WotC’s Ray Winninger has hinted on Twitter that we may be seeing something of the 2024 next edition of D&D soon — “you’ll get a first look at some of the new design work soon.”.
Last edited:
Monks are really fun swashbucklers, as well.Re anti-indigenous racism - the history in Canada is terrible, but awareness is growing fast at least.
Re Monk: The flavor is, as you say, kind of wild and not in a good way. However, the chasis has some validity. It's clearly not for everyone, and it suffers from the ranger's problem of "can't be better at fighting than a fighter, otherwise what's the point of playing a fighter". But it is fun and it suits some players well, and it can be reflavored quite easily . My last monk was a kensei wild elf, and his monk powers were just "elven ways". What better way to show the supernatural speed and reflex of an elf than with a monk?![]()
Or they’d be subclasses of the swordmage or whatever, but yeah.Strangely, I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with you.
First we have to consider what is a "magical swordsman" (or a gish). If one takes the definition of "someone who can fight and cast arcane spells", then poof, multiclass fighter mage, done. But I don't think that's what you meant - you mean a swordsman who has integrated magic into his fighting.
You are completely correct that there is no "proper" class focused on this concept, and that there could have been, or perhaps even should have been. I have a magus in a PF game that I hoped (in vain) would switch to 5e. Converting him accurately is nigh impossible. It's particularly bad if you restrict yourself on the PHB. Ironically, the closest we have to a gish is the paladin - but even then that's quite wrong because the flavor of the spells and class as a whole just don't match.
on the other hand, the magical swordsman has always seemed a bit... idiosyncratic to me. Instead of having one "path" to gish-dom, 5e offers a very wide array of ways to do it:
Eldrich knight
Hexblade
College of sword bard (esp with a 1 level dip in hexblade)
bladesinger
aaaand that's not all!
Fighter-mage MC can still work
Arcane Trickster (which pairs well with bladesinger btw)
Some artificers (a more steampunk approach if you will)
Some other fighter subclasses are sort of "magical warriors" - psi warrior and rune knight in particular, and this can be enhanced by taking things like ritual caster.
Hexadin/Sorcadin
If you have a dedicated gish class, half of these options probably wouldn't exist.
Eh, there are plenty of European warrior cults that the monk could easily lean into. Some would give it mild conceptual overlap with other classes, but that’s good IMO.The complaint is usually western vs eastern tropes. That the monk doesn’t fit in with the rest as it’s the solitary eastern fantasy trope is a game dominated by western fantasy tropes.
Mystic, for my money. The martials arts doesn’t actually set it apart. What sets it apart is using breath/focus/inner power to do impossible things like stop aging and leap 30 feet.That's why we have backgrounds like Acolyte. We could rename the class to something else, I'm not sure what it would buy to change the label or what that label would be. Fantasy Martial Arts Expert doesn't really roll off the tongue so you have to call them something. Ninja would probably be closer I suppose.![]()
I take your point (not invalid) but I think the key difference is "good enough" factor of those vs. the weird hyperspecificity of the Monk (which isn't even a D&D specificity really).What classes are based on fictional tropes that you think monk is that much different? Do D&D wizards, warlocks, paladins, clerics or rangers really match any pre-existing fiction? Why would monks be any different? Most classes in D&D are their own fictional construct which are inspired by, but do not accurately model, other fiction.
I love it when people say this, because it's so funny, it's like "Just design every single adventure for the whole of the rest of time in an extremely narrow and specific way that feels pretty wrong a lot of the time! That'll fix it!". Yeah, I could also fix my foot hurting by chopping it off, sure.If the 5 minute work day is an issue in a game, don't allow a 5 minute work day.![]()
Yeah half of them wouldn't exist, because they should never have existed in the first place. It's like saying "If you have efficient nationalized provision of social services, lots of kinds of charity won't exist because they won't be needed! OH NO!".Strangely, I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with you.
First we have to consider what is a "magical swordsman" (or a gish). If one takes the definition of "someone who can fight and cast arcane spells", then poof, multiclass fighter mage, done. But I don't think that's what you meant - you mean a swordsman who has integrated magic into his fighting.
