Why not combine the Fighter and Monk Classes?

[Remathilis]

I should just keep this saved in a file and copypasta it whenever these threads appear.

At the end of the day, D&D only has two classes: Combatant and Spellcaster. All other classes are variants of one, the other, or some combo of both. Any application of reductionist logic (X and Y are similar, therefore X = Y with a bit of work) eventually ends up with these two classes unless some arbitrary limit is applied. Following the logic to its conclusion, D&D needs no classes but Combatant and Spellcaster and a wide enough selection of talents, skills, and feats to mimic every class that has come before it. Is that the D&D we want?

I'm of the opinion that diversity is good. More unique classes the better. There are dozens of classless or near-classless systems, D&D is best known for the strength of his archetypes codified in the class system. Make classes like Fighter and Cleric generic enough to be customized, but let monk, ranger, or barbarian represent specific archetypes with unique mechanics.

 

[Tovec]

It's a bad analogy, largely because the Rogue and Wizard archetypes are so distinct, and also because there hasn't ever been this type of criticism laid at them. The Monk is a 'fighting man' in the purest sense, while the notion of combat styles and 'martial arts' is the raisin d'être of a Fighter Class. The two classes are fundamentally comparable, and I'd argue comparable as one Class.

Yes, this is a good idea. The monk and Fighter should be similar thematically, just one uses weapons and one does not. I fail to see why there has always been such a huge divide between the two.

Oh, and I set fire to Tovec's strawman.

I hate to repeat my self but ALL OF THIS can be said of TrippyHippy's first post as well, replace rogue and wizard for fighter and monk where appropriate.

I get that you don't think they are distinct enough to warrant being different classes. That is a problem, as they should be different enough. They are different.

Just as there are differences between cleric and wizard or even cleric and druid. A monk is not just an unarmed fighting man. He is the mystic who trains their whole life to attain something more. A lot of the abilities they get reflect this (at least they did in 3e) but the problem is a lot of these abilities don't work or are klunky.

This type of conversation comes up any time the monk is mentioned but monks aren't fighters. They aren't supposed to fill the fighter's role. They are supposed to be rogue-ish. They are supposed to have special tricks and tactics to defeat their opponent. Whereas a fighter may stand up to the enemy and wail on it round after round (with any weapon he so chooses) the monk will find a better option. They aren't mechanically the same and shouldn't be. That is the second part of my post that both of you seemed to ignore.

The only way my post is a strawman is because I almost directly said what TrippyHippy said word for word. You can clearly see I just update the text to reflect the new classes but any two classes put in that argument would be the same.
Allow me to demonstrate. You can't call me a strawman without acknowledging the same with TrippyHippy here.


The Barbarian seems to get some criticism over the years for being a bit boring. The Paladin takes some criticism for being a bit thematically (Holiness style) themed in contrast to the other Classes.

How about addressing both these concerns by adapting some of the aspects of the Paladin Class with those of the Barbarian. After all, the Paladin is basically just a pure, trained Barbarian[actually 'fighter' as a word works better but the term doesn't], with mystical abilities.

I'm saying, remove some of the mystical baggage of the Paladin (along with the major restrictions) but open up the manner in which they have combat styles and abilities (as special effects) to be integrated into the broader, more generic Barbarian Class. With customization (and Themes) you could even designate your Barbarian as being a devoted, horse-trained, smiting specialist.....which would make the Paladin Class redundant if done well.

 

[TwoSix]

Personally, I'm always surprised by how people can be so adamantly against combining "dude who fights with weapons", "dude who fights with fists", and "dude who fights angry," while simultaneously having no problem combining "dude who brings the dead back as zombies", "dude who throws balls of exploding flame", and "dude who reads people's minds".

I mean, seriously. Dude.

 

[Animal]

A fine idea actually.
I think this could be done via backgrounds&themes. Like you can build a monk from a fighter with an oriental background and martial artist theme. More variants: oriental background and noble warrior theme could make a samurai, while slums-dweller background and martial artist theme could make a tavern brawler, etc.
This way with just a handful of core classes you could have a nigh endless number of concepts based on what backgrounds&themes DM approves or creates.

 

[mlund]

Personally, I'm always surprised by how people can be so adamantly against combining "dude who fights with weapons", "dude who fights with fists", and "dude who fights angry," while simultaneously having no problem combining "dude who brings the dead back as zombies", "dude who throws balls of exploding flame", and "dude who reads people's minds".

I mean, seriously. Dude.

Duuuuuuuude. Total mind-frag.

The core of the monk is "martial artist." The Eastern mythos of the monk needs to be optional - like a theme. Someone who has nigh-inhuman speed, agility, and specialty movement and unarmed combat options has the core power-train of the monk. They call these "martial arts." Slap on options and accessories to flavor as you like - the pit-fighter, the street-brawler, the wrestler, the eastern-mystic, whatever you like.

