Why not combine the Fighter and Monk Classes?

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Take the 4e monk and tell me what it has in common with the 4e fighter.
Role? Nope. Power source? Nope. Weapons and armor? Nope. HP? Nope. Powers? Nope.

Take the 3e monk and tell me what it has in common with the 3e fighter.
BAB? Nope. Saves? Nope. Special abilities? Nope. Alignment? Nope. Speed? Nope. Skills? Nope. HD? Nope.

Both can be described as "classes that hit things in melee until they fall down?" Bingo!

In other words, the two classes have always been just about as far apart mechanically as two melee classes can be. That doesn't exactly scream to be combined IMHO.

 

[variant]

I would be more accepting of the monk if they would remove the orient flavor and replaced it with a more fantasy western flavor.

 

[mlund]

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.

Actually, I think there is a nasty habit of class-centric thinking to unnecessarily marry anything flavorful to a class, creating unnecessary constraints on what abilities can be mixed so that one style (the Okinawan Peasant-Monk) gets supported but boggart's design space so another style can't exist (the Chinese weapon-monk).

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.

Actually, the Wizard and the Sorcerer have the same power source and the same ability niche (Arcane Magic). The Paladin, however, is a hybrid of both the Fighter and the Cleric's niche's (martial prowess, divine power). Essentially the Wizard and Sorcerer are just Magic-User sub-systems, while the Paladin actually pitches his admittedly small tent in the territory between two Cardinal Classes.

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

Nope. Between Vancian Spell lists and Themes it seems pretty clear that you can explore "roles" with themes like "Defender" or spell selections.

It would be closer to the mark to replace "class" with "power source, combat aptitudes, and hit dice" and "sub-class" would relate to specializations - like a combat style for a martial character (great weapons, bows, martial-arts, rages), or a spell allocation system for a caster (Vancian, Book of 9 Swords, Power Points, Prepared vs. Spontaneous, etc.).

"Build" would be a more rounded character archetype involving theme and background - the monastic mystical martial artist; the barbaric raging reaver; the harrowed magician who steals power from devils; the privileged, high-born knight, etc.

The point isn't the eliminate what made up the Monk class, but to liberate it.

Again, why stop there. Why can't a magician be a Holy-man?

Arbitrary distinction between Divine and Arcane magic.

Why can't a Warrior be a Rogue?

Arbitrary distinction between Finesse and Force attacks.

They could be eliminated, but those tropes are considered Core to the brand identity.

Take the 4e monk and tell me what it has in common with the 4e fighter.
Role? Nope. Power source? Nope. Weapons and armor? Nope. HP? Nope. Powers? Nope.

Role? Striker. The Essentials Fighter is the Slayer - a striker just like the Monk.

Power Source? The 4E Monk was a psionic. Psionics weren't even Core from OD&D to 3.5E. That's completely alien to every previous incarnation of the monk, and 5E so far doesn't have anything Psionic in its Core.

Take the 3e monk and tell me what it has in common with the 3e fighter.
BAB? Nope. Saves? Nope. Special abilities? Nope. Alignment? Nope. Speed? Nope. Skills? Nope. HD? Nope.

Let's not romanticize things, though. The 3E Monk was a train-wreck of a class with tons of design flaws at its core.

BAB? Both the Fighter and Monk needed optimal BAB. Only the Fighter got it. The Monk flailed around with Flurry as a poor substitute.

Special Abilities? Both shared an overlap of Bonus Feats, only the Fighter got everything the Monk got and more. Other special abilities the Monk had overlapped with the Barbarian, Rogue, and Ranger.

Alignment? The Fighter definitely benefited by not be type-cast into an alignment restriction.

Weapons? The Fighter could use the Monk's weapons, and weapons that the Monk was prohibited from using due to being Japan-centric instead of more broadly inclusive to Chinese-inspired Monks.

Between alignment restriction, bad BAB, M.A.D., and straight-jacketed "special ability" progression that Monk was a terrible multi-class candidate in an edition that measured optimization by multi-classing or caster levels. To cap it off, one of the few good multi-classing options for the Monk was a 2-level dip into Fighter for the HD, BAB, and Bonus Feats he should've already had because pretty much all the depth in martial-arts style fighting was found in Fighter Bonus Feats. The only thing keeping the Fighter from obsoleting the Monk entirely as a Martial-Artist was the expanding Unarmed Damage Die mechanic and the pile of suck you got if you tried to Power Attack with fist instead of a great sword.

