D&D 5E Building a better Monk

[Tony Vargas]

On PrCs, no, I don't think 5e needs or should have them, unless they replace feats rather than class levels.

That doesn't sound like a bad idea, at all. Secret techniques of a style/order could map to a feat pretty well.

I understand the distaste for 3.x's take, bloated as it was by MCing kludges and whatnot, but it'd be ideal for setting-specific concepts, cultural variations,and membership in orders and the like. That or backgrounds, or something akin to Themes (backgrounds that grow with you as you level, I suppose).

The PHB has only so much space.

True, the monk could have been saved for a 5e OA and the space used for something else...

Also, no, the Hermit doesn't fill the same space. Not even if you give it tavern brawler.

Only because unarmed/unarmored martial arts are the Monk's protected niche. Aside from that, being an ascetic could just be a background, class filling in the abilities, whether, that's a hard-martial-artist BM Fighter, mystic Mystic, ninja Assassin, or elements-tossing sorcerer...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm Chinese and I'd say the monk is close enough to xiaolin and wuxia. Just like the paladins are close enough to Arthurian knights and druids are close enough to to their Celtic (and other) roots. It really doesn't need to be exact. I'm happy with getting any refernces to my culture at all (without it getting confused with Japanese tropes, but that's a whole other discussion).

"Close enough", I like that.

I'd love to see DnD get a *lot* more global in it's inspiration. Playing a monk in 5e definately feels like playing a character from films like crouching tiger, and house of flying daggers, to me.

That doesn't sound like a bad idea, at all. Secret techniques of a style/order could map to a feat pretty well.

I've rarely seen a PrC that couldn't be either a subclass or a feat in 5e.

I understand the distaste for 3.x's take, bloated as it was by MCing kludges and whatnot, but it'd be ideal for setting-specific concepts, cultural variations,and membership in orders and the like. That or backgrounds, or something akin to Themes (backgrounds that grow with you as you level, I suppose).

All of those can be any of those things, depending on what they need to do, and how the system handle that sort of thing.

True, the monk could have been saved for a 5e OA and the space used for something else...

I'm not gonna go around in circles on this with you. The Monk is a core part of DnD. It belongs in the PHB.

Only because unarmed/unarmored martial arts are the Monk's protected niche. Aside from that, being an ascetic could just be a background, class filling in the abilities, whether, that's a hard-martial-artist BM Fighter, mystic Mystic, ninja Assassin, or elements-tossing sorcerer...

None of those would be to the sort of mysticism that isn't divine or arcane what the ranger and paladin is to the Druid and Cleric. Which is what the monk is. In 5e terms that is a half-casting warrior class.

The elemental monk isn't an elemental sorcerer with a hermit background. It's a graceful, wise, centered, aesthetic warrior that can harness the elements as part of his fighting prowess. You could kludge a rogue and sorcerer together, but it's gonna have tons of stuff that doesn't add to the concept, and some that detracts from it.

The rogue assassin does literally nothing to get at the concept of the shadow monk.

The BM fighter needs a feat just to get to the mundane parts of the concept, and has no way to be effective without armor, or hyper fast, and has no part at all of the supernatural aspects of the concept.

The mystic wasn't in the phb, and it's unlikely it would have been with the monk taken out. Even so, the mystic would be a poor monk. Even the soulknife isn't as much a warrior as a monk, paladin, or ranger. Because the base class is a psionic magic user.

 

[Tony Vargas]

None of those would be to the sort of mysticism that isn't divine or arcane

The Mystic, Assassin, and BM wouldn't be divine or arcane.

Which is what the monk is. In 5e terms that is a half-casting warrior class.

could've been a 1/2 or 1/3rd sub-class.

The mystic wasn't in the phb, and it's unlikely it would have been with the monk taken out. Even so, the mystic would be a poor monk. .

As it stands, with the monk niche-protected, perhaps.

You made the point about space in the PH. In retrospect, sure what is is always more 'likely' than what might have been...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The Mystic, Assassin, and BM wouldn't be divine or arcane.

I never said they would be. You've misread the thing you're quoting.

could've been a 1/2

only if you change the structure of the classes to allow for half casting subclasses. Even then,

or 1/3rd sub-class.

subclasses don't cover class concepts unless the class is incredibly narrow, like the favored soul. And a subclass would have all the "cultural baggage" you're so riled up against. And a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the concept, of course. And very little of what makes the monk interesting or unique, because subclasses are quite small.

