D&D (2024) Monks Are Not Tanks And Shouldn’t Be

[tetrasodium]

Asking whether fiction or mechanics is more important is like asking which is more important to a car, the wheels or the engine. You need both or you're going nowhere. And if they aren't connected solidly, you're going to break down in short order.

Yes but the wheels should be round rather than oval or square. The engine should be capable of reaching certain metrics like reasonably smooth acceleration or the ability to reach expected speeds in a certain period of time without spraying fuel about on the street. Not exploding when hit by another cat while the blinker on active for a particular turning direction would be another.

5e has areas that fail to meet those types standards and we have a playtest giving every indication that the last decade of"fix it yourself, your the gm" is going to continue.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Asking whether fiction or mechanics is more important is like asking which is more important to a car, the wheels or the engine. You need both or you're going nowhere. And if they aren't connected solidly, you're going to break down in short order.

I mean.. from a "game design" perspective, it's more like,

the game mechanics are the car..
and the fiction is the road ..

..and the game designers are in charge of building the car.

They can make the car better suited for driving on certain kinds of roads, and they can design it to try and make you feel a certain way while you are driving, but they are mostly not in charge of the road and the road will exist no matter how well or poorly the car drives.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Asking whether fiction or mechanics is more important is like asking which is more important to a car, the wheels or the engine. You need both or you're going nowhere. And if they aren't connected solidly, you're going to break down in short order.

Sure, but I think what gets missed is we have an awful lot of fiction just bundled into the idea of "remake the monk for DnD" That narrows our potential fiction significantly, to the point were we can start looking at "what do we want the monk to do mechanically" without worrying about more fiction.

 

[Marandahir]

Sure, but I think what gets missed is we have an awful lot of fiction just bundled into the idea of "remake the monk for DnD" That narrows our potential fiction significantly, to the point were we can start looking at "what do we want the monk to do mechanically" without worrying about more fiction.

Yes, but if you start with the mechanics before you know the concepts you want the class to represent, then you end up pigeon-holing your class into concept that only fit within the mechanics.

5e D&D classes are BROAD TENT. Paladins aren't just knights in shining armor, they're also wardens of eldritch forests, they're blackguards and tyrannical iron mongers, they're glorious heroes of Homer's Illiad and Odyssey. The class needs a central identity (in the Paladin's case, it's the idea of an inner code of conduct driving their martial arts and their magical prowess), but needs to be broad enough that it can encompass various iterations, world views, and cultural sources.

Look too at the Artificer. This is a class whose central theme is "magitechnology." Everything they do surrounds their abilities as magical technicians and engineers, but this is expressed in wildly different ways. Battle Smiths and Armorers are Arcane Gishes, serving very akin to that of the Swordmage from 4e, while Alchemists are exactly as written on the tin and Artillerists are gunslingers with a mobile ballista/dwarven windlass (from which you can fire black arrows at Smaug; thanks Bard). There are so many unexplored niches within this idea that is far more expansive than "Rogue+Wizard focused on use magic item." There's a big thread about this over on the other 5e subforum.

We can't re-design the Monk without understanding the core central theme of the class. If we just do the mechanics we like, then the theme will mold itself around the mechanics, and limit itself from various expressions. We need to create mechanics that mold around a central but expansive theme.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yes, but if you start with the mechanics before you know the concepts you want the class to represent, then you end up pigeon-holing your class into concept that only fit within the mechanics.

5e D&D classes are BROAD TENT. Paladins aren't just knights in shining armor, they're also wardens of eldritch forests, they're blackguards and tyrannical iron mongers, they're glorious heroes of Homer's Illiad and Odyssey. The class needs a central identity (in the Paladin's case, it's the idea of an inner code of conduct driving their martial arts and their magical prowess), but needs to be broad enough that it can encompass various iterations, world views, and cultural sources.

Look too at the Artificer. This is a class whose central theme is "magitechnology." Everything they do surrounds their abilities as magical technicians and engineers, but this is expressed in wildly different ways. Battle Smiths and Armorers are Arcane Gishes, serving very akin to that of the Swordmage from 4e, while Alchemists are exactly as written on the tin and Artillerists are gunslingers with a mobile ballista/dwarven windlass (from which you can fire black arrows at Smaug; thanks Bard). There are so many unexplored niches within this idea that is far more expansive than "Rogue+Wizard focused on use magic item." There's a big thread about this over on the other 5e subforum.

We can't re-design the Monk without understanding the core central theme of the class. If we just do the mechanics we like, then the theme will mold itself around the mechanics, and limit itself from various expressions. We need to create mechanics that mold around a central but expansive theme.

