D&D 5E 5th edition monks

[Undrave]

You're right. The trick is to kill them off before they get too annoying.

Actually, I don't allow monks.

Well then, let's use the SECOND LEVEL Spell "Spider Climb" and just climb up the sheer surface.

 

[Morlaf]

i specifically try to find loads of str checks and saves..... if there are monks at my table..... ;-)

 

[Morlaf]

and at the risk of digressing a little (not a big risk especially as some have taken this into a racism kind of territory) this touches upon many issues. For example the way 5th edition handles "finesse" any clown can pick up short short and use it with finesse; negating the need for strength. But a tabaxi? with his claws? nah..... he can't...... he can't even take a feat to allow him to do it!!!

 

[Undrave]

Again: If you want to fix the Monk, you'll have to throw away the six attributes.

 

[Morlaf]

Again: If you want to fix the Monk, you'll have to throw away the six attributes.

that is definitely the way to making more realistic anything.... charisma is also very problematic.... but with the existing 6 stats 3.5 did a much better job of making monks and offering customizability.....

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Maybe ask some Asian people if people have ever assumed they know martial arts, and if they’ve ever been bullied or harassed because of it. It’s quite common. Perhaps especially so in America? Regardless, the stereotype exists and causes harm whether you live in a place where it’s frequently happening or not.


They’re not specifically coded as anything. They are very loosely based on Western folklore, but they are not presented as explicitly European. You could maybe argue that the Druid is vaguely Celtic, but the actual Celtic mythological influences in the class are minimal. Monk is the only Class with a sidebar about reskinning weapons to fit a certain cultural aesthetic. It’s the only class that has a feature named for a concept from a specific religion. It is clearly coded in a way that other classes are not. That coding is racial and not cultural because the Monk’s influences are a vague pan-Asian mishmash, not any particular culture (though Indian influences are conspicuously absent). It’s textbook orientalism.


I think that would be a problem, if barbarians were more modeled after any particular real-world groups. Like, if they were black coded, or Native American coded, or otherwise coded in a similar way to how Monks are Oriental coded, yeah, that would be more egregious.

Totems aren’t exactly a global thing. The closest thing in Europe are horse poles of Scandinavia, but they aren’t remotely the same.

However, dnd monks are East Asian inspired mystical martial artists. The class, yes, is steeped in pop culture kung fu mythology, like exaggerating the idea of the iron fist (actress Ming-Na Wen is an example of a real person with the RL version of hardening ones striking surfaces through reptitive micro-fracture, but dnd takes that and turns it up to 11), or harnessing your inner power or Chi and using it to perform incredible feats.

But these tropes come from Chinese kung fu movies. The Drunken Master is inspired primarily by an old Jackie Chan movie, and by the Style that inspired that movie. Step of The Wind is straight outta Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and movies like it.

But the class doesn’t disrespect any of these concepts, any more than the Paladin disrespects the European Questing Knight, and less than the Totem Barbarian disrespects Indigenous peoples.

It’s not perfect, but the idea that the Monk is Dex based because of stereotypes about Asians is completely, and I do mean completely, ridiculous.

They’re Dex based because the things they do are more based in Dex than Strength, and because it makes the class simpler to not add Strength on top of Dex, Wis, and the always necessary for melees Con, requirements.

Things like deflecting missiles and throwing them back, evasion, being better at Dodging (monks can Dodge as a bonus with a Ki point), being able to defend oneself without armor or even weapons, etc, is all very very strongly Dexterity-based in dnd, and especially in 5e. That is why monks are dexterity based.

There are genuine criticisms to make about the monk, and I think they should have hired more sensitivity consultants (i hope they hired...any? But I dunno) for things like the monk and totem barbarian, but “Dex is because Asians are seen as less masculine”? No. Utter nonsense.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

that is definitely the way to making more realistic anything.... charisma is also very problematic.... but with the existing 6 stats 3.5 did a much better job of making monks and offering customizability.....

The 3.5 monk was a much worse class than the 5e monk.

 

[Morlaf]

The 3.5 monk was a much worse class than the 5e monk.

"worse" ?? usually ppl mean from a "balance" point of view. If that is what you mean then i might agree. But it made more sense..... and balanced is usually addressed in game..... you have a crazy barbarian who finds some PHAT armour/weapons and becomes unbalancing? you give sommat PHAT to the wizard to offset it a little.....

 

[doctorbadwolf]

"worse" ?? usually ppl mean from a "balance" point of view. If that is what you mean then i might agree. But it made more sense..... and balanced is usually addressed in game..... you have a crazy barbarian who finds some PHAT armour/weapons and becomes unbalancing? you give sommat PHAT to the wizard to offset it a little.....

Why are you yelling “phat”?

Anyway, no. I mean yes, it is more balanced, but that wasn’t what I was referring to.

The 3.5 monk is more MAD, requires more system mastery to make viable in all tiers of play, and is just mechanically a mess. And no, it doesn’t make more sense.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Well then, let's use the SECOND LEVEL Spell "Spider Climb" and just climb up the sheer surface.

Yeah, my players love that one.