You are completely correct that there is no "proper" class focused on this concept, and that there could have been, or perhaps even should have been. I have a magus in a PF game that I hoped (in vain) would switch to 5e. Converting him accurately is nigh impossible. It's particularly bad if you restrict yourself on the PHB. Ironically, the closest we have to a gish is the paladin - but even then that's quite wrong because the flavor of the spells and class as a whole just don't match.
on the other hand, the magical swordsman has always seemed a bit... idiosyncratic to me. Instead of having one "path" to gish-dom, 5e offers a very wide array of ways to do it:
Eldrich knight
Hexblade
College of sword bard (esp with a 1 level dip in hexblade)
bladesinger
aaaand that's not all!
Fighter-mage MC can still work
Arcane Trickster (which pairs well with bladesinger btw)
Some artificers (a more steampunk approach if you will)
Some other fighter subclasses are sort of "magical warriors" - psi warrior and rune knight in particular, and this can be enhanced by taking things like ritual caster.
Hexadin/Sorcadin
If you have a dedicated gish class, half of these options probably wouldn't exist.
Those aren't Monks.The Monk is merely the chasis for the magical and fantasy spirtual martial artist. There are a bunch of them.
If I were to do monk subclasses by decade
70s: Classic Open Palm Monk
80s: Star Wars Jedi Monk
90s: Street Fighter or Dragonball Monk
00s: Avatar Bender Monk
10s: ????
Add in Shadow Monk and Drunken Fist and you have most of the core concepts of the class in media.
Mike Mearls in the Happy Fun Hour laid out he would have dine the Rabger if he could do it over again, and it boiled down to making "Favored Terrain" the Subclass at Level 1, ao a Forest Ranger or Mountain Ranger would be the organizing principle for the archetype.
I've managed to avoid the five minute workday for a few decades now. It's not hard.I love it when people say this, because it's so funny, it's like "Just design every single adventure for the whole of the rest of time in an extremely narrow and specific way that feels pretty wrong a lot of the time! That'll fix it!". Yeah, I could also fix my foot hurting by chopping it off, sure.
I could see an enhanced familar... maybe based on Worg/skin changer from GoT
Edit: I just realized a dragon sorcerer getting a dragon pet, and a divine soul getting a lantern archon would be cool
I mean, I'm very skeptical that that's a decision you've made rather than down to the behaviour of your players, but not being psychic, I don't know. However I find your "It's not hard" to be a bit fatuous without you giving context.I've managed to avoid the five minute workday for a few decades now. It's not hard.
Well, yeah,it was a system flaw in 3rd edition.I mean, I'm very skeptical that that's a decision you've made rather than down to the behaviour of your players, but not being psychic, I don't know. However I find your "It's not hard" to be a bit fatuous without you giving context.
I largely avoided it until 3E because it wasn't that advantageous and the players weren't interested. But in 3E, it became stupid not to do that, because buffs became so ridiculous and so stackable. In 4E it vanished again, because there was rarely a point. In 5E it's pretty rare (though vastly more common than 4E) because again, there's not as much point. But just saying "write around it" for 3.XE/PF1 players - not helpful.
I mostly avoided it in 3.x by threatening to expire buffs when dillydallying or just having random interruptions that made a rest in unsafe territory result in backsliding. Yea Alice the wizard could get her spell slots back after "getting a good night's sleep and spending an hour of study" while bob the cleric needs to wait till the appropriate time many hours away to spend his hour in quiet contemplation & meditative prayer. Without Leomund's invincible bunker those were very dangerous periods that can't be interrupted by a monster saying bored now & sending some guards to interrupt them at the worst time. wands of CLW were easy to limit just by declaring them out of stock or use weak AoEs/trash monsters spreading damage to suck them dry.I mean, I'm very skeptical that that's a decision you've made rather than down to the behaviour of your players, but not being psychic, I don't know. However I find your "It's not hard" to be a bit fatuous without you giving context.
I largely avoided it until 3E because it wasn't that advantageous and the players weren't interested. But in 3E, it became stupid not to do that, because buffs became so ridiculous and so stackable. In 4E it vanished again, because there was rarely a point. In 5E it's pretty rare (though vastly more common than 4E) because again, there's not as much point. But just saying "write around it" for 3.XE/PF1 players - not helpful.
