D&D 5E The Monk - What is the monk to you and why?

[steeldragons]

To the point of the thread, I think a monk is/should be a shaolin-style monk.

Their training and abilities are physical and applicable to fighting/combat. Use of a limted/specialized group of weapons is no problem. Any mystical/mental abilities (which I believe do make sense and can easily be divorced from any intial Orientalism) should be reserved for highly enlightened/ancient masters (like 10th or 15th level or better).

From the perspective that the Trickster[agreed its a terrible name]/Expert/Rogue group are the classes that use Skills and Expertise, relying on stealth and/or speed, dependent on their Dexterity moreso than brute Strength to face their adventuring challenges...then the Monk, without question, regardless of any divinely-inspired fluff and/or any focus on their combat abilities, is a Trickster/Expert/Rogue class.

If you wish to use backgrounds and specialties to give yourself a more "warrior" style monk or a more "paladin/cleric/jedi/religious" style monk or a more shadow-magic-using/ninja monk or a more psychic/ki/mystic monk...that should all be [easily] possible.

But the default Monk from which to create those PC concepts is still reliant on their skills, expertise, speed and Dex. for [the bulk of] its class features, and so is a Trickster/Expert/Rogue-based class.

I would LOVE for them to make the default Monk NON-MAGICAL!!! D&D is a fantasy role-playing game. Yes. There is magic [in greater or lesser amounts] all around. Yes. Magic-users, magic beasts, magic items. Yes. But that doesn't mean every blessed class needs access to some kind of "magic" to make them great. Over the years, D&D has become outrageously tilted to have caster/magic-using classes in every possible walk of life!

Part of the Monk's shtick is that they are NOT MAGIC! Their aim, balance and reflexes are uncanny. Yes. Their speed, for movement or combat, is extraordinary. Yes. Their mental focus and disciplined mind are formidable. Yes. Senses and perceptions may even seem extra-sensory. Yes. But they are not supernatural! Give them all of the acrobatics, dodging, climbing, unarmed attacks, speed bursts, unarmored AC bonuses, flurries of blows, iron will, etc... as you like. None of that requires "magic" and should be, I would think, plenty for an interested player to engage in this character class...for several levels!

Are supernatural variants possible? Sure, of course. Same as every other class. But why is this game, purposely and willfully, making it so that Fighters, Rogues/Thieves, and Barbarians are the ONLY classes that don't have, by their very creation, magic at their disposal? (assuming they don't default attribution of Raging to magic or spirits, but that's questionable...so might even be only Fighters and Rogue/Thieves)

As said above, if they want to include mental/psychic abilities at very high levels for the monk, fine. But there's plenty for the monk to do/have/contribute without needing to build in "ki punches", "Dimension Door" [?!? really?! They could do that?!], "Detect Thoughts" or [going 1e/old school] talking to plants [???] or what have you until at least 10th level...and even then, an optional "mystic" track for them (beginning above or around 10-15th level) would be preferable, imho.

 

[Derren]

Part of the Monk's shtick is that they are NOT MAGIC! Their aim, balance and reflexes are uncanny. Yes. Their speed, for movement or combat, is extraordinary. Yes. Their mental focus and disciplined mind are formidable. Yes. Senses and perceptions may even seem extra-sensory. Yes. But they are not supernatural! Give them all of the acrobatics, dodging, climbing, unarmed attacks, speed bursts, unarmored AC bonuses, flurries of blows, iron will, etc... as you like. None of that requires "magic" and should be, I would think, plenty for an interested player to engage in this character class...for several levels!

Most of what monks in D&D do is supernatural. Just because you refuse to call it magic doesn't make it mundane. Alone their normal fighting ability, going toe to toe with a armed and armored opponent with nothing but their fists borders the supernatural as that is a very bad idea no matter how trained you are.

 

[SageMinerve]

Well, it's worth noting that I removed the Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger and Druid from my game because I also felt that they carried to much cultural baggage to be a true base class. The concepts of those classes remain in the game, but as the more generic and versatile Fanatic, Champion, Hunter, and Shaman which are not specific to any single culture. You can still make a berserker northern barbarian by playing a Fanatic, but you could also play a knight Templar, a member of the King's elite bodyguard, a whirling dervish, or an insane cultist. You could make a Paladin character by playing a Champion, but also a batman style vigilante or a paragon of evil. And so forth.

So, I'm not being hypocritical here. You may be right about the Paladin being too specific to a setting, but that doesn't make the monk less problematic. If you really wanted to play a monk in my game I'd say, "Alright. Play a human or hobgoblin fighter. Spend your starting trait on Unusual Background (Martial Artist) to add Balance, Tumble, and Concentration to your class skill list, and start play with Superior Unarmed Strike and either Skill Focus (Unarmed Strike), Toughness, or Brawler. Focus on going up the unarmed combat tree - One Two Punch, Roundabout Kick, Deflect Arrows, etc. - with a particular eye on Lethal Weapon at 6th level and eventually getting Hard as Nails going up the toughness tree. The Riddle of Steel might also be an early option for you, as might Acrobatic Attack particularly once you get One Two Punch. Powerful Charge and Jump Kick also make a good combo. You might want to consider dipping for a level of Explorer to maximize your number of attacks, or you could go crazy and multiclass into Sorcerer for Arcane Strike, Enlarge Self, True Strike, and Body Weaponry. Alternately, dip cleric, abuse Interdisciplinary Student, and head for Persistent Spell."

