far.

Other classes can get by with just one stat for Atk/Def and con for hp. Poor clerics are now equally MAD with Str/Dex; Wis & Con

Personally I would like to see the monk class being able to use weapons as well as his unarmed strike
And I'd bet there are just as much (if not more) more people that expect the D&D monk to be a chaotic type like Jackie Chan or the american shaolin guy (from that movie) than a law abiding asceticism guy

All classes use con, so why bring it up? At least the monk doesn't need strength now.