Why not combine the Fighter and Monk Classes?

[mlund]

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).

To a matter of degree? Sure. To the same degree that the current 5E models Class-Background-Theme? Certainly not.

Which is why reductionism is a slippery slope. If a monk (with its oddball mechanics) don't qualify for a class, what does?

So, because you choose to engage in a textbook Slippery Slope Fallacy taking any sort of reduction or compartmentalization approach to handling traditional classes as builds is BadWrong?

I respectfully disagree.

Does an Assassin or a Barbarian?

That entirely depends on what your definition of "Class" is. If Class is a large tent of options around some core backbone of distinct rolls (using Fighter, Rogue, Magic-User, and Cleric as cardinal points) without mandatory associations to Background or Theme slots then no, they certainly don't fit that criteria. If Class is a fully-supported combination of level-based abilities from a Super-Type (like the cardinal point Super Classes) plus a particular Background and Theme then yes, certainly.

That's probably the biggest impediment to the discussion and the design going on at the moment - confusing "class" with "build," just because that's what 1st Edition did with some things. It isn't like Barbarian, Paladin, Druids, or Ranger were classes either - they were sub-classes. In 2nd Ed you had "kits." 3rd Edition lost that in favor of patchwork multiclassing and Prestige Classes.

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?

When it has a distinct niche (for example: Warrior, Holy-Man, Magician, Rogue) that doesn't so severely constrict your Background and Theme.

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".

The standard, while nebulous, should not be "because I'm not a fan of that class." It should be "I can cleanly construct it out of balanced modular components (that have multiple applications) without a ton of hassle."

- Marty Lund

 

[Minigiant]

The problem with the "make it into a background and theme" line of thought is that currently

A background is:
3-4 Skill bonuses
1 interaction or exploration trait

And a theme is:
3 combat feats.

If you can't make a the same concept by taking an existing class and adding 3-4 skills, 1 trait, and 3 feats, then you can't even attempt to devolve the class into a BY/Theme combo.

And even if you can, you have drained all the character's customization options.

 

[mlund]

Are all monks mystical martial-arts badasses? Are all martial-artists mystics? Are all martial-artists monks? No, no, and no. That's a great indication that these components don't have to be chained together into an exclusive package deal like AD&D gave us.

Likewise, are all Barbarians rage-fueled melee combatants? Do rage-filled characters only fight in melee? Are all illiterate, uncivilized people raging killers? No, no, and no. That's a solid sign that these aren't an exclusive package deal either.

Are all Fighters high HP warriors who hit things with a high degree of accuracy for good (or better) damage? Are all the best specialists in a particular fighting style Fighters? Are characters that use Combat Superiority Fighters? Yes, yes, and yes. That's a pretty good indication that you have a core package qualified to be a class (probably a Super Class) on your hands in the Fighter.

The Monk's core class features when compared to other classes are martial-arts stunts and attacks. It's a combat style that benefits greatly from the same kinds of tricks that fall under the Fighter's Combat Superiority Shtick. Additionally, if the best combat specialist in a particular weapon in the realm is supposed to be a fighter then it stands to reason that the guy with the best Kung Fu in all the land is, *gasp*, a Fighter.

Meanwhile the mystical harmony and monastic enlightenment shticks can clearly be used by characters that are not unarmed combat badasses - pretty much definitive examples of what Backgrounds and Themes are for. Silo'ing them into a Monk class locked away from any other play-style is just wasteful. Also, the hyper-narrow Okinawan AD&D -> 3E Monk is a mess of over-restrictions, cutting down the Chinese-style sword-wielding and polearm-fighting martial artists. I don't want to have to wait until "Oriental Adventurers 5E" to build a Sohei, Shugenja, or Wu Jen when the components to build them can easily be included in the Core game.

I want to see a lot of build options under the Fighter's tent with some familiar default options. I want a Slayer coming with the Barbarian background and the Reaver Theme standard. I want a Martial-Artist sporting the Monk background and Mystic Harmony theme. I want a Marshall rocking the Officer background and the Leadership Theme out of the gate. If I want to only take 1 or 2 of these things and try a new combination I'm not married to playing a Barbarian, Monk, or Warlord.

The sad part is we probably won't see them. Instead we'll get to wait around with various mechanics unnecessarily married to criminally narrow "classes" just so people can use the word "class" to describe a particular build without some sort of stigma. Wizards of the Coast will be happy to sell us splat-books full of new overly-narrow "classes" that are nothing but overly-specific, poorly-balanced nonsense and recycled concepts we could've used with a better Core implementation.

Hooray for another edition of super-random junk like 3E Hexblades, Swashbucklers, and Knights that should've been playable variants of the Cardinal Classes out of the gate but instead had to wait for a crap-shoot-o-quality-control in splat-books years and years after the PHB released.

- Marty Lund

 

[Steely_Dan]

Looks like the Monk is in, jury's still out on the Barbarian.