Like I said, it's your campaign, you and your players can do whatever suits you. That said, I'm a "More is better" kind-of-guy for these situations: I prefer they include a Monk class for people like me that want them and people like you can banish them from their game -> everybody's happy.

And just to be absolutely clear, you were not the only one using the "orientalism" argument, so my post wasn't aimed at you specifically, and I certainly wasn't implying any hypocrisy on your part.

I have to concur with the bulk of what Celebrim wrote. That said, there's nothing wrong with some goofy nods to Orientalism - as long as it doesn't irradiate a ton of fertile design space like the Monk-as-class paradigm has for the last three decades. Monk is a Background - coming from a monastery. That's it. Maybe they taught Kung Fu there. Maybe they illuminated manuscripts. That's a setting / background thing.

Barbarian is a background - coming from an uncivilized tribe. That's it. Maybe they taught hunting there (go Ranger go). Maybe you were one of the defenders of the tribe (go Fighter go). That's a setting / background thing.

(forgive me for plagiarizing your post, no offense meant, but it's a great way to drive my point across: when you start removing Classes because they're campaign-specific, your work can't start and finish with the Monk...)

 

[Minigiant]

One of the issues the monk has is that many of the past versions of them have be built as mystical rogues and priests but people want to play them as warriors. The monks of previous editions are tricksters, players play them as warriors, and the monk fails at their jobs.

So first we must decide which is more central to the monk.

Is it the exotic martial artist or wise super athlete?

 

[Salamandyr]

And to me, monks are not just warriors. They are closer to Rogues.

The math is
Rogue base - Sneak Attack - Underworld Knowledge (traps, locks, and cunning) + Fighter level combat ( only when unarmed or using simple weapons and when unarmored) + Cleric level Wisdom, Insight, Speech, and Healing (Self only)

They are closer to rogues to me. Monks are heavily reliant on Dexterity for defense. They backflip, tumble, and jump all over the place. Many are decent talkers. Most are good at perception. And to beat an equal level warrior, they must throw everything at them.

The main thing is you trade out Underworld Tactics and Lore for Spiritual and Physical Perfection.

I wasn't talking in game terms. My point is that the monk, as popularly conceived, isn't a distinct archetype, it's a higher power version of an already existing archetype...which isn't the rogue, but the warrior (the analagous comparison to the rogue would be the ninja).

Even if it was the rogue, that's not really the important bit. The important thing is that monk abilities are high level abilities. They are, within the fiction, what happens when you train your body long enough and hard enough. So when you've got a guy who has trained his body so hard that his hands are as dangerous as swords, what does that say about the guy who has to use a sword to be dangerous?

If the world allows you to train hard enough to be able to fight naked as well as someone in full armor with weapons, it says that the guy who uses armor and weapons is obviously not all that highly trained.

 

[Celebrim]

Like I said, it's your campaign, you and your players can do whatever suits you. That said, I'm a "More is better" kind-of-guy for these situations: I prefer they include a Monk class for people like me that want them and people like you can banish them from their game -> everybody's happy.

Well sure, but I'm a programmer by trade and I'm not a big fan of "there is more than one way to do things". There is a significant cost to the game in the approach of "more is better". You end up in the situation of late 3.5 where you have literally 600 classes each of which is offering various minor mechanical variations and front ended benefits which often overlap and virtually none of which have been tested in relationship to each other or even considered in relation to everything else that is already out there. It's too many moving parts, and its benefits ends up being not in that it lets players create more varied characters but that it lets players mix and match among mechanical benefits in order to make more optimized Johnny One-Tricks. There is increased rules overhead, decreased balance among characters, and increased difficulty for the DM in preparing a setting and particularly in preparing NPCs to be challenges to PCs.

And just to be absolutely clear, you were not the only one using the "orientalism" argument, so my post wasn't aimed at you specifically, and I certainly wasn't implying any hypocrisy on your part.

No, but you did say, "...removing the Monk from the game because of such arguments is kind of a fallacy, and one that is strongly tainted with their advocate's personal dislike of the class." And in any event, I don't mind if you insult me. I only get upset if you argue in bad faith. If I'm guilty of hypocrisy, or you just think I am, get it out in the open. If you think I'm being an idiot, say that too. As long as you are willing to talk rationally about my stupidity, I don't mind.

In any event, while I do dislike the class, the central reason for removing the Monk wasn't my dislike of the class. And in particular, if you think my 'orientalism' argument was essentially a case of me arguing that I don't like chocolate in my peanut butter, I think you are missing the point entirely. My objection to the monk is not at all that an eastern inspired class doesn't belong in a game with largely western mythic flavor. My objection to the monk is that even in the context of game with an eastern inspired setting, the monk is bad design. To my knowledge, I am the first one that used the term 'orientalism' and I didn't merely mean by it 'oriental'.

