D&D 5E Building a better Monk

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Since so much of the game system is the spell sub-system, leveraging it does make sense, yes.

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.

Some series or game had a 'Shadow-dancer,' that sounds like a decent name for a Mystical Rogue.

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.

And leveraging a system like that keeps the game from bloating as much, too.

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.

That issue is prettymuch settled, at this point, I think. WotC tried disposing of sacred cows and it didn't work out. D&D, to retain it's product identity and long-time/returning fan-base, has to keep the sacred cows fat & happy - no matter how much methane they produce. ;P

 

[Helldritch]

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.

Everything in that post is nice but the last part. Now more than ever, you can do whatever you want. Be it optimal or not and it can and will work out fine. Multiclassing is now the way to go to build that character you've always wanted to. There won't be any penalties if you dig into some other classes beside not having access to the top abilities of single class. Focus versus versatility is the key. Yes there is a trade off but it is a really good one. With 5ed. Single class is good, multiclassing is good too. We are not in 1ed anymore where dual classing was a pain in the *ss and almost impossible without the right stats or multiclassing required you to do a "race" and be limited in levels. Now we have the best of both world and we get to decide if we focus or not. Every idea you had can be done with multiclassing now.

 

[steeldragons]

I think a good way for the Monk to go would be to incorporate the word's original meaning and classic/medieval flavor alongside/in addition to the "kung fu"/martial artist and shaolin/ki/spiritual powers stuff.

Then things like the shadow monk ninja, can be more properly laced into a Rogue magical assassin subclass. Elemental monks might be better served as sorcerer subclass or wujen style mystic, etc...

The [Steeldragons' for 5e] Monk
An ascetic (NOT "aesthetic", as mistakenly written by EGG in the 1e PHB and we've been paying for it ever since) and contemplative who meditates or prays, trains and studies for their own betterment and spiritual [if not also mental or physical] growth at a monastery devoted to a cause, deity or service. The character's origins might be a single sanctuary of personal enlightenment, a cloistered repository and archive of learning, secret/hidden place of spiritual or physical development, or a large system of connected facilities serving and/or spreading various orders within a religion.

Profs: No armor. Simple weapons
HD: d8
Tools: 1 set of artisans tools or 1 musical instrument.
Skills: Select three: Acrobatics, Athletics, History, Insight, Medicine, Persuasion, Religion, Nature, Stealth
Saves: Wisdom and one determined by your subclass.

Base Class:1st: Unarmored Defense, Unarmored Movement (+10' only, without armor or shield)
2nd: Spirit Points (work like Ki/Sorcery, etc...), Defensive Action (bonus action to Dash, Dodge, Disengage)
3rd: Monastic Tradition: Cloistered Clergy, Martial Adept, Sacred Disciple
4th: ASI, Divine Sense (as 1st level Paladin feature)
5th: Stunning Strike, Extra Attack
6th: Tradition feature, Uncanny Dodge
7th: Stillness of Mind, Wholeness of Body
8th: ASI
9thurity of Body
10th: Tranquility
11th: Tradition feature
12th: ASI
13th: Evasion
14th: Diamond Soul
15th: Timeless Body
16th: ASI
17th: Tradition feature
18th: Astral Projection
19th: ASI
20th: Perfect Self

Cloistered Clergy
3rd: Bonus Proficiencies: Intelligence saves, Shields, 1 additional Wis- or Int-based skill of your choice; Aura of Protection (as 6th level Paladin ability, only to 10', use Wis. mod.)
6th: Sneak Attack (as 1st level Rogue feature)
11th: Aura of Courage (as the 10th level Paladin ability)
17th: Channel Divinity: Turn Undead

Martial Adept
3rd: Bonus Profs: Dexterity saves, Light armor, 1 Martial Weapon of choice; Martial Artist: spend Points: Flurry of Blows, Deflect Missiles, Slow Fall
6th: "Ki-Strike" (spend points for special "magic hands" extra damage)
11th: Improved Unarmored Movement (vertical and over liquids)
17th: Quivering Palm

Sacred Disciple
3rd: Bonus Prof: Charisma saves, 2 additional Wisdom or Charisma based skills of your choice; Spellcasting: spend Spirit Points to use magic, 1/3rd caster progression & spells known (as the Eldritch Knight), Wisdom casting ability, choose from cleric and/or druid spells.
6th: Divine Strike (as the 8th level cleric feature)
17th: Transcendent Spirit (spend Spirit points to teleport or dimension door?)

