Why not combine the Fighter and Monk Classes?

[Minigiant]

Part of the reason why I see Monks as more than just unarmed fighters is from the belief that their martial arts training issue secondary. A means to an end.

Most pro athletes lift weights and run a lot. Now a foot ball or baseball player isn't a weightlifter or track star but they are better than normal folk at it.

Monks learn unarmed combat for athletic and discipline reasons as well. Some are primarily learning it to kick butt. Other might be for the added bonus.

 

[variant]

If this is true, then it is really sad, and a lot limiting. But personally I think this is untrue.

I am not a fan of the Monk at all in a traditionally western-medieval D&D setting, thus I always say I would prefer the Monk to belong to an Oriental Adventure sourcebook rather than the PHB.

But if the Monk was reduced to a "specialist unarmed fighter" I would not feel this would make it much better for such traditional setting either.

So I prefer to keep the Monk concept wide and use a separate class.

I don't mind monks in a western fantasy setting, as long as they are the kind that don't do martial arts.

 

[mlund]

People conflate fighting style and lifestyle too much when addressing the Monk as a class rather than a character build. This is part of why having Backgrounds and Themes are so important - well-designed classes do not put your character background into a straight-jacket.

"Monk" is not a class - it is a background. Living and working on a daily basis inside or under the authority of a monastery as a religious. It doesn't constitute any special powers in any culture. In Japan monks were often just retired samurai. A Chinese monastery could have a bunch of pole-arm fighters, kung-fu grapplers, swordsmen, or archers in it - but it could also be populated entirely by non-violent pacifists or mostly by disabled people cast off by a less-compassionate society.

All the combat stuff associated with the "Monk" is martial-arts, disciplines and skills that don't require a monastic life-style though they were historically (real world) developed in those contexts. A character could have learned them in a monastery, a dojo, or a military training camp.

The extra mystical powers of the monk (centered mind, harmonious body, immunity to disease, mentally blocking pain, etc.) are a narrow enough band of effects that come on over the course of levels that they'd fit into a theme. Even Oriental Adventurers back in the day showed us that these concepts were easily applied to classes that did something other than fight bare-handed or with peasant weapons. Creating a theme allows one to approximate things like the Sohei, Shugenja, or Wu-Jen easily.

When you really get down to it, the AD&D Monk class in modern terms is a unique build - a combination of Class, Background, and Theme.

Monk Build
Class: Fighter (Martial Artist)
Background: Monk
Theme: Mystic Contemplative

This leaves the door open for other combinations like these:

Sohei Build
Class: Fighter (Guardian)
Background: Monk
Theme: Mystic Contemplative

Burly Grappler Build
Class: Fighter (Martial Artist)
Background: Thug
Theme: Reaver

Western Monk Build
Class: Cleric (Priest)
Background: Monk
Theme: Healer (maybe Artisan?)

Etc.

- Marty Lund

 

[Steely_Dan]

I think a cleaned up 1st Monk is in order, no Ki baggage.

I have already dropped it in the 5th Ed play-test with ease (obviously a few tweaks).

 

[Salamandyr]

I don't particularly care for the monk class because of what it says about it the world and the other characters in it. After all, if it's possible with enough training, to slay dragons with your bare hands, what does that imply about the poor loser who needs a longsword and plate mail to do it? Likewise, in order to carve out a niche for monks as preeminent unarmed combatants, in most versions, designers have made all the other martial classes incompetent when you take their toys away from them.

As such, I would definitely prefer the monk to go away, and unarmed combat to be something that the fighter class (as well as the inevitable barbarian, ranger and other combatant classes) are proficient in by design.

As for the mystical parts (including being able to match an equally skilled armed opponent while weaponless) I'd prefer that be held part of a "wuxia" module that modifies all classes.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I'm not completely sure what people are envisioning when they talk about divorcing the monk class from its Eastern trappings - wouldn't that just be a pugilist, or brawler, or something?

In any case, if what you're looking for is a Bruce Lee-style martial artist without the wuxia mystic powers, my hope is that multiclassing will be a viable answer in 5e.

If you think about it, the 3e monk didn't start getting all wuxia until higher levels. My guess/hope is that the 5e monk will be similar: Bruce Lee with a little parkour built in up to about level 10, and then a gentle phasing in of the more mystical elements of the class until we have a preternatural badass at high levels.

So if you start out with a few levels of monk, then add levels of fighter through the "3e-style multiclassing" we've been promised (and I still don't understand how they'll avoid the gimped multiclass casters and overpowered single-level dipping of 3e, but we'll see), and carefully select your combat superiority powers for the fighter, you SHOULD be able to get a dude who has the unarmed/unarmored benefits of the monk along with the martial prowess and flexibility of the fighter (although obviously without the full, specialized benefits of either).

To me, this seems an obvious better choice than just eliminating the monk class. D&D monks aren't just fighters with different weapons and armor; they fulfill a very different combat role, play differently, and are effective in very different ways. Given that Mearls has said the monk class was the easiest to design (suggesting they've already done most of the work), why toss that away?

