D&D 5E Building a better Monk

[Mephista]

Niche protection? I can't name a single edition where niche protction was actually a thing in the first place!

 

[DaedalusX51]

I don't care about level 20. literally at all. IMO, it's almost entirely irrelevant to any discussion about comparative power in DnD. Levels 3-12 or so are the most important levels in the game, imo. 1-15 is the range I even care about for balance considerations. Beyond that, it is basically the epic game, and I don't expect balance or even good design. Because it's DnD and only one edition has ever designed the "end game" well, and even if had problems.

So 12-15 hitpoints?

The Mystic also gets the bare minimum proficiencies. The already small subclass would have to use some of its power budget bridging that gap. I'm not sure that the basics of the monk could fit in the level 1 and 3 subclass set of features. The difference matters at low levels, and somewhat at mid levels, which is what matters.

So,

Use of a list of weapons as monk weapons, unarmed fighting boost, unarmored fighting boost (the monk should be able to wear light armor and still get martial arts and unarmored movement, imo, but that's a separate issue), some kind of boost to survivability (I'd be fine with something like adding Wisdom mod to hp or something), increased speed, and Ki abilities. Looking at the mystic disciplines, you can get there, but not if you want to also have any variation of concept. If your monk can't have a set of distinct and evocative disciplines/schools/styles/whatever...is it really a fantasy monk?

If unarmored movement, flurry of blows, step of the wind, etc are locked in to a psi discipline, anyone who wants to play the classic monk archetype is stuck with that one discipline.

And the base class still has some stuff that does nothing for the archetype. Some of it fits, but only a *very* supernatural monk. No room in a mystic subclass for a character that pushes the boundaries of the humanly possible without feeling *magic*, which is what the Open Hand Monk is there for.

Nah, mystic subclass would be a kludge. A better one than a sorcerer/rogue or a fighter subclass, but a kludge nonetheless.

Otoh, I'd love a rewrite of the four elements monk that gets wu Jen disciplines and can spend Ki on them. And one that gets the mystic's ability to paionically add damage to weapon attacks, and some nomad disciplines.

Basically, some of what the mystic does would be great as monk subclasses. The two classes are a lot like the paladin and Cleric, except that the Cleric is terrible.

Yeah I agree with you about this. I wouldn't attempt to put the Monk class into the Mystic. I would, however, fold the Sorcerer into the Mystic. So you would have elemental (dragon magic) and chaos (wild magic) disciplines. In addition, I would make one or two Mystic discipline using half casters classes that can cover a light to no armor wearing martial type and a heavy armor martial type. Possibly one class with level 1 subclass choices that determine armor proficiency like the cleric, or two classes with a 3rd level subclass.

This would be where the monk class would reside as well as the kensai/samurai, ninja, soulknife, psychic warrior/battlemind, etc. I think we should open up the monk archetype so that they don't have to only use monk weapons nor are forced into an unarmored style. (they should have a subclass devoted to those things however.) There are many variations of martial arts heroes, some that do and do not wear armor.

This would allow a convergence of psionic/spirit/ki/sorcery wielding classes into a single style that would fit well into D&D's style of fantasy. (I'm cool with creating a new subsystem as long as it isn't only used by one class and it meshes well and is fairly balanced with the other classes. )

For settings that crave that sci-fi pulp style they can just explain it in their settings.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Niche protection? I can't name a single edition where niche protction was actually a thing in the first place!

I can't name one where it was entirely absent. Interesting difference in perception, there.

Or maybe definition. 4e Roles, for instance, were arguably a form of niche protection, even if it wasn't protection for any one specific class. The old school trope of "we need a cleric" or "we need a thief" is also a strong example of the effect of niche protection. In this case, the Monk's unarmed/unarmored 70s-grindhouse-martial-arts is niche protected. Not many other things are in 5e, though, and almost nothing that might be is entirely locked up if feats & MCing are available.

So 12-15 hitpoints?

Everybody gets a lot of hps in 5e, eventually (20 HD + CONmodx20 adds up, and nobody gets d4 HD anymore), so yeah, don't see the big deal.

I wouldn't attempt to put the Monk class into the Mystic. I would, however, fold the Sorcerer into the Mystic. So you would have elemental (dragon magic) and chaos (wild magic) disciplines. In addition, I would make one or two Mystic discipline using half casters classes that can cover a light to no armor wearing martial type and a heavy armor martial type. This would be where the monk class would reside as well as the kensai/samurai, ninja, soulknife, psychic warrior/battlemind, etc.

Sounds pretty reasonable, to me.

I think we should open up the monk archetype so that they don't have to only use monk weapons nor are forced into an unarmored style. (they should have a subclass devoted to those things however.) There are many variations of martial arts heroes, some that do and do not wear armor.

The fighter's also a clear candidate for modeling such heroes, and should have the oomph to do so...


Edit:

I can't name a single edition ...

Oh, wait, is this like, "they were all married" or "editions don't have names?"

