D&D (2024) (+) Hopes for The Monk

[Lojaan]

Nonsense, you just aren’t paying attention to the description.

The notion is laughable, when the Paladin is based on chivalric knights of Christendom, and the concept being discussed her finds its primary inspiration in European esoteric swordmasters.

You and I are done discussing this.

European esoteric swordsmasters are fighters. Same as esoteric swordsmasters from anywhere.

Unless by "esoteric" you mean "having special mystical or scared magic" in which case they're paladins, hexblades or war priests. Or you "magical in an arcane or fey way" where you get your bladesingers/eldritch knights and the like.

The D&D monk isn't a thing. It's based on a western interpretation of a whole bunch of Asian tropes mixed in together, from anime, samurai movies & HK action movies. When you strip out that, you don't get a single 'culture neutral' class, you get paladins, fighters, barbarians, clerics etc...

Since the only thing they have in common is that they don't wear armor, my #1 hope for the monk class is that it is replaced by a fighting style feat 'unarmored fighting' where you get to add your wis mod to your AC when not wearing armor, and a bunch of cool subclasses.

 

[Mecheon]

Since the only thing they have in common is that they don't wear armor, my #1 hope for the monk class is that it is replaced by a fighting style feat 'unarmored fighting' where you get to add your wis mod to your AC when not wearing armor, and a bunch of cool subclasses.

I'd argue there's a link in the implication of the power source being obtained through meditation and the understanding of oneself in the universe. Not that, D&D's ever gone hard on that, but its at least sort of implicated in some of the things there, particularly 3E (Not that 3E's monk was good).

But, just a feat isn't going to crack it because you've then got all the fighter stuff that's weighing down the whole concept. All that fighter stuff has to be factored in for the laser blasts, cloud flying, spectral weaponry, or using secret techniques to punch a tank (or tank equivilent) so many times it explodes

 

[doctorbadwolf]

European esoteric swordsmasters are fighters. Same as esoteric swordsmasters from anywhere.

No. Fighters are mundane master of arms who can kill you with any weapon. Straightforward soldiers and knights and mercs.

Unless by "esoteric" you mean "having special mystical or scared magic" in which case they're paladins, hexblades or war priests. Or you "magical in an arcane or fey way" where you get your bladesingers/eldritch knights and the like.

No. Those are separate concepts. Esoteric and mystical =\= sacred or arcane.

The D&D monk isn't a thing. It's based on a western interpretation of a whole bunch of Asian tropes mixed in together, from anime, samurai movies & HK action movies. When you strip out that, you don't get a single 'culture neutral' class, you get paladins, fighters, barbarians, clerics etc...

The last rely I will make to you on this. This is false. The class originated in the esoteric martial traditions of East Asia, but when you take out the orientalism, what is left is not remotely any of those things.

Now, please stop crapping all over the +thread.

If you don’t want the monk to continue to be a class, this thread isn’t for you.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I want the monk to have COMBO attacks. Like, if you hit a creature with X amount of Martial Arts attacks, you can do X, or spend ki to do Y to the creature. The more hits, the more potent the effect, scaling 2-4. Use your reaction to trigger the combo effect. Would be such a cool way to stylize the monk IMO.

I wonder if making it cost a point and relying on you landing hits, makes it cost enough that you could make it not cost any extra action economy. Maybe it just adds to the final attack of the round.

Like “when you hit for at least the second time in a turn, you can choose to make it a flourish. If you use this when you hit for the third time, do X. If you use a flourish when you hit for the fourth time, do y.”

 

[Lojaan]

I'd argue there's a link in the implication of the power source being obtained through meditation and the understanding of oneself in the universe. Not that, D&D's ever gone hard on that, but its at least sort of implicated in some of the things there, particularly 3E (Not that 3E's monk was good).

But, just a feat isn't going to crack it because you've then got all the fighter stuff that's weighing down the whole concept. All that fighter stuff has to be factored in for the laser blasts, cloud flying, spectral weaponry, or using secret techniques to punch a tank (or tank equivilent) so many times it explodes

Meditation and understanding oneself in the universe is pretty big in all magical and religious traditions all over the world.

As for the laser blasts and cloud flying all that - these are all different concepts, some from very different places. Some are clearly clerics, or paladins, or barbarians, some are supernatural creatures, some are warrior/mage/gish types. Take out the 'Asian' angle and they are not the same thing. Putting them all in the same class is just like trying to make an "Asian person from pop culture" class (which is incidentally where the monk class came from in the first place).