As it stands, with the monk niche-protected, perhaps.

*facepalm* nonsense. The mystic makes a poor monk for all the reasons I listed, which you ignored completely.

[/quote] You made the point about space in the PH. In retrospect, sure what is is always more 'likely' than what might have been...[/QUOTE]
*double facepalm*

I didn't put "what is" on the table for comparison of likelihood. I put two hypotheticals that didn't happen.

 

[Tony Vargas]

subclasses don't cover class concepts unless the class is incredibly narrow, like the favored soul.

The Monk is pretty narrow - nearly non-existent if stripped of arbitrary niche protection and orientalism. Between a fighter sub-class and a Mystic, they might easily have covered what abilities might be needed for Monk type concepts...

And a subclass would have all the "cultural baggage" you're so riled up against. . .

Ideally not, that could be left to backgrounds.

 

[Yunru]

The Monk is niche and with baggage? Are you sure you're not talking about the Cleric? Or the Ranger?

There are far more niche classes with far more baggage than the Monk.

 

[Yunru]

The Monk is pretty narrow - nearly non-existent if stripped of arbitrary niche protection and orientalism. Between a fighter sub-class and a Mystic, they might easily have covered what abilities might be needed for Monk type concepts...

What niche? "I fight unarmed"? Sure the Fighter could cover that, but that wouldn't be the Monk.
"In and out before they can attack back"? Sure, a Rogue could do that, but that wouldn't be a Monk.
"I draw from a power native within myself"? Sure, a Mystic could cover that, but that wouldn't be a Monk.

And now you're left with multiclassing three seperate classes, with all their baggage and multiclassing traps, just to approach those three Monk concepts.



What orientalism? The concept of Ki?
Because we've got parkour (French), Ki (Japanese/Chinese), Martial Arts (pretty much everywhere), aaand... that's it. So one thing specific to the french and on oriental concept.

 

[Mephista]

The Monk class was inspired by asian influences. That's pretty hard to ignore. Cultural baggage or not, cultural appropriation or not, its seeped into western culture as something people see and expect and think of. The Wu Xia style warrior is an universal archetype now that's expected in most games, no matter the setting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What niche? "I fight unarmed"? .
"In and out before they can attack back"?

Both those, and unarmored, perticularly.

What orientalism?

That the Monk must be supernatural and be optimal fighting unarmed & unarmored, just because it's drawn from a different culture. It's not D&D's 'fault,' it's just where we were back in the 70s, and it's not like it hasn't edged away a bit here and there...

... but if 5e had continued the progress of 3e &4e, the Monk might have been merged with the Psion to make a Mystic that smacked of neither sci-fi nor orientalism.

 

[DaedalusX51]

Both those, and unarmored, perticularly.

That the Monk must be supernatural and be optimal fighting unarmed & unarmored, just because it's drawn from a different culture. It's not D&D's 'fault,' it's just where we were back in the 70s, and it's not like it hasn't edged away a bit here and there...

... but if 5e had continued the progress of 3e &4e, the Monk might have been merged with the Psion to make a Mystic that smacked of neither sci-fi nor orientalism.

Yeah, if I could have my way with D&D I would have combined the Sorcerer and Mystic into a single class. So we would have a character with inbound power (with ki, psi, spirit, or whatever we want to call them points) that would specialize in cool themes like a Elemental control, mind control, telekenisis (like the force), Body Control (think Dhalsim from street fighter) or whatever. I would prefer to do it without using the standard spell system to differentiate it from the wizard, but we could probably fit it in that way if we wished.

Then you could just have Mystical Warrior (which would house the kensei/psychic warrior classes) and Mystical Rogue (which would house the monk/soulknife classes) half caster classes. Obviously they would have more evocative names than that.

I'm just personally not a fan of creating a whole new system (psionics, ki, superiority dice, etc) for every new class especially when current classes share systems (spells, fighting styles, etc). A shared system gives a story to the source of the power.

Edit: Honestly that's one of my biggest issues with D&D. Sacred cows that won't be touched. There is a lot of room to design new and interesting takes on these old classes, but we are beholden to their old poor designs because someone played one in a prior edition and they want it to be the same in the new one. Kinda sucks that we are holding ourselves back here.