 

[DaedalusX51]

Everything in that post is nice but the last part. Now more than ever, you can do whatever you want. Be it optimal or not and it can and will work out fine. Multiclassing is now the way to go to build that character you've always wanted to. There won't be any penalties if you dig into some other classes beside not having access to the top abilities of single class. Focus versus versatility is the key. Yes there is a trade off but it is a really good one. With 5ed. Single class is good, multiclassing is good too. We are not in 1ed anymore where dual classing was a pain in the *ss and almost impossible without the right stats or multiclassing required you to do a "race" and be limited in levels. Now we have the best of both world and we get to decide if we focus or not. Every idea you had can be done with multiclassing now.

I know that's an option for a lot of people, but I'm not really a fan of multiclassing. I think class based games are great at creating a cohesive theme that is married to the mechanics in a way that classless system have a really hard time matching. However, multiclassing to me feels like a poor attempt at turning a class based system into a classless system, but bringing along all the narrative baggage that made the class based system so great.

I guess the real issue is D&D can't be everything to everyone and some people are just going to be left out. I loved my time playing AD&D when I was younger and I like many aspects of 5E, but I'm interested in new gameplay with a D&D feel. If I wanted old game design ideas I would be playing AD&D instead of 5E.

 

[abirdcall]

I know that's an option for a lot of people, but I'm not really a fan of multiclassing. I think class based games are great at creating a cohesive theme that is married to the mechanics in a way that classless system have a really hard time matching. However, multiclassing to me feels like a poor attempt at turning a class based system into a classless system, but bringing along all the narrative baggage that made the class based system so great.

I guess the real issue is D&D can't be everything to everyone and some people are just going to be left out. I loved my time playing AD&D when I was younger and I like many aspects of 5E, but I'm interested in new gameplay with a D&D feel. If I wanted old game design ideas I would be playing AD&D instead of 5E.

I think subclasses in 5e are great and eliminate the need for multiclassing while keeping the benefits of a class based system.

While I am glad only 2 pages were devoted to multiclassing I wish it wasn't in the game at all so that designers wouldn't have to worry about it when creating new rules.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

The Mystic already doesn't smack of either of those, nor does the monk.

And the mystic can't be a monk in 5e's class structure. It's a nonsense idea. youd have to give warrior HD and base class features to the monk. The concept is a "Mystic" that is a dangerous combatant, able to stand next to the skirmishers at least, if not the front liners, and it does so by perfecting and bringing into balance the body and mind.

That concept can only ever go halfway as a subclass of a full caster style class, or a full martial style class. Not because it "arbitrarily has niche protection", in a game where a feat let's you fight unarmed and at least one other class can fight unarmored, but because it is a strong concept with a lot of both traction and distinctivenenss.

 

[DaedalusX51]

*It's a nonsense idea. youd have to give warrior HD and base class features to the monk.*

20 hitpoints? That's the difference between d8 and d10 over 20 levels.?

 

[Mephista]

Everything in that post is nice but the last part. Now more than ever, you can do whatever you want. Be it optimal or not and it can and will work out fine. Multiclassing is now the way to go to build that character you've always wanted to. There won't be any penalties if you dig into some other classes beside not having access to the top abilities of single class. Focus versus versatility is the key. Yes there is a trade off but it is a really good one. With 5ed. Single class is good, multiclassing is good too. We are not in 1ed anymore where dual classing was a pain in the *ss and almost impossible without the right stats or multiclassing required you to do a "race" and be limited in levels. Now we have the best of both world and we get to decide if we focus or not. Every idea you had can be done with multiclassing now.

Ummmm..... how does this have to do with sacred cows? Multi-classing does not get rid of any kind of sacred cow that I'm aware of. Vanician casting, for instance. Still pretty much everywhere but in the warlock, and even then? Pact magic is similar enough, and hardly like the 3e at-will caster. The six attributes, the alignment system, the existance of classes and levels... seriously. What new designs do we have with MCing? Seems like its just a repeat of old designs to me.

