D&D (2024) Help Me Hate Monks (Less Than I Currently Do)

[Voranzovin]

My problem with Monks is that they take concepts common to a lot fantasy contexts--the fighter who trains in seclusion to perform incredible physical feats, the "martial artist" who fights unarmed, the fighter who uses pure skill and speed for defense instead of armor or a shield--and bound them to an extremely specific fantasy. The Monk focus on evoking wuxia/cultivation fantasy is so specific that it doesn't even cover the already-pretty-specific category of "70s Kung-fu movies." Bruce Lee isn't a Monk--none of the characters he plays are doing anything mystical. If you wanted to stat him, I'd think Fighter/Battle Master with the unarmed fighting style would be the way to do it.

In other words, the Monk stole the Fighter's stuff, and won't give it back. But niche protection also hobbles Monks, who aren't allowed to be tough. As far as I'm concerned, Fighter should absorb the more grounded Monk abilities, and the ones that specifically evoke wuxia should be in a Fighter subclass.

 

[Steampunkette]

My problem with Monks is that they take concepts common to a lot fantasy contexts--the fighter who trains in seclusion to perform incredible physical feats, the "martial artist" who fights unarmed, the fighter who uses pure skill and speed for defense instead of armor or a shield--and bound them to an extremely specific fantasy. The Monk focus on evoking wuxia/cultivation fantasy is so specific that it doesn't even cover the already-pretty-specific category of "70s Kung-fu movies." Bruce Lee isn't a Monk--none of the characters he plays are doing anything mystical. If you wanted to stat him, I'd think Fighter/Battle Master with the unarmed fighting style would be the way to do it.

In other words, the Monk stole the Fighter's stuff, and won't give it back. But niche protection also hobbles Monks, who aren't allowed to be tough. As far as I'm concerned, Fighter should absorb the more grounded Monk abilities, and the ones that specifically evoke wuxia should be in a Fighter subclass.

Fighter | Level Up

a5e.tools

Good news! The A5e Fighter gets to train in special combat styles and do cool maneuvers without doing Wuxia stuff. (Though you could if you wanna). Wanna be a fancy fencer disarming enemies and carving the letter Q into their outfits? You got it! Big burly brute bashing baddies backwards? Adamant Mountain has you covered!

 

[Belen]

I am to Monks as Snarf is to Bards. And just so we're clear, I have an intense dislike for them in the context of most D&D settings. I rather like them in places like Legend of the Five Rings or Kar-Tur. It's like someone tried to shoehorn Kwai Chang Caine from Kung-Fu* into D&D and it's never really worked for me although I can't quite put my finger on why. Maybe it's because they sucked so much in the first edition of AD&D? I don't remember them at all from 2nd edition, though it's possible they were introduced in a supplement I didn't own, but I do remember being blissfully Monk-free until 2000 and the Monk reared it's ugly, quivering palm in 3rd edition. After more than thirty years of playing D&D off an on, it's time I just accept that Monks are here to stay.
* I see the Monk was inspired by a series of books called The Destroyers, one of which was adapted into the classic movie Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins in 1985 and Captain Janeway costars.
As I'm starting a new D&D campaign, I thought I'd challenge myself and try to incorporate a monastic order into the first adventure. At first, my instinct was to make them the antagonist, but as I've been working on the adventure things got a bit more complicated. The order of monks aren't the bad guys, but there are a group of heretics who are acting as the antagonist.

For members of the monastic Ordo Ventricula Sanctus, more popularly known as The Fat Boys, weight is a sign of one’s holiness. To most observers, these odd monks are gourmands, consumed by their desire to devour as much food as possible in an effort to expand their minds as well as the physical limits of their girdles. In reality, there is more to their eating than pleasure, though there is pleasure in it. Members of the Ordo believe that to consume a creature is to become one with it. These gastronomers seek out the most exotic of foods to become attuned to creation. And before you ask, no, they do not eat sapient creatures.

Anyone have any monastic orders you put in your game?

I, too, detest Monks and have since 3e.

For me, I had to rename all their abilities and rework the class to take away the eastern themes and make them more generic.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

My problem with Monks is that they take concepts common to a lot fantasy contexts--the fighter who trains in seclusion to perform incredible physical feats, the "martial artist" who fights unarmed, the fighter who uses pure skill and speed for defense instead of armor or a shield--and bound them to an extremely specific fantasy. The Monk focus on evoking wuxia/cultivation fantasy is so specific that it doesn't even cover the already-pretty-specific category of "70s Kung-fu movies." Bruce Lee isn't a Monk--none of the characters he plays are doing anything mystical. If you wanted to stat him, I'd think Fighter/Battle Master with the unarmed fighting style would be the way to do it.

In other words, the Monk stole the Fighter's stuff, and won't give it back. But niche protection also hobbles Monks, who aren't allowed to be tough. As far as I'm concerned, Fighter should absorb the more grounded Monk abilities, and the ones that specifically evoke wuxia should be in a Fighter subclass.

Bruce Lee doesn't exist in a world with large amounts of magic, nor do the characters he portrayed. You need some element of magic to be able to harm dragons and go toe to toe with a giant and not die.

