Why not combine the Fighter and Monk Classes?

[Tovec]

IMO, the Monk can (and should be) a Fighter kit that replaces armor reliance with Wisdom-based AC bonuses, is more resilient against mental attacks, and gains some resistances or immunities due to the control he can exert over his own body. Everything else can be gained through background/theme or some light multiclassing (as appropriate for each campaign).

IMO, the Monk isn't (and shouldn't be) a Fighter kit. It isn't and shouldn't just replace armor with wisdom to AC. Let me lay out a reason why I am so opposed.
I see three options that happens with monks being fighters. First, we could get a monk that is almost identical to a fighter, same BAB (or w/e BAB will end up in 5e) and basic combat abilities. They'll both be able to disable opponents via trip and disarm and they'll both have about comparable AC. They'll have all these things because you can't have one fighter be that much different from another fighter if they are going to be even a little bit balanced with one another.
Second could be that the fighter keeps armor and weapons and becomes a vastly superior combatant with the monk being inferior for only using his fists whereas the fighter can use any weapon he wants, all with more damage and freely available upgrades. I'm going to call this the 3e combat disparity. This gap may be smaller in 5e depending on how upgrades and flatter math works but it seems that if the monk has to spend his time specializing he'll end up weaker than the guy who just took a single discipline.
Third is that the monk is vastly superior to the fighter, with better AC due to wis and dex to AC and no penalties from armor. They'll also get other special tricks like the ones that come from the 3e levels to make them cool or interesting. But of course there is a base fighter so they'll be equally competent in attacking too, and put all together they'll end up better than the stock-fighter.

None of these are very attractive. They ALL have the problem of making the monk too similar to the fighter or lacking the distinction of what the monk is from the fighter.
As I said earlier up-thread, tell me what I'd have to lose while I'm spending time becoming a monk. I don't want to have to be a fighter who builds towards a monk. I don't want to have to be a monk who builds towards a fighter either. They are separate and unique and should remain that way.

A D&D class is more than just a set of mechanics. It's a concept, an archetype. And the "fighter" archetype and the "monk" archetype are very different beasts. Quasi-mystical abilities are part of what defines the monk. As for the Asian flavor... shrug. If you don't want it in your setting, unleash the banhammer. That's what it's for.

I'm not usually for having extras like this but I wholeheartedly agreed. We're not talking about a school of spells that you would have to ban, we are talking about one class that you feel doesn't fit with your interpretation of fantasy europe. That is a simple fix.

The real challenge with monks is figuring out what exactly they're supposed to do as adventurers. My inclination would be to make them specialists at a) disabling and debuffing enemies, b) scouting and exploring, and c) overcoming magical threats.

I wholeheartedly agree. On top of not wanting to lose my monk I want to see them get extra abilities that define them. They are poorly defined if going by a purely combat related aspect as it is. I do want to see something like debuffing, scouting and so on. These are all things that monks can and should be able to do that would be poorly represented with a monk as fighter model.

The MAIN things that define the monk are his rigorous monastic martial training that fuels his ability to effectively fight unarmed and unarmored, and his maneuvers that are aimed at crippling or disabling foes. I am pretty positive that slow fall, minor self-healing, and the ability to dimension door once per day are not the defining features of this class. For those who want them, as I said, they should be easily attainable via feats, multiclassing, or some other means (with a suggested progression listed in the monk kit description).

Monks are not defined by their combat prowess in the same way that rogues aren't fighters. Yes they both can and do fight in melee but that isn't their only thing. Fighters excel when they are able to hone and perfect their skills (combat feats/training) to becoming a better fighter. Monks on the other hand lie closer to rogues in that they get special skills through training themselves at different tasks. The REASON I chose to play a monk all those years ago and why it has become my favourite class is in no small part due to the self-healing, DD, immunities, resistances and what not. Also I enjoyed the high skill ranks. None of these aspects are well suited when you play a straight fighter.

I can get as close as agreeing that a COMBINED paladin/monk class could work. You aren't going to get me to agree to monks are fighters because both fight anymore than you are going to get me to agree rogues are fighters because both fight, or even that wizards are rogues because both stealth. They are worlds different. If you want the fighter to be able to specialize in fighting unarmed that is great I have no objection to that. I don't see why that means the monk is suddenly invalidated. That is saying that a druid is invalidated by a cleric taking nature domains. There is so much more and what we should do is figure out what else we can do to make this class unique and richer instead of figuring out what we can do to deprive this class from the game.