And, to be honest, my experience with multi-classing is that its only good for stealing mechanics for a main class, and not covering any new concepts. Trying to say that MCing does anything approaching new concepts rings hollow to my ears (well, eyes 'cause its all text, but you get my point). So, unless your concept is "Fighter with Cunning Action" - something I don't consider an actual concept - I'm going to have to disagree here. That is something that actually only appeals to a small portion of the player base, not the majority.

And, yes, there are penalties for multiclassing. Unless you're optimizing, doing it has a very high chance of putting you behind the game's power curve, or making your character MAD, or more. Multi-classing isn't some free-for all, all dreams granted option. Its something that gives more power to the min-maxers, but not as much really to a casual player.

I think subclasses in 5e are great and eliminate the need for multiclassing while keeping the benefits of a class based system.

While I am glad only 2 pages were devoted to multiclassing I wish it wasn't in the game at all so that designers wouldn't have to worry about it when creating new rules.

Do they? As far as I'm aware, they seem to be cheerfully ignoring multi-classing at all in terms of design, or adding the bare minimum in as an after thought.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

20 hitpoints? That's the difference between d8 and d10 over 20 levels.?

I don't care about level 20. literally at all. IMO, it's almost entirely irrelevant to any discussion about comparative power in DnD. Levels 3-12 or so are the most important levels in the game, imo. 1-15 is the range I even care about for balance considerations. Beyond that, it is basically the epic game, and I don't expect balance or even good design. Because it's DnD and only one edition has ever designed the "end game" well, and even if had problems.

The Mystic also gets the bare minimum proficiencies. The already small subclass would have to use some of its power budget bridging that gap. I'm not sure that the basics of the monk could fit in the level 1 and 3 subclass set of features. The difference matters at low levels, and somewhat at mid levels, which is what matters.

So,

Use of a list of weapons as monk weapons, unarmed fighting boost, unarmored fighting boost (the monk should be able to wear light armor and still get martial arts and unarmored movement, imo, but that's a separate issue), some kind of boost to survivability (I'd be fine with something like adding Wisdom mod to hp or something), increased speed, and Ki abilities. Looking at the mystic disciplines, you can get there, but not if you want to also have any variation of concept. If your monk can't have a set of distinct and evocative disciplines/schools/styles/whatever...is it really a fantasy monk?

If unarmored movement, flurry of blows, step of the wind, etc are locked in to a psi discipline, anyone who wants to play the classic monk archetype is stuck with that one discipline.

And the base class still has some stuff that does nothing for the archetype. Some of it fits, but only a *very* supernatural monk. No room in a mystic subclass for a character that pushes the boundaries of the humanly possible without feeling *magic*, which is what the Open Hand Monk is there for.

Nah, mystic subclass would be a kludge. A better one than a sorcerer/rogue or a fighter subclass, but a kludge nonetheless.

Otoh, I'd love a rewrite of the four elements monk that gets wu Jen disciplines and can spend Ki on them. And one that gets the mystic's ability to paionically add damage to weapon attacks, and some nomad disciplines.

Basically, some of what the mystic does would be great as monk subclasses. The two classes are a lot like the paladin and Cleric, except that the Cleric is terrible.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ummmm..... how does this have to do with sacred cows? Multi-classing does not get rid of any kind of sacred cow that I'm aware of.

It cuts into the niche-protection sacred cow, some. It depends on the details of the system, of course. 5e doesn't have nearly the flexibility of build-to-concept via multi-classing that 3.x did, not by orders of magnitude, that was probably the high point of 'build whatever you want.' 4e came close in sheer volume but you really needed to resort to re-skinning quite a lot, and it was, well, y'know, balanced.

5e does use a somewhat cleaned up (in some areas, slightly messed up in others) version of 3e MCing, as an optional rule, but there are just plain fewer classes to work with. And there's lingering niche protection here and there. Not the egregious old examples - Clerical healing and Theives' trapfinding - but some.