Even a "BROAD TENT" has an outer edge. that last paragraph of yours is spot on though and illustrates why monk is such a dumpster fire, the base monk central theme is allowed to be absurdly broad and avoid having outer edges in order to pile in support for themes that would normally be handled by (sometimes mutually exclusive) equipment choices in every other class.

 

[Marandahir]

Even a "BROAD TENT" has an outer edge. that last paragraph of yours is spot on though and illustrates why monk is such a dumpster fire, the base monk central theme is allowed to be absurdly broad and avoid having outer edges in order to pile in support for themes that would normally be handled by (sometimes mutually exclusive) equipment choices in every other class.

I agree with you, though I also think the base monk is ironically absurdly narrow in theme, where real world martial artists (if we're deciding Monks are the martial artist class and not something else) are not JUST Judoka or Sumo Rikishi -- heck, even Boxers use gauntlets. Aikido masters are also usually masters of Aikiken (same flowing redirection of energy movements but using a sword instead of just fists). Many martial artists train in fists and weapons. Kensei is a great concept for Monks, but probably poorly executed. The boundaries between Fighter territory and Monk territory are blurrier than D&D has been willing to go, and so instead the Monk also leaned into the mystical martial arts with influences from anime like Dragonball and Yu Yu Hakusho and their usage of ki to power ranged attacks and other powers. This means the Monk is essentially a differently-resourced half-caster. In fact, Monk's ki/discipline points are almost directly aligned with the Spell Points optional rule in the 5e.14 DMG, scaled for half-casters. Could they not be a sort of Psychic Warrior class, but flavoured moreso toward the themes of martial arts fiction?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, but if you start with the mechanics before you know the concepts you want the class to represent, then you end up pigeon-holing your class into concept that only fit within the mechanics.

5e D&D classes are BROAD TENT. Paladins aren't just knights in shining armor, they're also wardens of eldritch forests, they're blackguards and tyrannical iron mongers, they're glorious heroes of Homer's Illiad and Odyssey. The class needs a central identity (in the Paladin's case, it's the idea of an inner code of conduct driving their martial arts and their magical prowess), but needs to be broad enough that it can encompass various iterations, world views, and cultural sources.

Look too at the Artificer. This is a class whose central theme is "magitechnology." Everything they do surrounds their abilities as magical technicians and engineers, but this is expressed in wildly different ways. Battle Smiths and Armorers are Arcane Gishes, serving very akin to that of the Swordmage from 4e, while Alchemists are exactly as written on the tin and Artillerists are gunslingers with a mobile ballista/dwarven windlass (from which you can fire black arrows at Smaug; thanks Bard). There are so many unexplored niches within this idea that is far more expansive than "Rogue+Wizard focused on use magic item." There's a big thread about this over on the other 5e subforum.

We can't re-design the Monk without understanding the core central theme of the class. If we just do the mechanics we like, then the theme will mold itself around the mechanics, and limit itself from various expressions. We need to create mechanics that mold around a central but expansive theme.

How is "master of unarmed combat" not a broad enough tent? How is that NOT the central theme of the class?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

How is "master of unarmed combat" not a broad enough tent? How is that NOT the central theme of the class?

Because it's not different enough from the "master of combat" fighter.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I agree with you, though I also think the base monk is ironically absurdly narrow in theme, where real world martial artists (if we're deciding Monks are the martial artist class and not something else) are not JUST Judoka or Sumo Rikishi -- heck, even Boxers use gauntlets. Aikido masters are also usually masters of Aikiken (same flowing redirection of energy movements but using a sword instead of just fists). Many martial artists train in fists and weapons. Kensei is a great concept for Monks, but probably poorly executed. The boundaries between Fighter territory and Monk territory are blurrier than D&D has been willing to go, and so instead the Monk also leaned into the mystical martial arts with influences from anime like Dragonball and Yu Yu Hakusho and their usage of ki to power ranged attacks and other powers. This means the Monk is essentially a differently-resourced half-caster. In fact, Monk's ki/discipline points are almost directly aligned with the Spell Points optional rule in the 5e.14 DMG, scaled for half-casters. Could they not be a sort of Psychic Warrior class, but flavoured moreso toward the themes of martial arts fiction?

Huh, sounds to me like we have a whole lot of fiction. Maybe it would be time to look at... mechanics...

 

[Chaosmancer]

Because it's not different enough from the "master of combat" fighter.

How many fighters before that god-awful Fighting Style fought with their fists?

And frankly, if the fighter's fiction is good enough, the monk's is overachieving.