I feel they should just bite the bullet and state all PC classes are mystical, even if they don't cast spells, so we can move on from pretending D&D can do low magic.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My problem with Monks is that they take concepts common to a lot fantasy contexts--the fighter who trains in seclusion to perform incredible physical feats, the "martial artist" who fights unarmed, the fighter who uses pure skill and speed for defense instead of armor or a shield--and bound them to an extremely specific fantasy. The Monk focus on evoking wuxia/cultivation fantasy is so specific that it doesn't even cover the already-pretty-specific category of "70s Kung-fu movies." Bruce Lee isn't a Monk--none of the characters he plays are doing anything mystical. If you wanted to stat him, I'd think Fighter/Battle Master with the unarmed fighting style would be the way to do it.

In other words, the Monk stole the Fighter's stuff, and won't give it back. But niche protection also hobbles Monks, who aren't allowed to be tough. As far as I'm concerned, Fighter should absorb the more grounded Monk abilities, and the ones that specifically evoke wuxia should be in a Fighter subclass.

You would need several classes to capture the full breadth of those genres. The monk is a very concentrated amalgam of these kinds of things and pretty directly inspired by a character in the Destroyer books (which are an American franchise). I think it comes from the "martial arts are magic" era of American media. I do like the monk though and feel it can kind of do 36 Chambers of Shaolin pretty well (it isn't an exact fit but it is a workable D&Desque take). I don't know that I would make Bruce Lee a fighter. I feel like his performances are too spectacular to just be like a character who swings a sword. I would want him to feel different because he looks so different on screen than say the Knights of Excalibur. I'd probably take a class like the monk as a foundation and then work from there to make it more about the stuff Bruce was doing in his movies and the stuff that was happening in Kung Fu craze films in general. So make a more grounded version based on the monk that fits his style

The way I would approach wuxia in a D&D context is with classes and multi classing. Basically having each sect and style be a class. And if you want to train in Wudang for 5 levels then at Master Feng's Golden Sword School for 3 levels, you could do so if the situation in the campaign allowed for it. If you were doing a kung fu craze movie you might have different classes based on styles of kung fu, plus things like samurai and ninja since they tend to show up as well in those films (as well as the stray fighter from Russia)

 

[Voranzovin]

Fighter | Level Up

a5e.tools

Good news! The A5e Fighter gets to train in special combat styles and do cool maneuvers without doing Wuxia stuff. (Though you could if you wanna). Wanna be a fancy fencer disarming enemies and carving the letter Q into their outfits? You got it! Big burly brute bashing baddies backwards? Adamant Mountain has you covered!

Oh I know--I've taken a look at A5e and it looks much better at expressing a wide range of fighting styles! But I'm moving more in the direction of wanting something rules-light over wanting more crunch, so if I were to play something that isn't standard 5e I'd probably be more likely to play Dungeon World or an even more stripped-down PBTA.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Bruce Lee doesn't exist in a world with large amounts of magic, nor do the characters he portrayed. You need some element of magic to be able to harm dragons and go toe to toe with a giant and not die.

I feel they should just bite the bullet and state all PC classes are mystical, even if they don't cast spells, so we can move on from pretending D&D can do low magic.

You could always amp up his mundane strikes though without going mystical or magical.

I will say I am somewhat in agreement though because Bruce Lee did seem to have a view that martial arts stopped being effective when confronted with things like firearms (in one of his movies he is presumably killed by a firing squad in Enter the Dragon the whole premise is designed to justify guns not being present on the island so martial arts make more sense, and I am pretty sure I have heard him say something to this effect in an interview)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Oh I know--I've taken a look at A5e and it looks much better at expressing a wide range of fighting styles! But I'm moving more in the direction of wanting something rules-light over wanting more crunch, so if I were to play something that isn't standard 5e I'd probably be more likely to play Dungeon World or an even more stripped-down PBTA.

There is a wuxia PBTA game I believe called Hearts of Wulin, and the game Art of Wuxia is pretty stripped down and streamlined

 

[Belen]

Why? People have always travelled, especially adventurers, and stories about people from one culture encountering another are commonplace.

But the Eagle Knight is culturally specific. The monk has had what faint cultural baggage it ever had stripped away. A better comparison would be if the Eagle Knight had the word “Eagle” removed.

Because if you use the points of light style game or start out in the fringe/boonies, then you end up creating something special to accommodate a single class. A lot of games start in these types of areas.

 

[Steampunkette]

Oh I know--I've taken a look at A5e and it looks much better at expressing a wide range of fighting styles! But I'm moving more in the direction of wanting something rules-light over wanting more crunch, so if I were to play something that isn't standard 5e I'd probably be more likely to play Dungeon World or an even more stripped-down PBTA.

Oh. Well. Then split the difference.

If you like "Fighters" having traditions of combat, let players describe their tradition and give them a pool of exertion and let them freestyle how their character does various things. Then tell them it costs 1 exertion (2 if it's big) and let 'em do it.

(Could even have Magic and other things function off it the same way)

Easy peasy way to have your cake and eat it, too!