I don't particularly care for the monk class because of what it says about it the world and the other characters in it. After all, if it's possible with enough training, to slay dragons with your bare hands, what does that imply about the poor loser who needs a longsword and plate mail to do it?

For the same reason you'd use a longsword and plate mail instead of becoming a wizard and zapping the dragon with lightning bolts: because being a monk or wizard requires years or decades of disciplined training and sacrifice, not to mention different ability scores (Wis for the monk, Int for the wizard). You can flip the question around rather easily too: why spend years or decades training martial arts to become a level 1 monk when you can spend a few weeks in basic training, strap on a suit of armor and grab a sword, and be just as effective as a fighter?

 

[Remathilis]

People conflate fighting style and lifestyle too much when addressing the Monk as a class rather than a character build. This is part of why having Backgrounds and Themes are so important - well-designed classes do not put your character background into a straight-jacket.

"Monk" is not a class - it is a background. Living and working on a daily basis inside or under the authority of a monastery as a religious. It doesn't constitute any special powers in any culture. In Japan monks were often just retired samurai. A Chinese monastery could have a bunch of pole-arm fighters, kung-fu grapplers, swordsmen, or archers in it - but it could also be populated entirely by non-violent pacifists or mostly by disabled people cast off by a less-compassionate society.

All the combat stuff associated with the "Monk" is martial-arts, disciplines and skills that don't require a monastic life-style though they were historically (real world) developed in those contexts. A character could have learned them in a monastery, a dojo, or a military training camp.

The extra mystical powers of the monk (centered mind, harmonious body, immunity to disease, mentally blocking pain, etc.) are a narrow enough band of effects that come on over the course of levels that they'd fit into a theme. Even Oriental Adventurers back in the day showed us that these concepts were easily applied to classes that did something other than fight bare-handed or with peasant weapons. Creating a theme allows one to approximate things like the Sohei, Shugenja, or Wu-Jen easily.

Which goes back to my earlier post: at some point EVERY class is an artificial construction of background, skill and theme. Even fighter and wizard (which we can argue are the backbone of classes; one's good at combat, the other casts spells) in the end are nothing more than a background (I studies books/swords) and talents (I cast spells/I swing swords) and theme (I learn spells from a book/I use heavy weapons and armor).

Which is why reductionism is a slippery slope. If a monk (with its oddball mechanics) don't qualify for a class, what does? Does an Assassin or a Barbarian? Does a Druid or a Ranger? Does a Paladin or a Bard? Does a Rogue or a Cleric? Does a Fighter even? At what point do we decide X is a class and Y is a theme/background?

I'm horribly leery about making any former class a theme now, since the standard for doing so is the arbitrary "I don't think it deserves to be". I might be able to argue it for One-Edition-Wonders, but Classes that have been around for 20+ years have earned the right to stay classes, no matter how niche they might seem.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I'm not completely sure what people are envisioning when they talk about divorcing the monk class from its Eastern trappings - wouldn't that just be a pugilist, or brawler, or something?

No, something like Bannor, the Bloodguard, or The Yellow Rose Monastery in The Realms.

I have never tied the Monk to Asia/the Orient.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

No, something like Bannor, the Bloodguard, or The Yellow Rose Monastery in The Realms.

I have never tied the Monk to Asia/the Orient.

My only recollection of a monk in FR was Cadderly's girlfriend Danica in RA Salvatore's Cleric Quintet, and from what I recall, she was pretty clearly a kung fu-inspired monk. So even if the geopolitics of the campaign setting doesn't place these characters in the Mysterious Orient, the character design is pretty clearly based on focusing your ki energy and all that other pop-Zen jazz (just like the rapier duelists in those stories don't have to speak Italian to get the archetype across).

I'm horribly leery about making any former class a theme now, since the standard for doing so is the arbitrary "I don't think it deserves to be". I might be able to argue it for One-Edition-Wonders, but Classes that have been around for 20+ years have earned the right to stay classes, no matter how niche they might seem.

I 100% agree. Not just because of sacred cows, but also because the whole appeal of a class-based system is that each class should have its own mechanical gimmicks and feel. Just look at the way people are already salivating about what you could do with the combat superiority mechanic they outlined for fighters - now let's imagine each class has equally unique and compelling mechanics, and designing a character, especially a multiclass character, means finding the optimal ways to synergize those abilities.

(Hey, imagine taking that Defender-cleric from the palytest and giving him a few levels of fighter with the "defend self" and "defend ally" superiority powers, so now he has his cleric healing PLUS the ability to prevent himself and his allies from even taking damage! Now imagine taking a 5e monk and adding bonus damage and counterattacks from different fighter powers! If WOTC gets this right, it sounds to me like a blast to design these advanced character concepts.)

 

[Steely_Dan]

My only recollection of a monk in FR was Cadderly's girlfriend Danica in RA Salvatore's Cleric Quintet, and from what I recall, she was pretty clearly a kung fu-inspired monk. So even if the geopolitics of the campaign setting doesn't place these characters in the Mysterious Orient, the character design is pretty clearly based on focusing your ki energy and all that other pop-Zen jazz

Ah, the Scarlet Brotherhood, there's another one.