Why not combine the Fighter and Monk Classes?

[Remathilis]

If you can build a character that feels like an old-school monk when you play it then you've lost nothing. People who pitch deal-breaker fits over every detail of the build not being included directly into a stand-alone class aren't going to be happy with anything you do in 5E so they aren't potential customers.

Well, since you brought it up...

Lets say for sake of argument and "monk" as D&D has defined it for more editions than not has the following "essential" traits.

Unarmed combat that delivers multiple attacks and damage comparable to a steel weapon.
Armor Class bonus that grants a monk an unarmored AC equal to armor.
Speed, movement, or Agility/Acrobatic ability.
Resistance to many different types of attacks: poison, mental attacks, disease, etc.
Special Strikes using unarmed attacks that can debilitate, stun, or even kill.
Mystical abilities that grant the monk healing, supernatural senses, or even magical movement.

You can't do that with a THEME. You can't even get close. Why? Because each of those abilities would have to be a single feat, and there is no way you can balance "extra attacks at escalating dice" with something like Reaper or Herbalism.

You can't recreate the feel of an "old school" monk in 6-10 feats, unless you redefine what a "Theme" and a "Feat" is.

Let me introduce you to my friend Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. It has 5 classes - Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief, and Monk. Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Assassin, Illusionist, are all sub-classes. People played the daylights out of that game. It eventually fell out of favor with the majority of the customer base for other systems that allowed customization of some of the features that AD&D included as class or sub-class based or just generally hand-waived.

As someone else put it; each "subclass" shared a few common traits, but were essentially new classes.

A Paladin had its own XP table, special abilities and restrictions.
A Ranger used d8 HD (and had 2), a different XP table, different # of attacks/round, and different rules for followers along with its special abilities.
Druids capped at 14th level, had special rules for advancment, used a unique XP table, weren't restricted to blunt weapons, couldn't turn undead, and had their own special abilities. Oh, and they're spell lists were nothing alike.
An Illusionist had more spells per level (but capped at 7th, not 9th like an M=u), a unique XP table, and a unique spell list.
An Assassin had better weapons, different XP, a finite level cap (even for humans), worse core thief skills, and unique special abilities than a Thief.

And that doesn't EVEN begin to discuss Unearthed Arcana. I might've conceded the argument a bit more if you had chosen 2e as your example; they did a better job of combining base classes with sub-classes (such as combining the M-U and Illusionist spell lists for all wizards) but 1e subclasses are very unique. "Subclasses" just meant the classes could stand in for the base class. A ranger was equal to a fighter for purposes of combat. An illusionist resembled a magic-user in that they were squishy wizard-types.

And as for "falling out of favor"? Need I remind you that 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition are ALL class-based games and 3e and 4e have more classes than 1e and 2e put together.

Don't think your desire for 1d4 generic classes is a majority view of most D&D players, or we'd all be playing GURPS right now...

 

[mlund]

I think you are being a little disingenuous here. Each of the "sub-classes" were presented with a full write up.

As have every sub-class of Fighter in 4th Edition - the Weaponmaster, the Knight, and the Slayer - go figure.

Being a subclass did not mean the two classes shared even the most basic of class definers. Rangers had d8 hit dice for example and started with 2 of them.

The Ranger is the lone exception. Every other sub-class until Unearthed Arcana introduced the Barbarian had identical Hit Dice. The shared THAC0 and Saves and most weapon Proficiencies. That's the guts of the martial classes right there.

Furthermore the Illusionist used the Magic-User spell list and intelligence as the caster stat. The Druid used the Cleric spell list and Wisdom.

They most certainly didn't share the same xp progression.

XP Progression was AD&D's balance mechanism. If you took a class or s sub-class with certain power variations you leveled faster or slower. The classes and sub-classes themselves did not have any real sense of parity level-to-level.

There were variances in armor and weapons availlable between main class and subclasses.

For flavor some times, sure. The Druid and Cleric each had different hang-ups (one couldn't used edged weapons, one eschewed metals). The Paladin's code of conduct and alignment kept him out of the use of oil in personal combat and poison.

In 4E the Fighter (Slayer) and the Fighter (Knight) have different proficiency with armor too. In 2nd Edition kits slipped in to modify classes as well.

If you want class to mean the exact same thing in 5E as it meant in OD&D or class/sub-class meant in AD&D or class meant in 3.X/Pathfinder the Caves of Chaos play-test already shows you're going to be disappointed.