 

[Ashkelon]

I much preferred the flavor of the 4e monk. It didn't have any pseudo Asian kung fu baggage attached to it that the current monk does.

I think ki or psi points would make for a good basis for such a class. The Esper class could cover the monk, psychic warrior/battlemind, soulblade, and sohei/kensei archetypes. These would be martial warriors who enhance their physical abilities through the powers of their mind.

Ki or psi points would also work for a casting class too. A Psion class that uses the same short rest recharging resource as the Esper but focuses on more supernatural abilities and spells. The psion archetypes could be telepath, kineticist, and Ardent.

 

[DaedalusX51]

The fighter's also a clear candidate for modeling such heroes, and should have the oomph to do so...

This is very true, and I feel the Fighter is overlooked quite often, but with all the arguments over the Fighter, it seems that it may be lost as a casualty of war. At least if I give up hope on WotC ever making a cool Fighter again, I can just bury my favorite class and remember him fondly.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So 12-15 hitpoints?



Yeah I agree with you about this. I wouldn't attempt to put the Monk class into the Mystic. I would, however, fold the Sorcerer into the Mystic. So you would have elemental (dragon magic) and chaos (wild magic) disciplines. In addition, I would make one or two Mystic discipline using half casters classes that can cover a light to no armor wearing martial type and a heavy armor martial type. Possibly one class with level 1 subclass choices that determine armor proficiency like the cleric, or two classes with a 3rd level subclass.

This would be where the monk class would reside as well as the kensai/samurai, ninja, soulknife, psychic warrior/battlemind, etc. I think we should open up the monk archetype so that they don't have to only use monk weapons nor are forced into an unarmored style. (they should have a subclass devoted to those things however.) There are many variations of martial arts heroes, some that do and do not wear armor.

This would allow a convergence of psionic/spirit/ki/sorcery wielding classes into a single style that would fit well into D&D's style of fantasy. (I'm cool with creating a new subsystem as long as it isn't only used by one class and it meshes well and is fairly balanced with the other classes. )

For settings that crave that sci-fi pulp style they can just explain it in their settings.

I'm not sure I'm parsing this right, are you saying the monk would or wouldn't be separate from the mystic?

IMO, a class that can do both well would have too much variation in the core features to work in the 5e class paradigm. Better to have two classes.

I agree about the armor and weapons, except that it should be a situation where you only lose the armor benefits by wearing armor, just like Barbarian, not stuck in a subclass. No way should the kensai or shadow guy or other subclasses lose out on being able to be effective unarmored and with unarmed strikes. Be fine if Open Hand or an Iron Fist makes unarmed strikes better than it is otherwise, as its main thing, but the choice between unarmed/weapons/mix and the choice between armor/no armor should be outside the choice of subclass.

 

[BookBarbarian]

The fighter's also a clear candidate for modeling such heroes, and should have the oomph to do so...

I'm with you on this one. A Battlemaster Fighter with Proficiency in something like Painting or Calligraphy tools, makes such a good Samurai.

 

[Helldritch]

Ummmm..... how does this have to do with sacred cows? Multi-classing does not get rid of any kind of sacred cow that I'm aware of. Vanician casting, for instance. Still pretty much everywhere but in the warlock, and even then? Pact magic is similar enough, and hardly like the 3e at-will caster. The six attributes, the alignment system, the existance of classes and levels... seriously. What new designs do we have with MCing? Seems like its just a repeat of old designs to me.

If you remember the vanician casting, we are far, far, far away from it. Not only are you not stuck with useless spell in your mind (I memorized sleep but we're up against demons...) but you can actualy prepare more spells than you can cast. The versatility that you get is simply something never seen in any of the editions. As for multiclassing...

And, to be honest, my experience with multi-classing is that its only good for stealing mechanics for a main class, and not covering any new concepts. Trying to say that MCing does anything approaching new concepts rings hollow to my ears (well, eyes 'cause its all text, but you get my point). So, unless your concept is "Fighter with Cunning Action" - something I don't consider an actual concept - I'm going to have to disagree here. That is something that actually only appeals to a small portion of the player base, not the majority.

You seem to mistake character concept vs class concept. There is not a ton of class concept that can work or seem logical. Character concepts on the other hand can be as varied as you wish. Multiclassing,now more than ever allows that. Yes you can go the min max way. But if you go the RP way, you get more fun and way more variety than you can expect. Skills can do that, so does multiclassing. With both of these mecanics you can now do almost (if not all) character concepts you wish.

And, yes, there are penalties for multiclassing. Unless you're optimizing, doing it has a very high chance of putting you behind the game's power curve, or making your character MAD, or more. Multi-classing isn't some free-for all, all dreams granted option. Its something that gives more power to the min-maxers, but not as much really to a casual player.