Both can be described as "classes that hit things in melee until they fall down?" Bingo!

Actually, they can both be described as "classes that fight in melee with options for a bunch of special maneuvers via Feats that now fall under 5E's 'Combat Superiority' mechanics."

The big problem with being hyper-classist like AD&D and 3E were with their Monks is that you basically roll up a bunch of thematic material that could be more broadly applied and marry it to a combat style, then basically feel compelled to keep them away from other applications to keep up the idea it's a unique and precious snow-flake of a class. Then other builds get eliminated because they overlap too much with the Okinawa Monk without fitting his mold (like the Chinese fighting monk, the Zen-archer, the non-combatant monk, and the non-monastic martial-artist).

- Marty Lund

 

[Steely_Dan]

I'm all for other classes being good at unarmed combat, like a full on Wuxia Campaign, where all characters are flying around kicking ass, as well as spell-casting or what-have-you, but that is not the point of the Monk (and it should not be tied to unarmed combat, you should be able to play a staff or sword wielding or whatever weapon tickles your fancy Monk).

To me, the Bard and Monk are the original 5th dude classes.

The 1st Ed Monk even gets a bit druidical (talking to animals and plants); the 1st Ed Monk has a lot of potential, just went a bit awry, but easily fixed in 1 minute.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

The big problem with being hyper-classist like AD&D and 3E were with their Monks is that you basically roll up a bunch of thematic material that could be more broadly applied and marry it to a combat style, then basically feel compelled to keep them away from other applications to keep up the idea it's a unique and precious snow-flake of a class. Then other builds get eliminated because they overlap too much with the Okinawa Monk without fitting his mold (like the Chinese fighting monk, the Zen-archer, the non-combatant monk, and the non-monastic martial-artist).

First off, just because previous editions jealously guarded the monk's turf doesn't mean 5e has to do the same. Stick in a "Zen Warrior" theme so fighters can use a good Wisdom score, or a "Pugilist" theme so they can punch hard.

I also don't think the 5e monk should be dead-set against multiclassing like the 3e version. Let me drop a few levels of rogue into my monk to make him more ninja-tastic, or a few levels of fighter to make him more skilled at on-the-fly tactical adjustments in melee with a couple combat superiority dice.

But my point is that there's enough to the monk class to be worth working into its own design, with its own unique combat mechanics. He's not just "a fighter, but ASIAN," he's unique in his mobility, resistance to spells, and later on, in his mystical attributes.

Don't like the Okinawan karate vibe? Well, the default paladin is an idealized Knight Templar and the default bard is a god-knows-what. But we all seem fine agreeing that those classes can/should be flexible enough to fit other related themes. And here's another chance for 5e to differentiate: make a couple backgrounds like Acolyte and Apprentice for those who want "traditional" monk backstories, and you've opened things up for other kinds of martial artists.

The point isn't the eliminate what made up the Monk class, but to liberate it.

You seem fond of saying that monk abilities would make a good theme. (And in your defense, they've made it pretty clear that there will be "advanced" themes going from level 6-10, so we're talking 6 feats, not 3.) But here's the thing: there are a lot of different kinds of unarmed enlightened warriors I might want to play. If I have to use up my first theme just to make sure he can walk around bare-fisted with no armor and not get eaten by the first bugbear he encounters, that's not a lot of room for flexibility. Even if I get a little flexibility in choosing fighter powers, there are only going to be so many that are appropriate (or even possible) for an unarmed fighter. Every monk ends up looking almost exactly the same.

Compare that to a monk class that offers its own unique combat mechanics, and still has the flexibility offered by choice of theme and background, along with whatever internal flexibility the class has. (And I expect the class will have "styles" to choose from, so you can play a soft-style Tai Chi guy or a hard-style karate guy or even a ninja or Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon swordsman or whatever.) PLUS, we're supposedly going to have some kind of 3e-style multiclassing, adding even MORE flexibility. To me, that sounds a lot more "liberating" than breaking up the class into its component parts.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Take the 3e monk and tell me what it has in common with the 3e fighter.

