D&D 5E 5th edition monks

[PsyzhranV2]

Even if that is a stereotype (maybe it is, maybe it isn't; depends where you live, probably), I'm confused how it's harmful. I'm also confused how it's any more racially-coded than warlocks, which is a traditionally western concept. As are wizards using spell-books. Personally, I would say that barbarians are a more much problematic stereotype. Portraying outsiders and traditional peoples as angry rage-fueled brutes deserves much more attention than monks.

However, I still fail to see how any of these stereotypes are racist as opposed to xenophobic, which are completely different concepts in the nature vs. nurture debate.

In my experience, it's not harmful, but it's definitely annoying. I'm saying this as a Chinese-Canadian man who used to practice Taekwondo since grade school but am currently on hiatus due to lack of time. I'm also saying this as a man that was privileged to grow up upper-middle class and in a school environment that was surprisingly devoid of the usual, stereotypical classroom annoyances. I never got hostility thrown at me specifically for my martial arts practice as a kid, but I definitely got quite a bit of unsolicited questions that pried too deep. I'm sure others have had it worse than me.

The issue with the Monk is that when it comes to how tied to fluff certain classes are, it ranks among the hardest classes to dissociate from its stereotype. Other than the Sun Soul which is just anime (and a pretty lacklustre take at it too), all of the Monk subclasses as well as its base class features...

Actually, I'm just gonna link an article on the subject that says it more eloquently than I have the time and patience to. Teasers in the link text:

So the monk mostly draws on Chinese sources, except culturally conflated with ki and ninja stuff from Japan. No other character class has any cultural signifiers like it, not even the barbarian or druid. The barbarian isn’t actually from a foreign land, they’re just angry. The druid is a wilderness magician who resembles a Celtic religious leader only in name and sickle proficiency. There’s one racialized class, and its race is “Asian martial artist.” Which Asian martial artist? All of them.

...

Asian martial arts stereotypes over-emphasize the delicacy, finesse, and philosophy of Eastern combat—the Dexterity and Wisdom rather than the Strength and Constitution, we might say. Of course, actual Asian martial arts exhibit the same range of grace and force, refinement and brutality as combat everywhere else in the world. This trend may also explain the list of “monk weapons” in the Player’s Handbook.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Maybe ask some Asian people if people have ever assumed they know martial arts, and if they’ve ever been bullied or harassed because of it. It’s quite common. Perhaps especially so in America? Regardless, the stereotype exists and causes harm whether you live in a place where it’s frequently happening or not.

They’re not specifically coded as anything. They are very loosely based on Western folklore, but they are not presented as explicitly European. You could maybe argue that the Druid is vaguely Celtic, but the actual Celtic mythological influences in the class are minimal. Monk is the only Class with a sidebar about reskinning weapons to fit a certain cultural aesthetic. It’s the only class that has a feature named for a concept from a specific religion. It is clearly coded in a way that other classes are not. That coding is racial and not cultural because the Monk’s influences are a vague pan-Asian mishmash, not any particular culture (though Indian influences are conspicuously absent). It’s textbook orientalism.

I think that would be a problem, if barbarians were more modeled after any particular real-world groups. Like, if they were black coded, or Native American coded, or otherwise coded in a similar way to how Monks are Oriental coded, yeah, that would be more egregious.

I don't know. My high school growing up in the US was more than 50% East Asian, and I didn't see any bullying. I never saw any bullying at all about anything, to be honest. We were a pretty friendly bunch, to be honest. We made a lot a racist jokes, but aimed relatively equally at all races. Good fun all around.

While practicing kendo at a mostly Asian dojo, I didn't see any bullying either.

Now that I don't live in the US, I am often the subject of stereotypes: some good, some less so. The best medicine is to surround yourself with good people. Everyone else isn't worth listening to.

Moreover, I am much more comfortable with stereotypes than social engineering. I am deeply uncomfortable with anyone trying to alter anyone else's perceptions outside of intellectual argument (which are fascinating and wonderful, in my opinion). I'm not entirely sure I enjoy children's games that attempt to present a view of the world, even a view of the world I agree with. Neither Christianity nor any other ideology has a place in schools, TV shows, or games aimed at children and teens. It is a tool too powerful for anyone to wield.

Edit: Also, you still haven't show how the D&D monk is harmful to Asians. I really don't understand. Martial arts is a wonderful tradition. I don't see how highlighting and celebrating it is inherently problematic unless the fundamental trappings of human culture are also flawed. Different cultures have brought us a multitude of different cuisine, holidays, arts, literature, etc. That's like saying no one should want to talk to Englishmen about Shakespeare and his plays because maybe some individual doesn't know anything about him.