 

[Sammael]

You got it backwards
The main things that define a monk is slow fall, jumping, running fast, wearing no armor, no being mind controlled, and doing crazy stuff after meditation or some spiritual line.

Kicking butt with fists, feet, and farmer's weapons is a bonus.

The one problem with those abilities being "main" (from my perspective) is that they don't actually let the monk accomplish anything by themselves, they merely aid him in the use of what I see as his primary feature (combat) and his secondary feature (exploration, which is pretty much entirely skill-based and where he heavily encroaches on the Rogue's turf).

To me, the Monk is not a strong enough archetype to warrant a separate class. But I've reiterated many times before that I believe 8 strong archetypes (Bard, Champion, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Mage, Ranger, and Rogue) and a robust multiclassing system are sufficient to create the vast majority of (pre-4e) fantasy character archetypes. I am very much against prestige classes and class bloat in general. Less is more.

 

[TwoSix]

Why not 5?

Warrior
Mage
Explorer
Diplomat
Rogue


Okay. Seriously.
If they can make a Monk into a half decent Background and Theme combo that fulfills the image of one in the minds of many D&D fans, then they should do it.

They just should not hand over a watered down acrobat background and boxer theme in order to fit it in the them and BG templates.

Rule of 3, of course. Planescape is back!

Plus, 3 pillars, 3 overarching classes. I like the symmetry.

 

[TrippyHippy]

My way of thinking is slightly in line with the notion pushed with D20 Modern (remember that!?) of having broad classes (i.e. classifications of character types) associated with primary Ability scores. So, as a way of illustrating:

Strength - Fighters (with a focus on martial prowess from any culture)
Dexterity - Rogues (Thieves, Assassins and Treasure seekers)
Constitution - Rangers (focused on the survivalist/traveller archetype)
Intelligence - Mages (customisable to a variety of schools, traditions and styles)
Wisdom - Clerics (a variety of pantheons and beliefs)
Charisma - Bards (inspirational communicators of all cultures)

Druids and Paladins could also be looked at as straight alternatives for Wisdom and Charisma respectively, as they are pretty iconic to D&D at least. There may be one or two other Classes that could be looked at, but I get bored of silly contrived 'Classes' that really aren't.

Muchof the customisation could certainly be handled by Backgrounds and Themes - the Monk and Barbarian being primary examples.

 

[Minigiant]

I think is is best to handle this trough the 3 pillars.

Fighter
Combat: The fighter is the master of weapons combat and trained to treat battle as a natural state. They are tough combatants no matter the weapon or armor. None can match the skill in combat as a fighter while following another path.
Exploration: Fighters have no inherent exploration abilities and must rely on their background to do so. But their focus on physical stats makes them naturally good at athletic endeavors like swimming, climbing, and jumping.
Interaction: Fighters have no inherent interaction abilities and must rely on their background to do so. But their focus on physical stats makes them naturally good at intimidation and performance.

Monk
Combat: The monk practices asceticism and perfectness of body. Because of this focusing on using the body and physical abstinence, the monk is a dangerous warrior even when unarmored or unarmed.
Exploration: The focus on body and mind allows monks to perform acrobatic and athletic tasks easily. More noticeably is the monk's ability to mitigate unfortunate events instantly with pure discipline. They can predict, leap over or outrun danger, resist poisons and diseases, slow falls, and cure their own wounds.
Interaction: Many monks are natural diplomats but their many interactive ability is awareness and insight. Monks are difficult to lie to, charm, and intimidate and teir unwavering spirit can be an asset to their allies.

So yeah... they are a little different.

 

[mlund]

Ah, I see the issue now. The Monk trades being restricted to a narrow amount of weapons (including unarmed) to do the same and equal job as a Fighter in Melee Combat AND be head-and-shoulders better in the Interaction and Exploration fields.

Have Cake. Eat Cake. Still have Cake.

Sounds awesome.