I never really liked overly restricting the Monk's weapons too. It was way to Japan-centric, where the monks there had to use weapons from farming implements due to caste restrictions. It doesn't model the larger body of fighting monks and martial-artists on the mainland who often used swords, bows, and military pole-arms.

Moving the ki/focus/attunement-based stuff into one or more background and themes opens up more possibilities too - easier structures to add in Sohei, Ninja, or Contemplative Swordsman rather than forcing a slew of stand-alone classes or dysfunctional multi-classing.

- Marty Lund

 

[Minigiant]

L

Personally, I'm always surprised by how people can be so adamantly against combining "dude who fights with weapons", "dude who fights with fists", and "dude who fights angry," while simultaneously having no problem combining "dude who brings the dead back as zombies", "dude who throws balls of exploding flame", and "dude who reads people's minds".

I mean, seriously. Dude.

I am all for splitting up wizards and their spells. I don't see that flying too well with a lot of fans. I think nothing but the "psion route" would work if it is ever tried.

Back on topic.
A monk theme would probably be broken. Look after the dipping of monk 1-2 in 3.5E. Slayer and Reaper or Flurry of Blows, Increased unarmed damage, Safe fall, And Wis to AC?

Seriously, dude?

 

[TwinBahamut]

Personally, I'm always surprised by how people can be so adamantly against combining "dude who fights with weapons", "dude who fights with fists", and "dude who fights angry," while simultaneously having no problem combining "dude who brings the dead back as zombies", "dude who throws balls of exploding flame", and "dude who reads people's minds".

I mean, seriously. Dude.

Actually, I'd love it if those last three were also separate classes. We don't need a Wizard. We need a Necromancer, an Elemental Mage, and a Psion. That would seriously make the game better.

There really isn't any point in trying to combine classes. A class-based game thrives on having more classes. We should be trying to break down the Fighter and turn it into a dozen different classes, not trying to fold different class ideas into the Fighter. The same goes for the Wizard and Cleric.

4E made some nice improvements to the game when it broke the Druid up into several different classes. The Druid focused on the wildshape and controller abilities, while the Shaman took most of the animal companion and healing abilities. This turned one confused class into two distinct and much-better focused classes. This is what needs to be done for more classes.

Who needs a Fighter when we can instead have a Knight and a Slayer?

That said, if for some reason you don't want a pure Monk class in the game, I wouldn't mind a revival of the Tome of Battle's Swordsage class. I always considered that to be the improved Monk, just like the Warblade was the improved Fighter. I don't see what is wrong with Monks in D&D, though. D&D doesn't need to be slavishly eurocentric. It's a fantasy game, not a depcition of some place in Earth's history. Maybe we can add some Ninjas to the core rules to give the Monks some company.

 

[TwoSix]

L

I am all for splitting up wizards and their spells. I don't see that flying too well with a lot of fans. I think nothing but the "psion route" would work if it is ever tried.

A sphere system like for 2e priests would be interesting, I think. Every wizard gets major access to 2 or 3 spheres (out of 16 or so), and minor access to 4-6 more.

Plus, it's retro! Win win! Dude!

 

[TwoSix]

Actually, I'd love it if those last three were also separate classes. We don't need a Wizard. We need a Necromancer, an Elemental Mage, and a Psion. That would seriously make the game better.

There really isn't any point in trying to combine classes. A class-based game thrives on having more classes. We should be trying to break down the Fighter and turn it into a dozen different classes, not trying to fold different class ideas into the Fighter. The same goes for the Wizard and Cleric.

4E made some nice improvements to the game when it broke the Druid up into several different classes. The Druid focused on the wildshape and controller abilities, while the Shaman took most of the animal companion and healing abilities. This turned one confused class into two distinct and much-better focused classes. This is what needs to be done for more classes.

Agreed 100%. Maybe not everyone likes this fact, but D&D thrives on crunch. Classes are some of the tastiest crunch around.

Remember that thread a few months back about the 100 classes? I don't think it's really too far off the mark.

Ideally, I'd like to see 3e multiclassing embraced, mixed with a combination of no 20 level classes at all. There are some generic 10 level classes like Fighter, Mage etc. But most of the powerful abilities are sequestered into progression of PrC like 5 to 10 level classes. After all, classes changing into other classes is a time-honored tradition, dating back to Final Fantasy I and the Rat Tail.

 

[Remathilis]

I wouldn't mind if we're using the spell lists of yore that wizards lose some of those fancy illusions and stuff and keep it for a real illusionist class. I still want wizards to have some divinations, illusions, and enchantments but they don't need access to all the tools from every arcane caster.

If we can limit clerics, we can limit mages.