D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A - 11/29/12

[I'm A Banana]

I was talking about monks/martial artists in general, not necessarily those that have appeared before in DnD.

See, that's what I think the NEXT monk needs to do first. Be like the monks that have appeared before in D&D.

After it's done that, it can go frolick around in crane-style bear-wrestling space. And I wanna see that. But that's not its first job. Because if it can't be like the monks that have appeared before in D&D, then it's not going to be a very effective D&D Monk.

And yeah, D&D monks aren't quite like most other monks out there. That's what some call "brand identity."

 

[Falling Icicle]

See, that's what I think the NEXT monk needs to do first. Be like the monks that have appeared before in D&D.

After it's done that, it can go frolick around in crane-style bear-wrestling space. And I wanna see that. But that's not its first job. Because if it can't be like the monks that have appeared before in D&D, then it's not going to be a very effective D&D Monk.

For a system that touts modularity and inclusiveness as its biggest features, it should do both. If we can have both basic "I attack" fighters and complex, 3.x or 4e-like maneuver and power using fighters in the same system, I don't see why optional fighting styles for monks is too much to ask for.

And yeah, D&D monks aren't quite like most other monks out there. That's what some call "brand identity."

What brand identity would DnD be infringing upon by having monks that practice the crane style?

 

[Klaus]

Monk archetypes:

- the lone Shaolin wanderer, with fast kicks and a calm demeanor, but little more than that (Kung Fu, the series);
- the swordmaster who can balance on top of a bamboo tree, run on water and deflect an infinite ammount of arrows (Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, House of Flying Daggers, Hero);
- the enormous, almost-impervious warrior, who grapples foes and tosses them aside like paper (Zangief and E. Honda in Street Fighter, Saint Taurus in Saint Seya);
- the mystical initiate that channels his inner power into not only powerful unarmed strikes, but also burning blasts of pure energy (Ryu, Saint Seya, Goku);

 

[SageMinerve]

And I totally disagree that Knock should be worse than a rogue at picking locks. Knock costs a daily resource. It can only be used a limited number of times (especially now that wizards are only getting up to 2 spells of each level per day).

And I disagree with your disagreement. You have a point if your game is dungeon-happy, unlock-zillion-doors all the time. But not every game is like that. In a game where there's ONE locked coffer where the noble has hidden the secret treaty he has with the Demon League(tm), the rogue should get his chance to shine. Having a wizard waltz in there, casting Knock with no consequences whatsoever is very bleahh! IMO.

Something that is limited use should be superior to something that can be used at-will. There should be a point to a rogue/wizard multiclass learning the knock spell, IMO.

And the point is, you cast the spell, the lock opens. No failure. A rogue still has to succeed in his skill roll.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For a system that touts modularity and inclusiveness as its biggest features, it should do both. If we can have both basic "I attack" fighters and complex, 3.x or 4e-like maneuver and power using fighters in the same system, I don't see why optional fighting styles for monks is too much to ask for.

I explicitly pointed out that I want to see moar monk at some point. So this isn't about putting limits on the thing.

It's about priorities. D&D monks have never really done all those things. So no one is going to miss them too much if they're not taking up page count and dev time in BOOK NUMBER ONE. Awesome in a Dragon article or in a 5e Oriental Adventures, or a 5e third party MONKS GONE WILD: 693 pages of FLURRIOUS monastic action!. Or all these and then some.

It's not that it's too much, it's just that it's not a priority. It's not that these things cannot be included, it's just that there's not a lot of sense in cramming it into the first 5e PHB.

What brand identity would DnD be infringing upon by having monks that practice the crane style?

That's not quite what I meant. D&D monks have a feel that is unique, because they aren't like most representations of monks out there. That unique feel is valuable, because it associates with D&D monks and not with, say, Guild Wars monks. It's a unique feature of the D&D brand, a recognizable thing that D&D does that other heroic fantasy does not do quite the same.

That identity would not be quite as strong if D&D monks suddenly tried to model all the other monks out there in heroic fantasy land, rather than being what they uniquely are, and letting the modeling of other types of monks come down the line.

 

[Falling Icicle]

And I disagree with your disagreement. You have a point if your game is dungeon-happy, unlock-zillion-doors all the time. But not every game is like that. In a game where there's ONE locked coffer where the noble has hidden the secret treaty he has with the Demon League(tm), the rogue should get his chance to shine. Having a wizard waltz in there, casting Knock with no consequences whatsoever is very bleahh! IMO.

Why is the rogue the one who is supposed to shine whenever the party comes up against a lock? Just as the wizard can do alot more than cast knock, a rogue can do alot more than pick locks. Both characters have invested something into the ability to open locked things. One character does not deserve the spotlight any more than the other.

And why is this one locked coffer the only chance the rogue has to shine? Surely in an intrigue-heavy adventure a rogue has plenty of opportunities to use his skills to great effect, whether it's using social skills, picking pockets, noticing clues, spying, etc.

I also dispute your assertion that the wizard just waltzes in and there are no consequences whatsoever. Using one of your previous few daily spells is a consequence! Any wizard that wastes a daily spell when there's a rogue in the party that could have picked the lock for free is a fool, IMO.

And the point is, you cast the spell, the lock opens. No failure. A rogue still has to succeed in his skill roll.

There's nothing stopping the rogue from trying again if he fails, except time. On the other hand, there is plenty to keep a wizard from repeatedly casting Knock. There's the limitation on spell slots, or, if he uses the ritual version, there's the very long casting time and monetary cost to consider.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I explicitly pointed out that I want to see moar monk at some point. So this isn't about putting limits on the thing.

It's about priorities. D&D monks have never really done all those things. So no one is going to miss them too much if they're not taking up page count and dev time in BOOK NUMBER ONE. Awesome in a Dragon article or in a 5e Oriental Adventures, or a 5e third party MONKS GONE WILD: 693 pages of FLURRIOUS monastic action!. Or all these and then some.

It's not that it's too much, it's just that it's not a priority. It's not that these things cannot be included, it's just that there's not a lot of sense in cramming it into the first 5e PHB.

I very much doubt that including a few monk fighting styles with a list of maneuvers included within them, just as they do for fighters, would take up an excessive amount of space in the book.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Of all the non-core classes, the Monk has some of the largest potential to be a detailed and varied class. At the same time, the Monk is the least traditional fantasy class.

I would love to see a more complex martial artist class, but I think I'd prefer to see that as part of an Oriental Adventures expansion. That way it can be properly developed in context and alongside the other Asian archetypes.

 

[pemerton]

Um, if you can find me Crane, Tiger, or Drunken Brawling mechanics in AD&D I'd be seriously impressed.

AD&D Oriental Adventures had martial arts style mechanics that were integrated with the monk class progression.

 

[Li Shenron]

Of all the non-core classes, the Monk has some of the largest potential to be a detailed and varied class. At the same time, the Monk is the least traditional fantasy class.

I would love to see a more complex martial artist class, but I think I'd prefer to see that as part of an Oriental Adventures expansion. That way it can be properly developed in context and alongside the other Asian archetypes.

I think the same. I would prefer if they forget about the Monk for the PHB, and delay all its design efforts for a later OA supplement and then make the class really good and really varied.