D&D 5E What most needs revision for the (hypothetical) 50th anniversary core books?

[Yaarel]

Why "mystic" tho?
That doesn't sound much better and doesn't give a good idea what the class is
Mystic sounds too occult. Like a spiritualist or a medium

Why not something like "brawler?"

"Athlete".

 

[Parmandur]

Why "mystic" tho?
That doesn't sound much better and doesn't give a good idea what the class is
Mystic sounds too occult. Like a spiritualist or a medium

Why not something like "brawler?"

In Basic Dungeons & Dragona, the Monk equivalent Class was called the "Mystic," so it has historic resonance in D&D, and captures the half-caster nature of the Class (do the math for the Kinpoimt progression, comparing it to the Spell Point progression in the DMG: if you give Rangers and Paladins Spell Points, at any given level they would have the same Daily Spell Points as a Monk would get Ki points at 2 Shirt Rests a day). Changing the name would be a priority, because "Monk" should be a Background that any Class can take.

 

[Parmandur]

Hmm. I agree with the general goal, but I think it is better as it is, with a different name. I would really hate for it to be “spell points”, though. Even leaning into the “Mystic”, the non-Spellcasting subclasses are not a spellcaster, conceptually. They should live in the same space as battle masters, having a resource pool that is not spell-related, representing focus, stamina, and determination. The mystic can also connect to other living things with their spirit, spending Focus to do things like stun a creature.

For my take, I would lean heavily into the aspect of the Class as a half-caster, which it is even ifnmost of the the current uses of Spell resources are not currently flavored as Spells (except for the Fpur Elements and Sun Monks). So, it's a weird balance, where I want to see the Class not be Orientalist...but want the Class to have Wuxia style abilities fueled by a less culturally charged Spell resource (Slots, Points what have you).

It was specifically in contemplating the problematic use of Ki based on the criticisms out there that I saw the true beauty of bland Spell Slots as used in 5E: they allow Msgix to be reflavored by Setting, if needs be.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why "mystic" tho?
That doesn't sound much better and doesn't give a good idea what the class is
Mystic sounds too occult. Like a spiritualist or a medium

Why not something like "brawler?"

Brawler is the opposite of what the class is.

It is a Mystic, however. So that or some synonym would work.

Changing the name would be a priority, because "Monk" should be a Background that any Class can take.

Acolyte is already a background. The only reason to change the name is that it is too clearly based on the pop culture idea of the Shoalin Monk.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

For my take, I would lean heavily into the aspect of the Class as a half-caster, which it is even ifnmost of the the current uses of Spell resources are not currently flavored as Spells (except for the Fpur Elements and Sun Monks). So, it's a weird balance, where I want to see the Class not be Orientalist...but want the Class to have Wuxia style abilities fueled by a less culturally charged Spell resource (Slots, Points what have you).

It was specifically in contemplating the problematic use of Ki based on the criticisms out there that I saw the true beauty of bland Spell Slots as used in 5E: they allow Msgix to be reflavored by Setting, if needs be.

I’d rather see the monk moved further away from spells than closer to it. The monk is balanced against half-casting. That doesn’t make it a half caster. It’s not a spellcaster. It should never be made a spellcaster, IMO.

Renaming Ki to Focus accomplishes the goal of making it not appropriative, without making the class incompatible with books other than the PHB.

And the Monk is a really fun class as it is. It would be less fun if made more like other classes.

 

[Parmandur]

Brawler is the opposite of what the class is.

It is a Mystic, however. So that or some synonym would work.



Acolyte is already a background. The only reason to change the name is that it is too clearly based on the pop culture idea of the Shoalin Monk.

Well, Acolyte covers priestly characters, so you can have a Cleric who is not a formal priest, or a Fighter who is a formal priest (making an Elf Fighter who was a priest without Supernatural powers was something my Brother in Law did for our very first 5E session in July 2014, it was awesome).

Monastacism and priesthood are different life paths, however,, different narratives for a charac, and it is notable that Hermit does actually have many elements of being a member of a Monastic order already baked in. Making being a Monk something that a Cleric or Druid can do just as easily as the Martial Arts Class, just as it is currently with priesthood...that would be a logical furtherance of the positive developments in 5E for Backgrounds.

 

[Parmandur]

I’d rather see the monk moved further away from spells than closer to it. The monk is balanced against half-casting. That doesn’t make it a half caster. It’s not a spellcaster. It should never be made a spellcaster, IMO.

Renaming Ki to Focus accomplishes the goal of making it not appropriative, without making the class incompatible with books other than the PHB.

And the Monk is a really fun class as it is. It would be less fun if made more like other classes.

Yeah, I don't expect that to happen at any rate, or anything else so radical (though I do hope in the future that they disentangle the Orientialist elements, and make Monastacism more of a Background).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, Acolyte covers priestly characters, so you can have a Cleric who is not a formal priest, or a Fighter who is a formal priest (making an Elf Fighter who was a priest without Supernatural powers was something my Brother in Law did for our very first 5E session in July 2014, it was awesome).

Monastacism and priesthood are different life paths, however,, different narratives for a charac, and it is notable that Hermit does actually have many elements of being a member of a Monastic order already baked in. Making being a Monk something that a Cleric or Druid can do just as easily as the Martial Arts Class, just as it is currently with priesthood...that would be a logical furtherance of the positive developments in 5E for Backgrounds.

I mean IMO Hermit or Acolyte do “monastic priest” just fine, but adding another one wouldn’t hurt anything. I wouldn’t call it Monk, though. No reason to have that confusion. Use a synonym, IMO.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

A

Yeah, I don't expect that to happen at any rate, or anything else so radical (though I do hope in the future that they disentangle the Orientialist elements, and make Monastacism more of a Background).

We agree on that much, for sure.

 

[Parmandur]

I mean IMO Hermit or Acolyte do “monastic priest” just fine, but adding another one wouldn’t hurt anything. I wouldn’t call it Monk, though. No reason to have that confusion. Use a synonym, IMO.

I'm really advocating for the Hermit to just be upgraded to "Monk," I suppose, to also allow the Martial Artist to not be limited to being a Monastic: a Soldier with extreme discipline and focus, or a Noble who has honed their body and mind without needing to belong to a Fantasy Shaolin Order (not that there's anything wrong with that, of course).