- Marty Lund

 

[Gryph]

As an aside, I always felt the 3e sorcerer was an awesome and iconic concept with terrible execution. (I have the blood of dragons in my veins - behold! I can cast a spell named after a human wizard!)

They would have been on the right track if they had started from that concept and developed a class that embodied it. Instead, they started from a desire for a spontaneous arcane caster and rationalised some fluff for it.

I might have really liked the class if had been designed from the fiction instead of the mechanic.

 

[Gryph]

As have every sub-class of Fighter in 4th Edition - the Weaponmaster, the Knight, and the Slayer - go figure.



The Ranger is the lone exception. Every other sub-class until Unearthed Arcana introduced the Barbarian had identical Hit Dice. The shared THAC0 and Saves and most weapon Proficiencies. That's the guts of the martial classes right there.

Furthermore the Illusionist used the Magic-User spell list and intelligence as the caster stat. The Druid used the Cleric spell list and Wisdom.



XP Progression was AD&D's balance mechanism. If you took a class or s sub-class with certain power variations you leveled faster or slower. The classes and sub-classes themselves did not have any real sense of parity level-to-level.



For flavor some times, sure. The Druid and Cleric each had different hang-ups (one couldn't used edged weapons, one eschewed metals). The Paladin's code of conduct and alignment kept him out of the use of oil in personal combat and poison.

In 4E the Fighter (Slayer) and the Fighter (Knight) have different proficiency with armor too. In 2nd Edition kits slipped in to modify classes as well.

If you want class to mean the exact same thing in 5E as it meant in OD&D or class/sub-class meant in AD&D or class meant in 3.X/Pathfinder the Caves of Chaos play-test already shows you're going to be disappointed.

- Marty Lund

1e Clerics and Druids had a significant number of spells on their lists that were exclusive to each as did the Illusionist and Magic-User.

How 4e did subclassing is hardly pertinent to my post.

Whether I will be dissapointed in my hope of Next. Well, I suspect you may be right but nothing in the first playtest document precluded me from playing a class without theme or background and the classes by themselves delivered a fair approximation of 70's D&D classes.

I'll just wait and see how (or if) the later playtests introduce the other classes before I make up my mind.

 

[mlund]

Unarmed combat that delivers multiple attacks and damage comparable to a steel weapon.

So, a Fighter with an improved Damage die for specializing in Unarmed Strike instead of Great Weapon, Bow, Sword + Board, etc.?

Armor Class bonus that grants a monk an unarmored AC equal to armor.

So, the ability to trade armor proficiency for unarmored bonus AC. Not exactly revolutionary. Fighter sub-classes / options have been trading shield use and heavy armor for extra damage and two-weapon fighting defense bonuses for many years in 4E now.

Speed, movement, or Agility/Acrobatic ability.

Acrobatics have been rolled into Skills since 3E reintroduced the Monk after his 2nd Ed hiatus. Land-speed bonuses by class haven't been a thing since after the 3E PHB was released with the Barbarian and Monk (no new classes introduced with it, no 4E classes I know about do it). I'm not even sure the AD&D Monk had a land-speed bonus or if was the OA monk, and people don't even want to talk about the 2nd Edition Monk kits.

Resistance to many different types of attacks: poison, mental attacks, disease, etc.

Developer discussions have already put forward the idea that Fighters are supposed to be extremely resistant to a lot of this stuff. On top of that, monks weren't immune to disease, poison, psionics, etc. all within 5 levels either.

Special Strikes using unarmed attacks that can debilitate, stun, or even kill.

Combat Superiority - built in feature.

Mystical abilities that grant the monk healing, supernatural senses, or even magical movement.

Seems like a "Harmony of Mind and Body" Theme to me, probably with an advanced theme.

Frankly, if they aren't small enough advanced to fit into Themes and Advanced Themes it's probably a very good sign of trying to get the Monk into a position to have his cake and eat it too, or else make another AD&D/3E gimpy combat failure for everyone to gnash their teeth about again.

