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

[The Myopic Sniper]

Did they have anything to say about something like Focus points?

They did mention that as an alternative. I think they liked "Spirit Points" if WOTC decided to keep the "Monk" name to keep a bit of a religious connection, but "Focus" would work better for the more general "Martial Artist." A couple of their commenters pointed out that Pathfinder leans in pretty heavily on "Focus Points" for their secondary short rest/encounter/utility spells system that works a bit lot Ki points except across all classes and that they might want to avoid that name so they don't look like they are stealing from Pathfinder. I prefer "Focus Points" myself over "Discipline Points" and think it would be fine as a name if it is restricted to imitating Ki in the Monk/Martial Artist class alone. I realize that a lot of D&D fans coming out of the Reddit/YouTube sphere don't want another big round of videos from Pathfinder creators accusing WOTC of plagiarizing from Pathfinder again which seems to happen whenever WotC introduces a term or mechanic that is highly associated with Pathfinder 2E that wasn't in 5e previously (even if it was in previous iterations of D&D and that is where Pathfinder got it from.)

I was kind of surprised that the Asian Represent folks seemed to be open to keeping the "Ki" or "Chi" type terminology since that seemed to be a big focus of cultural appropriation discussions on places like Twitter. That may be contingent on them having public facing Asian creators brought in specifically to work on the class though and the entire class being specifically Asian themed which seems to be opposite of the direction WOTC has stated they are going.

 

[Maxperson]

The simple weapons thing doesn’t make sense but neither does it make sense that a wizard can’t, or that only a few classes can use heavy armor. None of the class-based equipment restrictions make sense, but that’s not the point. They’re about preserving those class’ identities. The fighter wears the best armor and uses the best weapons; the rogue sticks to light armor and nimble blades; the monk wears loose clothing and wields humble tools and their own body as effectively as the fighter does with more specialized battlefield equipment.

The wizard armor restriction is one of the few that does make sense. Somatic components require very intricate and precise movements, which armor, especially heavy armor, would spoil. I suppose though, that more accurately wizard should be able to use heavy(and probably medium) armor, but not cast any spell with a somatic component while wearing it.

 

[Charlaquin]

The wizard armor restriction is one of the few that does make sense. Somatic components require very intricate and precise movements, which armor, especially heavy armor, would spoil. I suppose though, that more accurately wizard should be able to use heavy(and probably medium) armor, but not cast any spell with a somatic component while wearing it.

Except that

A.) heavy armor isn’t actually very restrictive of movement in real life, and
B.) Any wizard can cast in heavy armor with no penalties at all as long as they’re proficient with it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I just use the Level Up Adept class instead. If I really want to use a WotC subclass I'll add it in, but in general we use the Adept.

 

[Maxperson]

Except that

A.) heavy armor isn’t actually very restrictive of movement in real life, and
B.) Any wizard can cast in heavy armor with no penalties at all as long as they’re proficient with it.

Any restriction prevents precise and intricate motions. A slight variation and the spell is broken. No penalties doesn't mean no restriction whatsoever. 5e's rules on wizards and armor is one of the things that most bugs me about the edition.

 

[Dire Bare]

The simple weapons thing doesn’t make sense but neither does it make sense that a wizard can’t, or that only a few classes can use heavy armor. None of the class-based equipment restrictions make sense, but that’s not the point. They’re about preserving those class’ identities. The fighter wears the best armor and uses the best weapons; the rogue sticks to light armor and nimble blades; the monk wears loose clothing and wields humble tools and their own body as effectively as the fighter does with more specialized battlefield equipment.

Whatever connection any D&D class has to reality is tenuous at best. Why should the Monk be any different?

For each class, the monk included . . . reality IS important. It's where we start, but it's not where we have to end up.

Each class represents a literary and/or mythic archetype, and "what makes sense" for each class should serve embodying that archetype. And those are grounded in reality, even if they leave it behind.

The monk's martial arts DO need to represent real martial arts . . . through the lens of wuxia films. Bringing in martial arts and cultural experts to help "fix" the monk is very much what WotC should be doing.

Should the monk be restricted to simple weapons? Are wuxia monks in Asian cinema restricted to simple weapons? Has the monk always been so restricted within the history of D&D?

I'm looking forward to the 2024 rules revision . . . but I don't expect WotC to take the necessary steps to fix the monk, or other similar cultural issues the game struggles with. Sadly.

Here's to hoping we do get some actual Asian game designers (and martial artists) to create their own version of the D&D monk and release it OGL or on the DM's Guild. I'd happily use that over whatever WotC gives us next year.

 

[Maxperson]

Should the monk be restricted to simple weapons? Are wuxia monks in Asian cinema restricted to simple weapons? Has the monk always been so restricted within the history of D&D?

Kinda sorta. The idea of simple weapons came with WotC and 3e, but even up to 3e there were "monk" weapons. 1e listed them as bo sticks, club, crossbow, dagger, hand axe, javelin, jo stick, pole arm, spear and staff. 3e listed "monk" weapons as club, crossbow, dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham and sling. Most monk weapons ended up on the simple weapons lists.

 

[Leatherhead]

Because having even a tiny iota of understanding of martial arts find its way into the game can be cool and fun unlike the places where D&D nerds try to force verisimilitude.

I honestly can't tell if this is an argument for, or a sarcastic slam, considering that the ideal martial artist that people want to play is more within the venn diagram of Arcade Fighting Cabinets, Shonen Manga, and Wuixa films. And less within the realms of MMA.

 

[MGibster]

Because having even a tiny iota of understanding of martial arts find its way into the game can be cool and fun unlike the places where D&D nerds try to force verisimilitude.

I can only assume you're some sort of paladin on a relentless crusade to rid the world of a vile demon named Verisimilitude. When you conclude your noble quest, I look forward to hearing the bards sing your praises from the Dalelands to Kara-Tur.

 

[MGibster]

The monk's martial arts DO need to represent real martial arts . . . through the lens of wuxia films. Bringing in martial arts and cultural experts to help "fix" the monk is very much what WotC should be doing.

Maybe I'm a little fixated on the word real here. If you're looking at it through the lens of Wuxia then you're interested in fantasy not reality. Which is perfectly fine for a fantasy game made up of a hodgepodge of influences. But like the Druid, Paladin, Warlock, and Sorcerer, the D&D Monk does not bear anything more than a superficial resemblance to whatever "real" world or fictional work that inspired them. I don't see that changing any time soon for any class.

Here's to hoping we do get some actual Asian game designers (and martial artists) to create their own version of the D&D monk and release it OGL or on the DM's Guild. I'd happily use that over whatever WotC gives us next year.

What's more important to you? That the "right" people design the class or that it's fun to play?