 

[Morlaf]

Yes that's a point that people miss. (I explored this in a thought experiment here - but people seemed to miss the point) Just bumping up the importance of all the abilities would ultimately lead to convergence around the middle. And once you reach that point there's little point in having them at all.

That said the biggest issue with Strength for Monks is that they tend to suck at athletics - which really doesn't feel appropriate and they fall into the whole acrobatics cul de sac (where you try to naughty word your GM into leting you roll Acrobatics instead of Strength(Athletics) and hope that they buy it).

yeah.... any monk in my sessions that try and blag a jump/climb/swim check with acrobatics, rather than athletics I explain the situation to them ONCE and if they dare double-insist on me I increase the DM by 5 and put a mind-flayer on the other side. Not a fully capable one. One able to only see monks....

 

[Jd Smith1]

Really? So you haven’t noticed that token Asian characters in Western media are trained in some form of martial arts more often than not? The trope of the frail old man or the scrawny waif who’s revealed to secretly be a master of some martial art, often when some unsuspecting antagonistic character tries to bully or pick a fight with them? The mysterious and cryptic Sensei who teaches the brash (usually white) hero discipline and technique? It’s all over the place.

Other than the occasional Jackie Chan, I don't watch martial arts movies, but no, I didn't notice.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Is a monk’s ability about raw strength, or in how one’s strength is applied?

I think the complaint relies an an interpretation of the game’s stats that’s far too literal.

I mean, a huge lummox in a strong man competition, who can throw telephone poles and lift up cars is undoubtedly stronger than Bruce Lee was. But which is more likely to know how to throw a devastating punch?

5e Strength is athleticism and the ability to apply force - Its how much power you can apply. If you wanted a "Strongman" type character you could get the sort of numbers required by a feat that did the equivalent of Powerful Build and a decent Strength.
You could justify not maxing Strength on the basis that they aren't actually able to apply all their muscles, and so have a functional Strength score lower than a more athletic character who might actually be carrying less muscle mass.

Actually, IMO/IME that is realistic.

There are weapons which rely upon the brute hit, using design and an intended powerful user to blast through armor, either by direct penetration or kinetic shock (STR based weapons).

There are weapons which rely upon the design coupled with higher degrees of training and coordination to hit where the armor isn't (no matter the type of armor, there are always weaker points). (Finesse weapons)

Finesse as a D&D game term simply means that the weapon's damage can be based on the grace and reflexes of the user rather than the power and athleticism. It does not directly mean the same as its general usage of "skillful" or similar.
The myth that Str-based weapons are just brute-force and only finesse weapons use a lot of skill or training is pretty outdated now. If it has to be put purely into D&D terms, the proficiency bonus, representing skill is the same.

5e's problem isn't the attribute or the weapon, but the insistence of jamming a concept (eastern style martial artist) into a Western setting.

More specifically, a mythical eastern style martial artist. The monk depicts the legendary feats of some fictional Asian warriors in a similar way to the paladin depicts the legendary feats of some fictional European warriors.

I mean, if Acrobatics is a skill, not letting it do parkour just seems...like a purely gamist restriction that only exists to protect strength’s niche? Both as a DM and as a player, that seems rather unsatisfying.

Parkour is an activity that uses both Athletics and Acrobatics. A low-Str person is going to have issues scrambling up a wall or jumping between rooftops, but a low-Dex person will have problems keeping their balance moving across a sloping roof or rolling out of a fall.

I still think that Strength should add to damage for all melee weapons, and some ranged weapons perhaps.

I basically made bows and slings Finesse weapons.
All melee weapons can already use Strength if that is the user's preference.

Edit: Also, you still haven't show how the D&D monk is harmful to Asians. I really don't understand. Martial arts is a wonderful tradition. I don't see how highlighting and celebrating it is inherently problematic unless the fundamental trappings of human culture are also flawed. Different cultures have brought us a multitude of different cuisine, holidays, arts, literature, etc. That's like saying no one should want to talk to Englishmen about Shakespeare and his plays because maybe some individual doesn't know anything about him.

I think that at least part of the issue is that the Monk kludges together several different asian culture/traditions as if they were all the same.
Its like talking to an Englishman about how Shakespeare''s plays are better in the original Dutch.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I think that at least part of the issue is that the Monk kludges together several different asian culture/traditions as if they were all the same.
Its like talking to an Englishman about how Shakespeare''s plays are better in the original Dutch.