Class: Fighter (Martial Artist) - HP, AC, attacks, damage, resistance, combat superiority
Background: Akashic Monastic - Skills
Theme (1-5): Mystic Harmony - Self-healing, Improved senses, Special movement (some sort of jump / fall feature?)
Advanced Theme (6-10): Enlightened Warrior - Self-curing, Blindsense, Advanced Special movement feature

The really awesome part is you don't have to break rocks with your fists to be a Monk. You could go Zen Archery or even be an honest-to-goodness priest and still come from the eastern monastic tradition and benefit from walking the path of enlightenment.

- Marty Lund

 

[Minigiant]

To be the Fighter's Combat Superiority mechanic doesn't make sense on a monk. Because to me and many others, monks are not masters of unarmed combat, they are mystics whose mastery of mind and body can be translated into combat.

It is much like how a fighter can be the stereotypical heavy armored swordsman but the class also match the no armor swashbuckling duelist and the leather clad deadeyed archer.

The "monk" monk is supernatural and fits more that the
unarmed robe guy. A monk could be an archer miko who can shoot upside down after a backflip or swordsman who catches an arrow with his hand and an offensive lighting bolt with the other hand or an old dwarf who can chug his ale and breath fire through his pipe. Less weaponmaster more Jedi.

Personally I think 3E's Psionic focus mechanics works better for a monk. The monk enters a meditative state of discipline and gets a host of choosable abilities while in the trance. Flurry of blows, increased AC, soul weapons, increased spedd, 40' jumps, spider climb, stunning strikes, fire breath, what ever. Then the monk can expel their focus to quickly perform a special action.

 

[Remathilis]

Acrobatics have been rolled into Skills since 3E reintroduced the Monk after his 2nd Ed hiatus. Land-speed bonuses by class haven't been a thing since after the 3E PHB was released with the Barbarian and Monk (no new classes introduced with it, no 4E classes I know about do it). I'm not even sure the AD&D Monk had a land-speed bonus or if was the OA monk, and people don't even want to talk about the 2nd Edition Monk kits.

Scout (Complete Adventurer) granted bonuses to land movment as well. And Monks have had bonus to speed in the 1e PHB, OA, The Rules Cyclopedia (where the Basic Monk, called Mystic, lived) and the Scarlet Brotherhood monk. The only monks not to have it were 4e, the 2nd edition kit (which didn't give AC bonus to unarmored either) and the Faith & Avatar's Monk class.

More editions than not have granted a movement bump.

Frankly, if they aren't small enough advanced to fit into Themes and Advanced Themes it's probably a very good sign of trying to get the Monk into a position to have his cake and eat it too, or else make another AD&D/3E gimpy combat failure for everyone to gnash their teeth about again.

Monks rocked the house in 1e/2e. It wasn't until they were saddled with a Rogue's crappy BAB that they became miss-masters.

We can keep this up and debate every little power and skill, but in the end it doesn't matter. One of us is going to end up right when we open the PHB and I have a feeling there are going to be a lot more than 4 classes and a bunch of watered down themes in it...

 

[mlund]

We can keep this up and debate every little power and skill, but in the end it doesn't matter. One of us is going to end up right when we open the PHB and I have a feeling there are going to be a lot more than 4 classes and a bunch of watered down themes in it...

Likewise I have a feeling we aren't going back to monolithic class designs constantly scrapping for mechanics and boxing one-another out because some people find the idea of sub-classes, build options, and modular design irreconcilable with The One True D&D.

- Marty Lund

 

[Sammael]

8 classes, people, I keep telling you... and they aren't 4 true classes and 4 demi-classes. Traditional D&D has 8 main flavors - diplomatic jack-of-all-trades, divinely-inspired warrior, pious worker of miracles, shapeshifting elementalist, trained martial combat specialist, disciple of arcane arts, tough woodland guerrilla warrior, and stealthy skillmonkey. Every other flavor can be done with backgrounds, themes, feats, and multiclassing.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Right, because that sooooo worked out well for fourth edition.

Unforunately, this is true.

I still don't know why, but there are people out there who, when they wanted to make a character who was an archery specialist in 4E, and they were told that they should pick the Ranger class to do so, threw a fit and went home because they had to have "Fighter" on their character sheet (and, for some reason, couldn't write "Fighter" but use Ranger rules).

I've never understood it; I've got a group of stock characters that I've been playing in multiple rules systems (some not even TTRPGs) for years and years, and each time, I'm able to pick some mechanics that realize the character (Elf -> Elven F/MU -> Elven F/W/Prestige -> Shadowrun -> etc.).