Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How Magical or Non-Magical Should the Monk Be?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6030126" data-attributes="member: 95493"><p>Failures might be a strong term. I think generally monks have not been well-made in the history of DnD but I don't see what that has to do as far as the viability or uniqueness of a class. A monk is a terrible fighter and it isn't exactly a rogue either (no sneak attack or trap finding) but it is certainly as much rogue as it is fighter. It is a 'martial' class that uses skills (or tricks or w/e) to provide extra ability beyond simply standing there and fighting.</p><p>Has it been designed poorly in the past? Possibly but that doesn't invalidate the attempts.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No one but you seems to saying that monks are martial artists. Or rather that no one is saying all martial artists should be monks. A few of us have been saying that monks use martial arts. And for that you take objection (I'll go over that below).</p><p></p><p>As far as the 'contemplative' class. I think that is much more spot on. What other classes are even trying for that role?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Who says that monks can't have martial arts while letting every other (or any other) class have unarmed abilities too? Like I said earlier, unarmed monks and flurry have been things adopted onto the frame of monks so I think they NOW belong but I have never said that they are the only ones who deserve to have unarmed. The flurry I see as unique but I don't have problems with other classes getting TWF for example.</p><p></p><p>But as far as this whole monk = martial artist and martial artists = brawler, street-fighter, wrestler, etc. Then I can completely see what you are talking about.</p><p></p><p>It is like my looking at paladins and saying that they don't deserve to be a class because they are the only ones with that whole 'smite' thing. And that any number of backgrounds deserve to have smite. All that is true. But smite isn't all that is about paladins. There is so much more and you are getting fixated on the unarmed part of the monk which is so very minor.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Outside of the overly large fighter, wizard and cleric (the rogue is debatable as to how stretched it is) ALL classes have niche protection. I'm not seeing a lot of fighters who worry about wildshaping. I don't see many rogues who want to be able to smite like a paladin. Or many wizards who want to track like a ranger. Even with the core four you have niche protection. The wizard isn't going to have the armor or weapons of a fighter and a fighter isn't going to have the spells of a wizard.</p><p></p><p>Outside of niche protection though I think that most concepts should be as universal as possible. That is my main objection to CS dice. But so far WotC doesn't seem to worry about giving everyone CS dice and yet you aren't raising any hell about that.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay, but monks, real monks not just unarmed combatants, are more like 25% fighter, 25% rogue, 15% wizard, 10% cleric, and 25% something none of them has, a sort of X-factor.</p><p></p><p>That's why I say monk is a good 5th class. Because invariably other classes (paladin, druid, ranger, bard) have some variation on this but not usually all four classes.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Also, if anything monk is that one class that belongs as a hybrid of fighter and rogue unlike any other class. Rangers in a sense are (at least in later editions) but in the grand history of DnD rangers have been more nature-y or divine related than pure fighter-rogue related, but I digress.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tovec, post: 6030126, member: 95493"] Failures might be a strong term. I think generally monks have not been well-made in the history of DnD but I don't see what that has to do as far as the viability or uniqueness of a class. A monk is a terrible fighter and it isn't exactly a rogue either (no sneak attack or trap finding) but it is certainly as much rogue as it is fighter. It is a 'martial' class that uses skills (or tricks or w/e) to provide extra ability beyond simply standing there and fighting. Has it been designed poorly in the past? Possibly but that doesn't invalidate the attempts. No one but you seems to saying that monks are martial artists. Or rather that no one is saying all martial artists should be monks. A few of us have been saying that monks use martial arts. And for that you take objection (I'll go over that below). As far as the 'contemplative' class. I think that is much more spot on. What other classes are even trying for that role? Who says that monks can't have martial arts while letting every other (or any other) class have unarmed abilities too? Like I said earlier, unarmed monks and flurry have been things adopted onto the frame of monks so I think they NOW belong but I have never said that they are the only ones who deserve to have unarmed. The flurry I see as unique but I don't have problems with other classes getting TWF for example. But as far as this whole monk = martial artist and martial artists = brawler, street-fighter, wrestler, etc. Then I can completely see what you are talking about. It is like my looking at paladins and saying that they don't deserve to be a class because they are the only ones with that whole 'smite' thing. And that any number of backgrounds deserve to have smite. All that is true. But smite isn't all that is about paladins. There is so much more and you are getting fixated on the unarmed part of the monk which is so very minor. Outside of the overly large fighter, wizard and cleric (the rogue is debatable as to how stretched it is) ALL classes have niche protection. I'm not seeing a lot of fighters who worry about wildshaping. I don't see many rogues who want to be able to smite like a paladin. Or many wizards who want to track like a ranger. Even with the core four you have niche protection. The wizard isn't going to have the armor or weapons of a fighter and a fighter isn't going to have the spells of a wizard. Outside of niche protection though I think that most concepts should be as universal as possible. That is my main objection to CS dice. But so far WotC doesn't seem to worry about giving everyone CS dice and yet you aren't raising any hell about that. Okay, but monks, real monks not just unarmed combatants, are more like 25% fighter, 25% rogue, 15% wizard, 10% cleric, and 25% something none of them has, a sort of X-factor. That's why I say monk is a good 5th class. Because invariably other classes (paladin, druid, ranger, bard) have some variation on this but not usually all four classes. Also, if anything monk is that one class that belongs as a hybrid of fighter and rogue unlike any other class. Rangers in a sense are (at least in later editions) but in the grand history of DnD rangers have been more nature-y or divine related than pure fighter-rogue related, but I digress. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How Magical or Non-Magical Should the Monk Be?
Top