- Marty Lund

 

[Minigiant]

Ah, I see the issue now. The Monk trades being restricted to a narrow amount of weapons (including unarmed) to do the same and equal job as a Fighter in Melee Combat AND be head-and-shoulders better in the Interaction and Exploration fields.

Have Cake. Eat Cake. Still have Cake.

Sounds awesome.

- Marty Lund

The fighter is heads and shoulders over a monk in combat.

The monk is more of an exploration class that can fight and talk. Closer to a ranger.

 

[mlund]

The fighter is heads and shoulders over a monk in combat.

That's never going to work. That was the case in AD&D and 3E and the kvetching about how disabled the Monk happened to be went on forever. Frankly, they weren't unfounded complaints either. The Monk in both incarnations was an extreme gimpy class. New feats and substitutions were finally rolled out in Splat Books to try and make a viable Martial Arts Badass out of the Monk. It never really panned out.

The 5E Class functionality of the Monk will never be satisfactory if a generic Fighter can just pick up a bo-staff or go bare-handed and smack down a Bruce-Lee wannabe in one-on-one - complete with trips, flips, throws, etc. via Combat Superiority. Their interest in Martial Combat Styles overlaps too severely.

- Marty Lund

 

[Minigiant]

That's never going to work. That was the case in AD&D and 3E and the kvetching about how disabled the Monk happened to be went on forever. Frankly, they weren't unfounded complaints either. The Monk in both incarnations was an extreme gimpy class. New feats and substitutions were finally rolled out in Splat Books to try and make a viable Martial Arts Badass out of the Monk. It never really panned out.

The 5E Class functionality of the Monk will never be satisfactory if a generic Fighter can just pick up a bo-staff or go bare-handed and smack down a Bruce-Lee wannabe in one-on-one - complete with trips, flips, throws, etc. via Combat Superiority.

- Marty Lund

The early monks were bad because they were made disorganized. Few of the abilities had synergies and stuff was all over the place. The 3E monk jumps in usefulness with full BAB and "pounce"/full attack while moving.


Sure a fighter could whoop a monk but a monk could hold is own against an untrained orc. A monk is more like a rogue that trade larceny and sneak attack for martial arts and supernatural mystic powers.

 

[Tovec]

The early monks were bad because they were made disorganized. Few of the abilities had synergies and stuff was all over the place. The 3E monk jumps in usefulness with full BAB and "pounce"/full attack while moving.


Sure a fighter could whoop a monk but a monk could hold is own against an untrained orc. A monk is more like a rogue that trade larceny and sneak attack for martial arts and supernatural mystic powers.

Just right, the monk doesn't need to be be better or even as good as a fighter in combat. That isn't their job. What they are supposed to do, and do so successfully, is be a decent melee combatant AND have extra tricks. They do it well, but they could always do it better. It is the same problem as a cleric outshining the fighter in his own role. The solution isn't to roll clerics in with fighters and be done with it. The solution is to let each class have things they do well, and that are unique to them, and then let them fill whatever roll they can from there. The monk is a fighter+ just like the paladin, ranger and barbarian are all fighter+. Giving me a fighter with a monk package isn't going to cut it - for reasons I gave above.

To me, the Monk is not a strong enough archetype to warrant a separate class. But I've reiterated many times before that I believe 8 strong archetypes (Bard, Champion, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Mage, Ranger, and Rogue) and a robust multiclassing system are sufficient to create the vast majority of (pre-4e) fantasy character archetypes. I am very much against prestige classes and class bloat in general. Less is more.

8 archetypes. Presumably that is the 4 "cardinal" classes and the 4 in between? That excludes a middle, half-half classes (which would make it 16 classes), and even classes that fill 3 different roles. Monks aren't as simple as fighters, I don't know what else matters.

I'm guessing, what you seem to want would be something like this..
Fighter - Paladin - Cleric - Ranger - Rogue - Bard - Wizard - Swordmage? - (back to)Fighter.
As in a circle, leading from one to the next?

But in reality we have a number of unrelated classes. Hell, even druid didn't make it in that version of an 8 point/subpoint system. That doesn't include any variation on wizard, druid, or barbarian. I would also debate that bard has less reason for being in your system too.

The 4e power sources made more sense to me.