D&D General Monk: The Past, Present, and Questionable Future of an Iconic Class

[nevin]

NP i do it all the time.

 

[nevin]

Um, well, there is the whole exploration pillar and the skills around social encounters. There are chase scenes. There are all kinds of DnD stories that aren't combat, so I really don't understand your question?

yep all covered by let the DM handle it.

 

[Moonmover]

yep all covered by let the DM handle it.

What makes combat such a special edge case that the DM can't handle  it?

 

[Clint_L]

I read that thread, and as you might tell from the OP, it informed some of what I wrote. I think people are doing good work in there! Well, despite the occasional sniping that is part and parcel of life on the 'tubez.

That said ... (you knew it was coming!) the thing I've been thinking about, and the genesis of the thread, was when I was thinking about my feelings about the monk, and why these changes felt especially off to me. And I think it's for two reasons.

The first is that some of proposed changes genuinely don't make sense to me, especially in light of the increased emphasis on "buffing" martials (with Weapon Properties, no less). It made me think about how the whiteroom combat theory about the Monk tends to get a lot of things wrong, and the original sin is that it tends to overvalue weaponless combat and undervalue the inability to use magic weapons or magic armor - and how MAD the Monk is compared to other martials.

Second, and more important, was the realization that the changes were really all about combat. And I think that's where I really started dwelling on the problem with the class, which is a little different than most of what is written. As I wrote, I love the monk. It's a fun and different martial character to play. But here's the thing- there's already a better fighter (the, um, fighter). There's a better tank (the barbarian). There's two classes that are both martial and a lot more versatile (Rangers and Paladins). And there's even a class that does better surge damage with out-of-combat utility (the Rogue).

And that's when I realized what the real issue is. It's not combat, or, not mainly combat. The monk will always have a great niche as the fun, mobile, squishy melee character. The problem is that the monk is being completely combat-focused.

Think about it- it's both MAD and often dumps charisma, so your Monk will usually be the last choice for any social interaction.
The Monk (unlike Rogues, Bards, Artificers, and even Tasha's Rangers) doesn't have expertise as an option, so it won't ever be great at skills.
Because the Monk is MAD, and needs high wisdom and dexterity just for AC, it is hard to justify feats; moreover, most don't help the Monk greatly (unlike some of the weapons feats).
Heck, the Monk is a class with a super high dexterity, yet almost exclusively uses melee combat (which circles around to the issues with hit points and AC).

I've played a lot of Monks, and they can be fun at combat, but they often twiddle their thumbs at everything else. Even things they should be good at (like scouting) they will often take a backseat to classes like the Rogue with expertise. The UA simply confirms and increases this trend by orienting them even more towards combat, but continuing to make them the designated second-class martials.

Which is fine. Monks don't have to "outfight" the fighter. But they have to do something. Heck, even basic things like the fact that most Monks suck at athletics is kind of a kick in the cojones when you're playing them.

Given Monks cool abilities. Give them more ribbons. Instead of worrying about their combat (which is ... fine) let the Monk get some skill certainty, whether through expertise or fixed abilities. As far as combat abilities go, and with the new ki ("di") regeneration, the combat abilities of the Monk are fine, albeit with the need of some tweaking. I'd like to see some thought put into fixing the other aspects of the Monk that are glaringly obvious in play- everything from "why do Monks suck at athletics," to "What are Monks supposed to do in real campaigns when other party members are using magic swords and magic armor and feats to be all awesome while the Monk is still stuck at the whiteroom theory level of DPR?"

These are good points. My proposal is aimed at fixing the immediate problem, which is that they kind of aren't great at doing monk stuff in combat specifically, which plays an significant, perhaps outsized, role in the general consensus of a class's viability. At a functional level, in combat monks at low to mid-levels (so, most of them) are hamstrung by resources scarcity (too few ki/di) and too may things being attached to the bonus action.

Your points about ribbons are accurate, and I would go further by making monks lore experts. Since they spend so much time in study and meditation, they should be the guys who know stuff, particularly of an "ancient wisdom/knowldge" flavour. Given that they use wisdom and dexterity, what about a giving them an ability to really make them the best at perception and/or initiative?