The problem with the monk is very similar to the problem with the "witch". It is very difficult to settle on a "witch" because the name incorporates a bunch of different - and separate - things. You get;

Witch as person who consorts with demons (warlock)
Witch as person who learned magic and has familiar (wizard)
Witch as lady person who knows magic (wizard, sorcerer, bard, druid, cleric)
Witch as a priestess of the "olde faith" (bard, druid, cleric)
Witch as a nature magic person (druid)
Witch as a lady person who was born with dangerous powers (sorcerer)
Witch as an evil old lady magic person, nemesis of children, who cackles, has a cauldron, curses people etc.. (monster: hag)

You can see how trying to squeeze all these together into the same class is always going to be weird and unsatisfying. They don't fit together because they are different things. Take away the word 'witch' and it is clear how different they are. Same with monk. Take out the "Asian person" and you have a bunch of very different concepts and archetypes that are not serviced by squishing them together.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Meditation and understanding oneself in the universe is pretty big in all magical and religious traditions all over the world.

As for the laser blasts and cloud flying all that - these are all different concepts, some from very different places. Some are clearly clerics, or paladins, or barbarians, some are supernatural creatures, some are warrior/mage/gish types. Take out the 'Asian' angle and they are not the same thing. Putting them all in the same class is just like trying to make an "Asian person from pop culture" class (which is incidentally where the monk class came from in the first place).

The problem with the monk is very similar to the problem with the "witch". It is very difficult to settle on a "witch" because the name incorporates a bunch of different - and separate - things. You get;

Witch as person who consorts with demons (warlock)
Witch as person who learned magic and has familiar (wizard)
Witch as lady person who knows magic (wizard, sorcerer, bard, druid, cleric)
Witch as a priestess of the "olde faith" (bard, druid, cleric)
Witch as a nature magic person (druid)
Witch as a lady person who was born with dangerous powers (sorcerer)
Witch as an evil old lady magic person, nemesis of children, who cackles, has a cauldron, curses people etc.. (monster: hag)

You can see how trying to squeeze all these together into the same class is always going to be weird and unsatisfying. They don't fit together because they are different things. Take away the word 'witch' and it is clear how different they are. Same with monk. Take out the "Asian person" and you have a bunch of very different concepts and archetypes that are not serviced by squishing them together.

Except for the very clearly distinct differences, and the fact that you can approach the class entirely from a European and SWANA perspective.

Like...if 5e had a swordmage that was steeped in the Hermetic tradition rather than just sort of vaguely elemental, I'd be fine with splitting the Monk's stuff between it and the fighter and a little bit in the rogue. Paladin would get...literally none of it. I can't think of any part of the class, or any variation of the class, that would fit the paladin.

And I could break down almost every class down in a similar manner.

So, again, please stop crapping on the + thread.

 

[Lojaan]

No. Fighters are mundane master of arms who can kill you with any weapon. Straightforward soldiers and knights and mercs.

Ah that is very much your interpretation, and a very limited one.

No. Those are separate concepts. Esoteric and mystical =\= sacred or arcane.

Sorry buddy, they all mean the same thing; "secret knowledge".

The last rely I will make to you on this. This is false. The class originated in the esoteric martial traditions of East Asia, but when you take out the orientalism, what is left is not remotely any of those things.

This is not true at all. The class originated from kung fu & ninja movies from the 80s and expanded to include manga and anime. Every single monk class ability is taken from those sources.

I want the monk to continue as a strong and vibrant player option in D&D. The best way to do that is to remove the class. Ironic, I know.

 

[Lojaan]

I can't think of any part of the class, or any variation of the class, that would fit the paladin.

Seriously? Mystical warriors who have a code that they are not allowed to break? That were raised to fight in temples? Who up until recent editions were only allowed to be of the lawful alignment? Screams paladin to me.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ah

I've deleted my response to this nonsense, because it isn't productive.

This is a +thread about the monk, not a thread for your to dump on the idea of the monk, start random tangential arguments that no one but you cares about, and otherwise threadcrap.

I've asked twice for you to stop crapping in this thread. I'll ask a third time, this time with no arguments.

You are threadcrapping. Please stop. If you don't want the monk in the game as a class and don't see any validity in it's concept, there are other threads, or you can easily start your own.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

Just a reminder: this is a (+) thread. Let’s try to keep things constructive and the head butting to a minimum.