To be fair, the rest of D&D, and most fantasy RPGs, is a hodgepodge of cultures jammed together from a variety of cultures, societies, and time periods. It's built for entertainment.

 

[DND_Reborn]

{...this is especially for those transitioning from 3, 3.5 to 5.}
Dex has always been an important stat. Apart from class-specific stats (e.g. cha for sorcerers) dex is the most over-used stat.
Now I have been playing and running 5th edition for a while and I detest how str has become a dump stat for monks.
i.e. they need str as much as a sorcerer needs it. This is silliness.
Your chance to hit with melee weapons is determined by str because the stronger you are the faster you can move your axe to hit.
Dex determines how accurate you can be to hit specific vitals points. At least that is how the game tries to SIMULATE combat. Fine.
So in 3/3.5 you can take the finesse feat. This obliged you to be careful with selecting feats and it allowed for high-str build monks.
And still damage is determined by str.
Some future source books (unofficial or not?) offered feats to further make dex play a part in damage with finesse weapons. This seems balanced and realistic.
A degree of realism is not a bad thing....

is 5th edition balanced? yeah it probably is. But I have huge beef with 5th edition for doing this.
I take the opportunity to bitch and moan about it all the time and I am in the process of house-ruling certain stuff regarding monks.
I have also made my own Monastic Traditions that offer AS AN OPTION increased combat prowess bast on str.

Any old-skool playaz here (or indeed newbies) that feel the same?

We try to make is so no stat can be considered a dump stat. For example, a STR 8 is a -1 penalty to damage rolls, even those made with finesse or ranged weapons, to a minimum of 1 damage. We also track encumbrance closely enough that STR matters for wizards and such. Start carrying a decent amount of gear and that 5x STR will reduce your movement soon enough.

We have INT modifier grant bonus proficiency, so if you have an INT 8 and a -1 modifier, you have to give up a language, skill, weapon or armor proficiency, etc.

There are other house-rules we use as well to try to balance out ability scores. While ability scores will never be completely balanced, a lot can be done to make them all more viable.

Also, a STR 10 is normal, so sufficient in most cases to do most tasks. A monk might be proficient in Athletics, and thus able to jump, climb, etc. better than his STR 10 might indicate. Even if they are stronger due practicing martial arts, a bump to STR 12 or so could represent that.

 

[Wiseblood]

Because dex is better than strength in the mechanics of the game. That is why it is a problem. Give monks a bonus to hit, damage, AC and initiative that is based on strength then it would be even. So either accept that Strength monks will be inferior or make a strength monk class. Or nerf dexterity. Or none of the above.

I have made two strength monks. They work fine. I left the mechanics alone. The dex monk stuff bothers me. As long as you aren’t in a party with a dex monk you won’t look silly.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Parkour is an activity that uses both Athletics and Acrobatics. A low-Str person is going to have issues scrambling up a wall or jumping between rooftops, but a low-Dex person will have problems keeping their balance moving across a sloping roof or rolling out of a fall.
I basically made bows and slings Finesse weapons.
All melee weapons can already use Strength if that is the user's preference.

I think my point was missed in both quotes here.

Re: Parkour; My point is that DnD’s Dex score encompasses the strength (and perception, and physical health) required to perform tasks that the game and players associate with Dex and it’s skills. Thus, parkour is a Dex activity, because that is the primary stat associated with parkour. Parkour is a type of acrobatics. DnD 5e doesn’t make you roll several ability checks for one action, you just roll against the main stat associated with the thing.

Wielding finesse weapons also uses some amount of strength, but that strength is encompassed by the dexterity score, just as some degree of coordination and balance is encompassed my your Str score when attacking or performing most Athletics actions.

Re: Weapons. My point here was that pretty much all weapons should attack with Dex, and add Strength to damage, because that actually shows the need for both stats to actually be good with any weapon. (Crossbows might add Dex to both, but just require a certain strength to be able to reload without spending an action, or soemthing)

But, 5e also tries to keep things simple, so I’d also be fine with making all weapons finesse, or with simply leaving it alone.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It is modeled poorly because a 12 is only 5% better than the average computer science major in any given STR-based task. That slightly above average nobody, trained in athletics is only 15% better and will lose to that average computer science major in a rock climbing competition a decent amount of the time. Furthermore, if our warrior has 14 DEX, his 12 STR will have absolutely no effect on his combat ability compared to the same warrior with a STR of 3.

All of that confuses me greatly.

Your characters never have to make strength saves in a fight?