D&D 5E 5th edition monks

[doctorbadwolf]

That said the biggest issue with Strength for Monks is that they tend to suck at athletics - which really doesn't feel appropriate and they fall into the whole acrobatics cul de sac (where you try to naughty word your GM into leting you roll Acrobatics instead of Strength(Athletics) and hope that they buy it).

I mean, if Acrobatics is a skill, not letting it do parkour just seems...like a purely gamist restriction that only exists to protect strength’s niche? Both as a DM and as a player, that seems rather unsatisfying.

Plus while you know that you can use Athletics to climb a wall with Strength, with acrobatics it feels like you have to enter into a kind of mutual negotiation in which it may depend on how high the wall is, how you describe the action, and where exactly an individual GM tends to draw the line on Wuxia inspired stunts.

To be fair, a lot of stuff that gets called wuxia inspired really isn’t. It’s just, stuff “freerunners” do. Obviously some of it goes past that, but a lot of times I’ve seen DMs call absolutely realistic “stunts” ridiculous and/or wuxia.

 

[Undrave]

Obviously some of it goes past that, but a lot of times I’ve seen DMs call absolutely realistic “stunts” ridiculous and/or wuxia.

Reality is unrealistic.

 

[Charlaquin]

I suppose you’re right.

Then again, I don’t really grok how it’s a problem to just...make your monk use strength more?

I mean, I get it. Monks don't really get much benefit out of Strength. It can be frustrating wanting to put some points into an ability that you picture your character having, but feeling like those points are being wasted. I feel that way whenever I make a non-wizard who I picture being very smart. I don't think it's that big of a deal, but I understand why it annoys a lot of folks. I think that's what people mean when they say "make every stat equally important for every class." Obviously that's neither a realistic goal, nor really a desirable one when you stop and think about it. But I think the sentiment behind that is, "make sure no stat feels useless for any class."

 

[Charlaquin]

5e's problem isn't the attribute or the weapon, but the insistence of jamming a concept (eastern style martial artist) into a Western setting.

Ehh... I'd say it's more a problem of the monk being a Western (mis-)interpretation of an Eastern concept.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I mean, I get it. Monks don't really get much benefit out of Strength. It can be frustrating wanting to put some points into an ability that you picture your character having, but feeling like those points are being wasted. I feel that way whenever I make a non-wizard who I picture being very smart. I don't think it's that big of a deal, but I understand why it annoys a lot of folks. I think that's what people mean when they say "make every stat equally important for every class." Obviously that's neither a realistic goal, nor really a desirable one when you stop and think about it. But I think the sentiment behind that is, "make sure no stat feels useless for any class."

Yeah, they really could have made the stats matter more broadly in the skill system, especially Int and Strength, for starters.

I still think that Strength should add to damage for all melee weapons, and some ranged weapons perhaps.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ehh... I'd say it's more a problem of the monk being a Western (mis-)interpretation of an Eastern concept.

Is there even an actual problem related to that, though? The class works fine for the vast majority of groups.

 

[Don Durito]

I mean, I get it. Monks don't really get much benefit out of Strength. It can be frustrating wanting to put some points into an ability that you picture your character having, but feeling like those points are being wasted. I feel that way whenever I make a non-wizard who I picture being very smart. I don't think it's that big of a deal, but I understand why it annoys a lot of folks. I think that's what people mean when they say "make every stat equally important for every class." Obviously that's neither a realistic goal, nor really a desirable one when you stop and think about it. But I think the sentiment behind that is, "make sure no stat feels useless for any class."

Yes. The solution is not to penalise PCs for dumping Intelligence (I won't play with a GM who insists I have to play a PC like an idiot because they have an 8 in Int), it's to make sure that is a worthwhile tradeoff for picking Intelligence or Strength instead of something else (and that tradeoff really needs to have some influence on the PCs core areas of competency).

I played around with the idea of Strength adding to maximum hitpoints (Instead of Con) but keeping Con for Hit Dice rolled to recover hit points - but I realised that would benefit Strength classes too much and leave other classes spread too thin.

 

[Charlaquin]

Is there even an actual problem related to that, though? The class works fine for the vast majority of groups.

Well, yes, the problem is that it’s kinda racist.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, yes, the problem is that it’s kinda racist.

I don’t think that was what anyone in the thread was discussing.

Nothing relevant to the thread is a result of the monk having its basic origin in kung fu movie tropes.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes. The solution is not to penalise PCs for dumping Intelligence (I won't play with a GM who insists I have to play a PC like an idiot because they have an 8 in Int), it's to make sure that is a worthwhile tradeoff for picking Intelligence or Strength instead of something else (and that tradeoff really needs to have some influence on the PCs core areas of competency).

Agreed. Sadly, that’s easier said than done (well, apart from the “don’t punish players for dumping stats” part. That’s easy and already baked into the rules of 5e, if characters are getting punished for dumping stats it’s a DM problem.)

I have ideas for how I would rebalance the abilities if I could have my way. But I don’t think the problem is anywhere near big enough that it merits hacking 5e to “fix.”