Barbarian is a background - coming from an uncivilized tribe. That's it. Maybe they taught hunting there (go Ranger go). Maybe you were one of the defenders of the tribe (go Fighter go). That's a setting / background thing.

I agree. Barbarian is just a background. It's absurd that the assumption of having a background as a nomadic, aboriginal or technologically more primitive people should imply class. Presumably the people from those cultures are as diverse in their classes as those from more civilized, settled, and technologically advanced cultures. There are obviously going to be differences, but mostly we just have a difference in background.

But look further at your argument. You say, "Maybe they taught Hunting there (go Ranger go)". Ok, probably they did, but why in the world should we think that learning to hunt has anything to do with being a protector of nature, or having the ability to cast spells? Ranger is itself a very specific background laden with non-generic abilities specific to a very particular (at this point highly self-referential) notion. I wouldn't expect primitive hunter-gather groups to be crawling with Rangers just because they value the ability to Track and have great knowledge of animals. The larger concept here isn't 'Ranger', but 'Hunter'. That way we can play a demon slayer, big game hunter, undead slayer, magistrate, bounty hunter, or assassin without being laden with the flavor and mechanical burden of a class originally (and rather badly) attempting to model Aragorn from 'The Lord of the Rings'. Not particularly that when we revert to the more flexible Hunter archetype, we find ourselves suddenly loosing the need for the literally dozens of 'slayer' and 'ranger' variants classes that 3.X produced to cover for the fact that the base class was a prestige class in disguise. Done well enough, and we even lose the need for specialty prestige class hunters.

 

[Salamandyr]

I don't really think, when examined closely, the Eastern vs. Western argument really holds up.

For instance, if you watch John Woo's excellent Red Cliffs, there's really not a lot to differentiate it from The Lord of the Rings, or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon from Tristram and Isolde. The only real difference is that the Chinese stories assume a higher power level for individuals than we are used to assuming with the Western pulp fiction that feeds into D&D.

Li Mu Bai doesn't fit into a story with D'Artagnan and Conan, not because he's Asian, but because the fiction he inhabits has different assumptions about personal abilities. If Li Mu Bai were written by Howard or Dumas, he wouldn't fly or cut arrows with his sword. Likewise, if Conan or D'Artagnan were translated into the world of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, they would be able to jump fifty feet, balance on bamboo leaves, etc.

As written though, Li Mu Bai fits just fine with Western mythology...he could hang unchanged with Hercules, Thor, or Cu Chulain.

 

[Minigiant]

I wasn't talking in game terms. My point is that the monk, as popularly conceived, isn't a distinct archetype, it's a higher power version of an already existing archetype...which isn't the rogue, but the warrior (the analagous comparison to the rogue would be the ninja).

Even if it was the rogue, that's not really the important bit. The important thing is that monk abilities are high level abilities. They are, within the fiction, what happens when you train your body long enough and hard enough. So when you've got a guy who has trained his body so hard that his hands are as dangerous as swords, what does that say about the guy who has to use a sword to be dangerous?

If the world allows you to train hard enough to be able to fight naked as well as someone in full armor with weapons, it says that the guy who uses armor and weapons is obviously not all that highly trained.

There is a low level monk. They are superathletic tricksters. They shouldn't get combat "tanky" until higher levels when they truly break the supernatural seiling. Before that they are the pro-altheles of the aincient world. More of the peak physical and mental condition guy. Like Captain America with higher wisdom. Not the best fighter but the best athlete.

 

[Salamandyr]

There is a low level monk. They are superathletic tricksters. They shouldn't get combat "tanky" until higher levels when they truly break the supernatural seiling. Before that they are the pro-altheles of the aincient world. More of the peak physical and mental condition guy. Like Captain America with higher wisdom. Not the best fighter but the best athlete.

But even a low level monk has bare hand attacks that are as dangerous as swords--that's my point. There shouldn't be such a thing as a low level monk.

A low level monk (using the term monk confuses the issue, because it assumes certain cultural attributes) is a guy using a sword and armor.

It's like having a "low level superman".

EDIT: took out the idea of calling a monk a "martial artist" as preferable to monk, because everyone who studies the arts of war is a martial artist.

 

[Minigiant]

But even a low level monk has bare hand attacks that are as dangerous as swords--that's my point. There shouldn't be such a thing as a low level monk.

A low level monk (using the term monk confuses the issue, because it assumes certain cultural attributes) is a guy using a sword and armor.

It's like having a "low level superman".

EDIT: took out the idea of calling a monk a "martial artist" as preferable to monk, because everyone who studies the arts of war is a martial artist.

That's my point. A low level monk should not as competent at fighting as be equal level warrior who is in armor and weilding weapons. They would be equal to rogues until about level 5 or 6 when they "awaken" and have the physique a senses which can rival a warrior in proper attire.

A low level monk is a low level rogue who tumbles and spots better but cannot pick lock and disarm traps and beats orcs with a weapon 3 times instead of stabbing them in the back with it.