Of course there are penalties for multiclassing. Afterall, focus brings something and versatility brings another. But the price is not as steep as it once were. Before multiclassing was reserved for demi-human races and it was very limiting. You want to be a rogue/wizard? Good. In 1ed you were stuck to be an elf or half elf and you were limited in your wizard class up to 9 depending on race. Wizard/Cleric? Stuck with half elf and you wouldn't go very high level. 2nd edition rose these max level a bit and 3rd finaly go rid of these with favored classes for races. Still multiclassing was not a realy good idea as the attack matrix was tied to your highest level. Now those days are gone. The evolution of multiclassing is something that broke all previous incarnations of it.

Now You can go for the "mechanic" stealing part of multiclassing but you can go the other way and go for the character concepts. A Paladin/Monk could be something akin to a Shoei. An Arcane trickster/shadow monk could be quite interesting in both where you want to go and how high the character will be in each class.

But the real question that should be asked is the following: "Do we absolutely need a character type for every character concept?" I, for one, surely hope not. I personnaly don't want to see PHB 1, 2, 3, 4. neither would I like to see the complete Monk, Paladin, Rogue and all the rest associated with that. We got these in 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition and it was not such a good way to go. We've seen it. We've been there. Let's get somewhere else.

What I want, however, is class concept versatile enough that each character can be different. In 1ed a fighter was a fighter and so on with most of the other classes. Now there is no penalty to see your Berzerker Barb with a long sword and a shield or simply with a great battle axe. Both are viable and can hope to rise in level. You want to multiclass in an other class like rogue? Why not. Conan was a barb with a bit of rogue in him along with a good bunch of fighter levels mixed in. He is obiously a multiclassed character and yet, when you think of a barbarian, most people think of Conan, not Wulfgard. Conan is the epitome of the barbarian class and he is a multiclassed character (from the fiction anyways). This is the kind of characters I like to see in my games and in other games. Multiclassing is now actualy an option to do it with ease. Class wise, we are quite ok. For the others, multiclassing is there.

 

[DaedalusX51]

I'm not sure I'm parsing this right, are you saying the monk would or wouldn't be separate from the mystic?

IMO, a class that can do both well would have too much variation in the core features to work in the 5e class paradigm. Better to have two classes.

I agree about the armor and weapons, except that it should be a situation where you only lose the armor benefits by wearing armor, just like Barbarian, not stuck in a subclass. No way should the kensai or shadow guy or other subclasses lose out on being able to be effective unarmored and with unarmed strikes. Be fine if Open Hand or an Iron Fist makes unarmed strikes better than it is otherwise, as its main thing, but the choice between unarmed/weapons/mix and the choice between armor/no armor should be outside the choice of subclass.

I am saying that Psionics, Ki, and Sorcery points are all 3 different systems to explain a characters internal reserve of power. I think that having them be three separate things is superfluous and muddles up the concept.

I am also saying that I believe that the Monk fits in this group thematically. As has been pointed out by other users here, the monk sits at a half caster level of ability. I am basically saying that we should have a half caster equivalent class that has access to certain disciplines. We create disciplines/subclasses that represent things that Monks, Ninja, Samurai, etc would have access to, and allow you to choose them when you pick the class. So you could have your 70's era Bruce Lee monk, your mystical stretchy Dhalsim monk, your anime Ninja, your sword saint Kensei, or whatever other disciplines/subclasses that would be created.

I would actually have to put this together to see how it would work out in play, but I think taking a queue from how the cleric handles domains could work great with this idea.

Ultimately I would want a class that is flexible. So no mandatory monk weapons & forced unarmored usage unless you chose that subclass/discipline. However I also would want to be able to recreate the monk, if not in full, but in spirit using the subclass/disciplines.

I can start to throw something together to maybe help visualize out my ideas, and in the process I will be able to see what issues or features arise from it.

Hope that clears it up a bit.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ok, I'm on board with most of that.

Only part where I balk is, again, gating the unarmed/unarmored stuff behind a subclass. Subclasses aren't large in 5e, and the monk has several types that should have access to that. I'm not sure you could get the monk's core comepetences and the existing subclass concepts into a single subclass, even with discipline choices.

Much easier to make it so that all members of the class can choose to fight unarmed/unarmored, or not. Including the "classic" monk.

In fact, make that change to the existing monk and...fold the sorcerer and mystic into 1 class, and add some new subclasses to the monk...oh and change the name of their various points systems to Ki (Least sci-fi name, most like something it might be called in world, doesn't require the word "points"), and I think you're over 90% of the way there.

I mean, you could change the name of the monk, but that is a very minor thing, and hardly necessary.

And the sorcerer still needs to feel different from a psion. Otherwise, they gotta (imo) stay separate classes with some overlap. "Power from within" isn't a character class concept, it's a power source concept, like "arcane", "nature", or "divinity/faith".

Still, I'd love to see what you come up with. I just don't see any reason to change the mechanics of, say, the Shadow monk. Just the ability to still use monk weapons and punch things and run fast in light armor, mostly. I mean it makes sense for martial arts to be restricted in weapon choice, but as long as you use the right weapons, you're just as good unarmed and armed. The main issue is losing benefits by putting on armor.