 

[Minigiant]

Meanwhile the mystical harmony and monastic enlightenment shticks can clearly be used by characters that are not unarmed combat badasses - pretty much definitive examples of what Backgrounds and Themes are for. Silo'ing them into a Monk class locked away from any other play-style is just wasteful. Also, the hyper-narrow Okinawan AD&D -> 3E Monk is a mess of over-restrictions, cutting down the Chinese-style sword-wielding and polearm-fighting martial artists. I don't want to have to wait until "Oriental Adventurers 5E" to build a Sohei, Shugenja, or Wu Jen when the components to build them can easily be included in the Core game.

This rigt here is the problem.

As Backgrounds and Themes are defined as at the moment, the Monk's mystical parts cannot be defined as a background and theme. Well not it the way they were defined before.

A background is 3-4 skills and a trait. A theme is a collection of combat feats.

Is Slow fall a skill, a trait, or a combat feat. If it is a skill then anyone can do it. Or is the +3 to the skill going to make that big of a difference. It is not combat so it cannot be in a theme. Maybe as a trait. But you get only one.

Then there is monk bonus speed. That isn't a skill nor a feat. So it has to be a trait. But you only get 1 so no slow fall. Unless you combine it with slow fall. Then there are all those other pieces noncombat monk baggage.

Is Increased unarmed damage a combat feat or part of the fighter's Combat Superiority? What about additional unarmed attacks? Stunning fist? Immunities and resistances. Self healing.
Is Wis to AC a combat feat? You could maybe get away with it. Evasion? That's way over the 3 combat feats.

It's easy to say make it a background/theme. It is harder to do it.

It might be easier to make the class.

 

[mlund]

A background is 3-4 skills and a trait. A theme is a collection of combat feats.

You are factually incorrect and what you assert about Backgrounds and Themes.

If you'd take the time to look at the play-test materials you'll clearly see that the Cleric of Pelor has the "Healer" theme. At first level it gives him the Herbalism feat, which is not a combat feat. At level 3 he gains the Healer's Touch feat from the theme. The Arcane Dabbler feat gives you extra cantrips, some of which have no combat applications and at level 3 you get a familiar.

I'm just going to skip over the parts based on your false assertion that Themes have to give you nothing but combat feats as it's counter-factual.

Backgrounds come with a skill set and a "Feature" that's pretty much open-ended design space. The most typical we've seen are social interaction and research-related bonuses.

Then there is monk bonus speed. That isn't a skill nor a feat.

It also doesn't exist in 4th Edition, though the Monk does. The Barbarian in 3E got the speed bonus too, so it isn't even a unique class feature.

What about additional unarmed attacks?

Fighters are the class that get additional attacks. Fits perfectly whether you are a Okinawan Fist-monk or a Chinese sword-monk.

Stunning fist?

Definitely Combat Superiority territory.

Immunities and resistances. Self healing.

Sounds like a solid Theme to me.

Is Wis to AC a combat feat?

Fighter build option for the Martial Artist specializing: unarmored AC bonuses from other stats.

Evasion?

Existed only in 3E and was not unique to the class. The play-test rogue doesn't have Uncanny Dodge or Evasion. The sky didn't fall.

- Marty Lund

 

[Minigiant]

You are factually incorrect and what you assert about Backgrounds and Themes.

If you'd take the time to look at the play-test materials you'll clearly see that the Cleric of Pelor has the "Healer" theme. At first level it gives him the Herbalism feat, which is not a combat feat. At level 3 he gains the Healer's Touch feat from the theme. The Arcane Dabbler feat gives you extra cantrips, some of which have no combat applications and at level 3 you get a familiar.

I'm just going to skip over the parts based on your false assertion that Themes have to give you nothing but combat feats as it's counter-factual.

Herbalism is a combat feat. An indirect combat feat with applications in oter pillars.

I lets you make potion and kits that heal HP and remove poison. That are mostly combat applications. Sure it could be useful in exploration with traps, but primarily it is a combat defense.

Backgrounds come with a skill set and a "Feature" that's pretty much open-ended design space. The most typical we've seen are social interaction and research-related bonuses.

This is true. Currently these traits are exploration and interaction features.

It also doesn't exist in 4th Edition, though the Monk does. The Barbarian in 3E got the speed bonus too, so it isn't even a unique class feature.


Fighters are the class that get additional attacks. Fits perfectly whether you are a Okinawan Fist-monk or a Chinese sword-monk.


Definitely Combat Superiority territory.


Sounds like a solid Theme to me.


Fighter build option for the Martial Artist specializing: unarmored AC bonuses from other stats.


Existed only in 3E and was not unique to the class. The play-test rogue doesn't have Uncanny Dodge or Evasion. The sky didn't fall.

- Marty Lund

True. You can move a lot of monk martial arts into Combat Superiority (and this complicates it). But then you'd still have jam whatever is not in the fighter into 3 combat feats. It they can pinpoint the aspects most fans want and can condense them into 3 feats, fine.

But I won't want that job. And it it were me, I'd save myself from the stress and just make the class.

