D&D 5E Fighter should be called Knight and Monk Should be called Fighter, change my mind

[Mecheon]

Knight implies heavy armor, horse-back, all that type of thign which doesn't necessarily match with how folks play fighters. I'd argue it should be Warrior though, and that Warrior implies far stronger than a simple fighter

monk ki pts and battlemasters maneuvers are 2 different takes on a same thing.
so both can really be tuned to work from the same class,

They're completely different? Monks ki points are supernatural stuff like summoning energy, calling up their chakra, and hitting a dude in just the right place so he explodes 10 seconds later. Battlemaster maneuvers are just tactics

 

[Maenalis]

I personally use soldier (for fighter) and martial artist (for monk) at my table.

 

[Willie the Duck]

monk ki pts and battlemasters maneuvers are 2 different takes on a same thing.
so both can really be tuned to work from the same class,

monk martial arts is just some combo of fighting style and tavern brawler feat.

As I just said (and you literally included in your quoting me) I will be answering the OP under the premise that the two need mechanical entities need to continue to be distinct.

Likewise, I just said that your argument had meat to it. If you strip out the Orientalism from monks (or 'martial arts' in general), it's hard to describe exactly what the distinction between the two is. Especially since fighters can be dex>str and monks can indeed use weapons and fighters can fight unarmed and fighters can be supernaturally/spiritually/psionically imbued. They are distinct like barbarians are distinct from fighters -- mostly a combination of game-history, those tropish themes still having purchase, and apparently yes wanting multiple mechanical ways to achieve the same end.

See also cleric, bard, paladin, ranger. So "only" 6/13 classes are based on real-world historical social classes.
I think one more won't break the game.

It (accepting the OP proposal) won't break anything. It is taking this quality off of the monk and putting it onto the fighter. We started with 6/13 classes having names speaking to social/cultural connotations the class doesn't actually (necessarily) possess and we end up with 6/13 classes doing so. It is rearranging the deck chairs, so to speak.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Fighter should be called Knight and Monk Should be called Fighter, change my mind​

You will ruin all your books having to Sharpie these new names hundreds of times over countless pages.

How's that? Did it work?

 

[Dausuul]

Here is how I see it:

Monk is an outdated term that is only kept around for the sake of nostalgia, it limits the class lore-wise (I had seen people who will reject any Monk backstory that doesn't tie them to a monastery of some sort) and harkens back to orientalist crap the class was once steeped in, that WotC now tries to step away from. Naming Monk Fighter would be a shortcut for Martial Arts Fighter, with subclasses named about different styles of fighting.

Fighter meanwhile should be named Knight. It's three strongest subclasses are already Echo Knight, Eldritch Knight and Rune Knight. Samurai, Cavalier are equivalent or form of a knight. Psi Warriro was originally named Psi Knight in Unearthed Arcana. Banneret is a generic name for class originally named Purple Dragon Knight. Champion and Battlemaster are only Fighter subclasses that aren't called Knights or similiar, and even that is debatable. Why not call it Kngiht at this point? We could even call the subclasses Orders.

Also, I disagree with the idea that Fighter should be go-to class for new players, that is simple to play. That's what Barbarian, literally first class in the book, is for.

I'd be on board with Fighter getting renamed to Knight with the caveat that it's going to give up its claim to Dex-primary builds, surrendering those to the Ranger. While the name comes with some baggage around knightly ideals and feudal reality, it does a splendid job of indicating "heavily armored warrior" to a general audience.

Then the Ranger can be renamed Skirmisher or Stalker or Hunter, giving it a much-needed expansion of its niche, and the spellcasting wilderness specialist can be a subclass -- the class-formerly-known-as-Ranger dabbling in druidic magic just as the Knight can dabble in arcane via Eldritch Knight.

However, putting the name "Fighter" onto the Monk just does not fit. "Fighter" is way too generic and should be retired altogether. I think BECMI had the right idea, using the term Mystic instead of Monk. This would also provide much-needed niche expansion; the unarmed combat specialist would be a subclass.

Of course, this still leaves the question of where the unarmed Strength-based build lives. For that, I think we turn to the Barbarian...

Not that any of this will happen, of course. WotC learned hard lessons about messing with tradition in 4E, and the Fighter class is one of the most hallowed traditions of the game.