Stunning Blow: it's a monk ability and a fighter bonus feat.

The monk is just a (mostly) unarmed fighter with a lot of second-hand cultural baggage. Thanks to a skewed perception of the exotic, the off-the-wall feats attributed to shao-lin and wu zia, are credited or perceived as mystical or supernatural (just fine for a fantasy RPG), while the comparable feats of western warriors in myth and tall tales are simply viewed as 'unrealistic.' Get over that little prejudice, and there's really no differences among the fighter, knight, monk, samurai, etc - beyond choice of gear and fluff.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Stunning Blow: it's a monk ability and a fighter bonus feat.

The monk is just a (mostly) unarmed fighter with a lot of second-hand cultural baggage. Thanks to a skewed perception of the exotic, the off-the-wall feats attributed to shao-lin and wu zia, are credited or perceived as mystical or supernatural (just fine for a fantasy RPG), while the comparable feats of western warriors in myth and tall tales are simply viewed as 'unrealistic.' Get over that little prejudice, and there's really no differences among the fighter, knight, monk, samurai, etc - beyond choice of gear and fluff.

Fully agreed. For some reason a European-style swashbuckler who knows a lot of medieval pseudoscience about how and where to strike his enemies is using his Int score, while a Chinese-style fencer who knows a lot of Confucian pseudoscience about how and where to strike is using Wisdom. Very silly.

But that being said, while many other Eastern archetypes could easily fit into the standard D&D classes with some cosmetic changes, I personally can't think of a European trope of an unarmed, unarmored fighter who prefers to go toe to toe against armed opponents, using his honed agility and preternatural instincts to win out over brute strength. Yes, it's a trope not at all based in reality (the Japanese samurai eventually beat the Okinawan monks, remember?) but it's a very cool one. If you want that in the game (and I do), it probably needs its own class as a starting point.

Also: Even when you allow a Western fighter to get all "mystical," it tends to be very different from a Kung Fu movie fighter who does the same. Much more cutting dudes in half and getting hunks "the size of a baby's head" carved out of them without flinching (my favorite line from the Tain Bo Cuailnge), much less dancing across lakes and floating on wires through the air. So it's not like the various archetypes would coalesce without our cultural bias.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But that being said, while many other Eastern archetypes could easily fit into the standard D&D classes with some cosmetic changes, I personally can't think of a European trope of an unarmed, unarmored fighter who prefers to go toe to toe against armed opponents, using his honed agility and preternatural instincts to win out over brute strength.

The western unarmed/unarmored analogue would more likely be using skill /and/ brute strength rather than preternatural instincts, but unarmed martial styles did exist in various forms in the west. IRL, from the ancient Pankration to boxing & wrestling to the more modern Savate. Even more modern, of course, are outright superheroes.

Yes, it's a trope not at all based in reality (the Japanese samurai eventually beat the Okinawan monks, remember?) but it's a very cool one. If you want that in the game (and I do), it probably needs its own class as a starting point.

I don't see why. Ultimately, it's a fighting style, the master of fighting styles is the fighter. You just remove what vestigial dependence the class has on specific weapons and heavy armor, and you're most of the way there.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

I want a Martial Wizard.

 

[Remathilis]

I would be more accepting of the monk if they would remove the orient flavor and replaced it with a more fantasy western flavor.

Ah, the exciting life of a Western Monk...

Stunning Blow: it's a monk ability and a fighter bonus feat.

The monk is just a (mostly) unarmed fighter with a lot of second-hand cultural baggage. Thanks to a skewed perception of the exotic, the off-the-wall feats attributed to shao-lin and wu zia, are credited or perceived as mystical or supernatural (just fine for a fantasy RPG), while the comparable feats of western warriors in myth and tall tales are simply viewed as 'unrealistic.' Get over that little prejudice, and there's really no differences among the fighter, knight, monk, samurai, etc - beyond choice of gear and fluff.

So we can can roll the Barbarian, Monk, Ranger, Paladin, Rogue, Assassin, Warlord and Fighter into one class then?

Can we do it to Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard, Cleric, Druid, and Warlock while we're at it?

Two classes.