I am also presenting my ideas in a realist mode - looking at the scope of changes on offer in OneD&D, what do I think could actually happen?

 

[Voadam]

only the monk. and the ranger got two d8 at first level. It fixed the survivability at lower level that they had at mid to higher level.

Going from d4s in Oe to an extra d4 from first level in 1e looks like it was intended to address survivability of low level monks.

I would not say it fixed the issue.

 

[Moonmover]

To be fair, everybody in 1e has trouble surviving low levels. Even of you're a ranger with 10hp or so, you'll still die on a failed save vs poison from a generic giant spider. It's not a specific problem of the monk, who on average has more level 1 hp than a rogue or cleric.

Fighters are popular in old-school A/D&D not just because they have good hp/ac, but also because they level up reasonably quickly and get away from the hyperlethal meatgrinder that is RAW low-level play.

 

[Nightfly]

There is exactly one (1) order of monks that practice martial arts and that is the Shaolin.

How can you so blithely dismiss the ancient order of Wu Tang

 

[Vael]

Given Monks cool abilities. Give them more ribbons. Instead of worrying about their combat (which is ... fine) let the Monk get some skill certainty, whether through expertise or fixed abilities. As far as combat abilities go, and with the new ki ("di") regeneration, the combat abilities of the Monk are fine, albeit with the need of some tweaking. I'd like to see some thought put into fixing the other aspects of the Monk that are glaringly obvious in play- everything from "why do Monks suck at athletics," to "What are Monks supposed to do in real campaigns when other party members are using magic swords and magic armor and feats to be all awesome while the Monk is still stuck at the whiteroom theory level of DPR?"

Here's a thought: Since Wisdom is a primary stat ... give them superior senses/perception. We see a lot of the blind master martial artists already, lean into that. Blindsight, Truesight, ability to ignore blindness or deafness, advantage vs illusions ...

This is where I'm tempted to also draw on 4e Monks ... they became a Psionic class. I say became, but the thematic parallels, Psionic power being an inner resource of one's own mind and body are already there in the Monk. ESP like abilities would also be something for Monks then.

 

[MGibster]

Friends, gamers, members of the Benevolent Order of the Golden Noodle, lend me your fists. I come to bury monks, not to praise them. The good that classes do is oft interred with the bones, so let it be with the monk.

Okay, that's a bit harsh. I have never cared for the Monk class in D&D because I never felt as though it had a place in most settings. Where do I drop a monastic order of martial artists based on Caine from Kung-Fu or Remo Williams into the Forgotten Realms? The numbers just didn't add up. And I hadn't even considered what their role was in the party. Wow. My dislike of the Monk burns with the intensity of a million lukewarm buffets awaiting low scores from the Department of Health.

And for any cries of the Monk being "problematic," whatever that means, I view it as a product of cultural exchange rather than simple appropriation. A foreign element was introduced into our popular culture and it took on a life of its own. That's how cultural exchange works.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Yeah, the monk works better as a rogue variant than a fighter variant.

false the monk is clearly its own beast that does not fit the classic four

Well that's because the western monk was obviously divine but a lot of people overlook the oriental monk is completly divine. The entire idea of the eastern monk is someone who follows the edicts of heaven and as a result become's one with reality. Eventually gaining mastery of reality itself in thier own bubble. With the advent of Buddism becoming so powerful Budda even took a place in the celestial heirachy as the moral compass of the gods in the upper realm since even they don't know what the creator wants from them.

Watch the movie the sorcerer and the white snake wth Jet Li. It give's you a very good look at the chinese vision of a truly holy monk (who gets his power from his holiness, not the gods, not the creator just being completely in tune with the creators reality and rules.)

But if you are looking at myths and historical monks there aren't any western one's or oriental ones that i know of that aren't divine.

Now some people like martial arts movies and want the monk to be Bruce Lee. Problem is Bruce Lee at his most bad ass kind've sucks in any DND version past level 6.

look I would agree holy but some more modern stuff and old tales speak of demon versions so something seems to be more layered.
secondly, it is not divine in the way clerics or paladins are divine those are theurgic god proxies who cast miracles it seems a different power source or at least a very different approach.

in other points I have found what the mystical martial artist seems to be doing in the cultural heartlands sword flying.