 

[Remathilis]

perhaps.

but classes are a good guidebook on how to make a character, but they should not be a straitjacket on how you MUST make a character.

if classes are needed, you can get away with 4 of them:

Warrior: d12 HD, no spellcasting, 5 extra attacks over 20 level
Gish(paladin/ranger/artificer): d10 HD, half caster, 3 extra attacks
adept: d8 HD, 2/3rd spellcaster, 2 extra attacks
spellcaster: d6 HD, full casting, 1 extra attack

and just add a bunch of feat slots over 20 levels

At the point when classes stop being narrative elements, classes stop being useful. They become skeletons created in the hope to avoid creating a character that's good at everything, which can and has been done by budgeting and talent trees. No "class" is necessary.

The reason I've adopted that classes are a mistake is that there is no consensus what a class should be, which classes deserve to be, or even how many there should be. Every thread every conversation ends up someone arguing that this or that isn't a class or how every class should be a subclass of fighter or whatever. If the community cannot even agree on the basic premise of how the class system should work, it's time maybe to get rid of it.

 

[MGibster]

When it comes to class names and changing them, I always feel like that ship has sailed. On the other hand we all remember the Magic-User and Thief, right? Quite frankly, Wizard and Sorcerer are confusing because outside of D&D they're pretty much the same thing. I don't really see any good reason to change the class name of Monk. And I'm saying that as someone who has never cared for the Monk as a class.

 

[Morrus]

perhaps.

but classes are a good guidebook on how to make a character, but they should not be a straitjacket on how you MUST make a character.

if classes are needed, you can get away with 4 of them:

Warrior: d12 HD, no spellcasting, 5 extra attacks over 20 level
Gish(paladin/ranger/artificer): d10 HD, half caster, 3 extra attacks
adept: d8 HD, 2/3rd spellcaster, 2 extra attacks
spellcaster: d6 HD, full casting, 1 extra attack

and just add a bunch of feat slots over 20 levels

No, you can get away with two of them.

Warrior
Mage

You simply theme your warrior as a fighter or a barbarian or whatever and your mage as a wizard or cleric or whatever.

And for paladins you just multiclass the two. For rogues, they're just warriors who invest heavily in skills.

For the record, I'm very much against the 'you can do that concept without a class' movement. I'd love to see every concept given the detailed, loving, in-depth treatment of a full class rather than just a quick paint job on a fighter.

 

[Umbran]

See also cleric, bard, paladin, ranger. So "only" 6/13 classes are based on real-world historical social classes.

I do not accept the flat assertion that "ranger" was a real-world historical social class.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Here is how I see it:

Monk is an outdated term that is only kept around for the sake of nostalgia, it limits the class lore-wise (I had seen people who will reject any Monk backstory that doesn't tie them to a monastery of some sort) and harkens back to orientalist crap the class was once steeped in, that WotC now tries to step away from. Naming Monk Fighter would be a shortcut for Martial Arts Fighter, with subclasses named about different styles of fighting.

Fighter meanwhile should be named Knight. It's three strongest subclasses are already Echo Knight, Eldritch Knight and Rune Knight. Samurai, Cavalier are equivalent or form of a knight. Psi Warriro was originally named Psi Knight in Unearthed Arcana. Banneret is a generic name for class originally named Purple Dragon Knight. Champion and Battlemaster are only Fighter subclasses that aren't called Knights or similiar, and even that is debatable. Why not call it Kngiht at this point? We could even call the subclasses Orders.

Also, I disagree with the idea that Fighter should be go-to class for new players, that is simple to play. That's what Barbarian, literally first class in the book, is for.

The whole point of the monk to me is it emulates stuff like 36 Chamber of Shaolin, kung fu movies and wuxia. I think when you generalize it, it would lose a lot. Part of the issue though I think is monk is emulating a whole different genre than the standard D&D fighter. But I say keep the monk a monk. I like the variety and tone they add to play. To me it isn't an issue if they are associated with temples. I think bringing in other genre adjacent or other wuxia and kung fu classes could work (I think for core classes you probably want just one or two representing that genre though, otherwise it would really change the feel of the game)

Also I think the abilities of the monk, don't feel like a generic fighter, so naming them fighter would be kind of off (there is just too much esoteric stuff going on with that class)