It's absolutely a decision I've made, other than my wife we've had to form new groups multiple times because we moved. Not sure why you think it's hard. About the only time I didn't was high level 4E because combats could take hours. In 5E it's really simple, I just use the alternate rest rules so a long rest is a week or more.I mean, I'm very skeptical that that's a decision you've made rather than down to the behaviour of your players, but not being psychic, I don't know. However I find your "It's not hard" to be a bit fatuous without you giving context.
I largely avoided it until 3E because it wasn't that advantageous and the players weren't interested. But in 3E, it became stupid not to do that, because buffs became so ridiculous and so stackable. In 4E it vanished again, because there was rarely a point. In 5E it's pretty rare (though vastly more common than 4E) because again, there's not as much point. But just saying "write around it" for 3.XE/PF1 players - not helpful.
Monk is just the D&D name for a Mystical MArtial ArtistThose aren't Monks.
That's the problem. You're just putting the word Monk on the end of things! You might as well say "Captain America Monk" for the 10s version or "Iron Man Monk" or "Hulk Monk" (there was a Arcana Unearthed/Diamond Throne class like that amusingly) or whatever. You can't just put the word "Monk" on the end of something and make it a Monk lol. I mean it's a fun idea but...
The point is Mystical Martial Artist is the core concept. Shaolin Monk is the 1970s expression of it. I'd add "Ninja" to the '80s conception too.
Shaolin Monk
Jedi Knight maaaaybe (this crosses over hard with Psionicist note - Jedi are closer to Psionicists, especially Psychic Warriors/Psi-Knights than Monks)
Mystical Ninja
School of Hard Knocks guy (less mystical stuff, more punching - could be a Fighter instead if there was an efficient and proper way for them to drop armour and go unarmed, and no the current options are total rubbish due to WotC's completely insane paranoia about letting non-Monks fight unarmed)
Street Fighter-style mystical martial artist*
Avatar Element Bender
* = Which would actually largely cover DBZ - DBZ is just that + being wildly overpowered lol, for DBZ make it so there are like 200 levels (all with full bonuses and HP, just extend the chart out) instead of 20 and you can go up multiple per session, or suddenly jump like 50 levels temporarily or permanently lol
DBZ can only be high level, now going super Saiyan for your level 20 power would be so cool they should do it.Monk is just the D&D name for a Mystical MArtial Artist
Nice Line up
I'd keep SF and DB separate to isolate the the difference of how they attack foes.
Street Fighter is about special moves with no cost that can be upgraded with ki.
DB focuses on style switching, powering up, and using costly techniques.
I wouldn't go DBZ and stay Dragon Ball. Master Roshi, Kid Goku,and Kid Krillin feel like level 15+ monks.
DBZ is epic level play, I agree.
It does tie together. They had plenty of stand-alone movies before. They tie together more now than they did before.Feige lost his vision and magic touch and the Disney Empire is falling apart. People LIKED that it all tired together into a metaplot previously.
New leadership is needed.
That they did with Land Druid, I cannot see the reason why ranger was missed from that?The ranger should get spells known based on their favored enemies and terrain like I said 10 years ago.
Dragon sorcerer: well, a dragon ofcThe only class that I can't figure out a quick pet concept for is Sorcerer
This would just replace several current subclasses with pet centered powers, removing much of their current themesDragon sorcerer: well, a dragon ofc
Elemental sorcerer: elemental
Shadow sorcerer: shade or spectre
Aberrant mind: aberration
Clockwork soul: a construct
Wild magic: delete subclass
I'm not saying it should happen, just s answering to question than every sorcerer subclass can have a "pet" in it's theme.This would just replace several current subclasses with pet centered powers, removing much of their current themes
Because the designers were so focused on shifting complexity to being solely a fully caster thing. And you pick favored enemies and favored terrain before to get spells.That they did with Land Druid, I cannot see the reason why ranger was missed from that?
Might just give rangers spells known from Land druids lists of terrains.