 

[Remathilis]

To a matter of degree? Sure. To the same degree that the current 5E models Class-Background-Theme? Certainly not.

So, because you choose to engage in a textbook Slippery Slope Fallacy taking any sort of reduction or compartmentalization approach to handling traditional classes as builds is BadWrong?

I respectfully disagree.

There is a nasty habit among reductionists to gut anything flavorful out of a class and reduce it nothing more than a means of delivering X ability.

Lets take two examples. A 3e wizard and a sorcerer are very different mechanically but have overlapping fluff. (Assuming book learning vs. blood/innate not being terribly different, at least as the mechanics define it.) A Paladin and a Fighter have similar mechanical elements (being melee combatants, one focused on feats the other on special powers) but are day-and-night different in fluff and story. (A trained warrior vs. a living embodiment of Justice and Righteousness.)

By reductionist logic: a wizard and a sorcerer are two separate classes as they do two different mechanical things, but the paladin and fighter should be condensed into a theme/background combo, despite the fact that "fighter" and "paladin" are not overly similar concepts while "sorcerer" and "wizard" are practically synonymous.

That entirely depends on what your definition of "Class" is. If Class is a large tent of options around some core backbone of distinct rolls (using Fighter, Rogue, Magic-User, and Cleric as cardinal points) without mandatory associations to Background or Theme slots then no, they certainly don't fit that criteria. If Class is a fully-supported combination of level-based abilities from a Super-Type (like the cardinal point Super Classes) plus a particular Background and Theme then yes, certainly.

That's probably the biggest impediment to the discussion and the design going on at the moment - confusing "class" with "build," just because that's what 1st Edition did with some things. It isn't like Barbarian, Paladin, Druids, or Ranger were classes either - they were sub-classes. In 2nd Ed you had "kits." 3rd Edition lost that in favor of patchwork multiclassing and Prestige Classes.

This is just 4e all over again. "Replace "class" with "role" (Defender, Leader, Striker, Controller), and "theme" with "build".

If you are fine with this, that's great. I'm not. I HATED that Bards, Clerics, Warlords, and other Leaders all felt similar (a minor action 2/encounter heal, powers that granted minor bonuses to hit/damage, etc). Ditto with all Defenders having a "mark" mechanic. I want a paladin to play differently than a fighter, and I don't just mean "radiant damage" and "different mark effect".

When it has a distinct niche (for example: Warrior, Holy-Man, Magician, Rogue) that doesn't so severely constrict your Background and Theme.

Again, why stop there. Why can't a magician be a Holy-man? Why can't a Warrior be a Rogue? Why not just make Rogue a theme so I can have sneaky Fighters or Mages? Why not give Magician's healing and make Cleric a Theme (or a series of themes, based on each god?)

The standard, while nebulous, should not be "because I'm not a fan of that class." It should be "I can cleanly construct it out of balanced modular components (that have multiple applications) without a ton of hassle."

The standard should be "Is this a viable fantasy archetype that can be customized via OPTIONAL rules like Theme and Background?"

Your standard really is best served with a point-buy or classless system. Honestly, 4e came as close to a classless system as D&D ever was. It needed one step further: it already had everyone using the same power advancement, the same +1/2 level bonus, access to all skills, etc. All a class did was assign you HP, a bonus skill, proficiencies, and a few starter powers. Throw off those shackles and open all powers up and you have the perfect classless system. I could literally build any class out of those powers. We wouldn't need a single class, since I could replicate a fighter, wizard, ranger, assassin, or whatever just by picking the right powers.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

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

How about addressing both these concerns by adapting some of the aspects of the Monk Class with those of the Fighter. After all, the Monk is basically just a pure, trained Fighter, with mystical abilities.

I'm saying, remove some of the mystical baggage of the Monk (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 Fighter Class. With customisation (and Themes) you could even designate your Fighter as being a monastic, unarmed specialist.....which would make the Monk Class redundant if done well.

"Gotta spread XP"

Anyway, this is an intriguing idea. While I like the Asian-culture monk, I'm interested in seeing what would come out of pursuing this.

 

[Stormonu]

If Ki/Chi, Arcane Spells, Divine Spells, Martial Stunts and Rogue Talents were made into power sources you could attach to a character, making a monk would be a lot easier. It'd also make it a lot more like 4E, though.

Stepping back, I wouldn't mind seeing characters selecting Race, Class, Power Source, Theme and Background. Unlike 4E, power sources wouldn't have to work the same. Martial Stunts might use dice (Combat Superiority). Rogue Talents might expend skills ("burn" a skill to make it unusable for a short time to do something special). Arcane spells would be memorize and forget. Divine spells would be pray and expend.

Other power sources could added to the list, each having their own peculiar but simple system. One such source might be Pacts to make Warlocks, and so on. Rage could be a power source for berserker/barbarians. Calling might be the power source for a paladin's abilities, etc.

The basic idea would be you get one power source - possibly restricted by class, and that probably would have an influence on your available themes. It would be the power source, instead of the class, that determines what special stunts you can pull off.