D&D (2024) Asians Represent: "Has WotC Fixed the D&D Monk?"

[Mirrorrorrim]

Again, you can be fantastical without being magical. We need to stop ignoring the difference if we're ever going to get anywhere with good martial characters.

There are no non-magical D&D worlds. Magic is a part of the very fabric of the D&D Multiverse. (I'm not talking about spells, but supernatural/mystical stuff in general). Even non-magical warriors use magical tools or will have a hard time at higher levels. Martial does not mean "non-magical". "Martial" isn't a "source" or lack of a source. It really means having a weapon-based combat focus. An Arcane Archer is a martial fighter that uses magic for their archery.

We need to stop avoiding the existence of magic in the very fabric of the game. Sure we need some non-magical options in the game, but there has never been a monk that did not lean on magical/supernatural themes. Dealing Force damage with unarmed strikes (or even being able to bypass magical damage resistance) is magical.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

There are no non-magical D&D worlds. Magic is a part of the very fabric of the D&D Multiverse. (I'm not talking about spells, but supernatural/mystical stuff in general). Even non-magical warriors use magical tools or will have a hard time at higher levels. Martial does not mean "non-magical". "Martial" isn't a "source" or lack of a source. It really means having a weapon-based combat focus. An Arcane Archer is a martial fighter that uses magic for their archery.

We need to stop avoiding the existence of magic in the very fabric of the game. Sure we need some non-magical options in the game, but there has never been a monk that did not lean on magical/supernatural themes. Dealing Force damage with unarmed strikes (or even being able to bypass magical damage resistance) is magical.

I think this is why I would like magical maneuvers as warrior "options" and would love a mystic/mythic warrior class that can do things differently, but on par with, a non-magical fighter (which should still be a valid option.)

 

[Incenjucar]

2E barbarians actually explicitly avoided magic.

Not to mention dwarves...

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

2E barbarians actually explicitly avoided magic.

Not to mention dwarves...

Barbarians and dwarves may have hated arcane magic, but barbarians still got access to use magic items at later levels. They also allowed divine magic. Soo....

 

[Micah Sweet]

D&D martial arts is about being able to use lethal force to kill potentially fantastic, if not monstrous enemies.

Modern MMA is a curated experience that bans the more lethal martial arts options so that humans can more safely compete in nonlethal violence against other humans. It is not a good representation to base D&D martial arts upon. Sure, rules for humans grappling humans is good to get reasonably right, but for a Medium-sized bipedal monk to strike or grapple Large creatures (whose carnivorous mouths may open wide enough to fit the monk's head or limbs inside), or many-limbed creatures, or creatures that are heavily armored, or made of stone, or emanate harmful energies like fire, is wholly in the fantastical realm.

In order to be unarmed and unarmored combatants in D&D, Monks should be magical martial artists because it is a magical world with magical threats. Non-magical pugilism doesn't work in D&D unless you're hand-waving the logical problems that present themselves in such an environment.

Maybe if all "warriors" get maneuvers, it opens design space for Monks (and even Fighters and Barbarians) to get optional magical maneuvers like 2014 elemental attacks, or Bo9S-like maneuvers. This could also be the design needed to help the Mythic Warrior tropes come to life.

I think there are plenty of times in D&D where humanoids fight other humanoids, without magic or fantastic anatomy being a major component. Assuming the fantasy elements pervade all genre combat is incorrect.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There are no non-magical D&D worlds. Magic is a part of the very fabric of the D&D Multiverse. (I'm not talking about spells, but supernatural/mystical stuff in general). Even non-magical warriors use magical tools or will have a hard time at higher levels. Martial does not mean "non-magical". "Martial" isn't a "source" or lack of a source. It really means having a weapon-based combat focus. An Arcane Archer is a martial fighter that uses magic for their archery.

We need to stop avoiding the existence of magic in the very fabric of the game. Sure we need some non-magical options in the game, but there has never been a monk that did not lean on magical/supernatural themes. Dealing Force damage with unarmed strikes (or even being able to bypass magical damage resistance) is magical.

As long as the material is honest about it, sure.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Barbarians and dwarves may have hated arcane magic, but barbarians still got access to use magic items at later levels. They also allowed divine magic. Soo....

Indeed. When the class first showed up (UA in 1e), it said they hated magic (except "Shamanistic" magic). But then, as soon as 2nd level...

Also, as has been mentioned above, being able to hit creatures immune to non-magical items is something I'd consider superhuman (along with hit points in general).

 

[Azzy]

that very much depends on the persons

I hear that politicians are fairly expensive, but if you have the money...

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I think there are plenty of times in D&D where humanoids fight other humanoids, without magic or fantastic anatomy being a major component. Assuming the fantasy elements pervade all genre combat is incorrect.

Just because some people ignore the magical aspect of D&D in their own campaign settings, doesn't mean it's not built in. Just because the DM can choose to send only nonmagical humanoids against a group of PCs consisting of non-magical fighters and rogues, and never giving those PCs magic items, doesn't mean that magic is inherently part of every published world ever.

That is merely a DM campaign choice.

D&D isn't a generic universal role-playing system that is designed to mirror any campaign style. It does one thing well. D&D. It has dungeons. It has dragons. It has magic. Anything else is a variant that the DM makes up rules for, or adopts 3rd party rules for.

(edited unecessarily cocky language)

 

[MGibster]

D&D isn't a generic universal role-playing system that is designed to mirror any campaign style. It does one thing well. D&D. It has dungeons. It has dragons. It has magic. Anything else is a variant that the DM makes up rules for, or adopts 3rd party rules for.

I'm in agreement with you. A lot of people seem to think D&D should or can be all things to all people, but I don't think it can.