Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How Magical or Non-Magical Should the Monk Be?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6032651" data-attributes="member: 95493"><p>I gave how he was effective. And it wasn't effective at "being a barbarian" so I don't get where any of that comes from.</p><p></p><p>In 3e, even a fighter is a poor barbarian.</p><p></p><p>Besides that, a monk isn't a barbarian, nor is he trying to be?</p><p></p><p>It is like comparing a rogue to a wizard and then saying "haha, see you are wrong Tovec, rogues aren't really a class, see!" Granted that comparison would be a little more extreme but the point remains.</p><p></p><p>All valid ideas, do you want to discuss how to fix the monk? I have several ideas too. Sadly, I didn't realize that you were trying to fix it, instead it seemed you were trying to say monks don't belong. Which I happen to disagree with.</p><p></p><p>I could be wrong, having never had an actual conversation with either gentleman, but I could have swore they created DnD as a WAR game. Not a team game. There may be cross-over elements between the two, but it seems like Gygax was never happiest except when PCs died in droves and the game mastery was on the GMs side.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Should we now cut clerics because you find them redudant? I mean they are basically just wizards/druids.</p><p></p><p>Not really what I said. I said I kind of get why you would want to make a monk-fighter, or a monk-rogue, but I definitely didn't get the monk-wizard. And I didn't understand why you didn't even try for the monk-cleric, which as a "background" would seem to be the most applicable.</p><p></p><p>Then again, that monk background for the cleric would be based on a more traditional, and less DnD version of the monk word itself, but that isn't really important.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think you missed what I said with this one, because you didn't answer my question.</p><p></p><p>How do you replace all the monk features with a background? Especially since backgrounds CURRENTLY only provide +3 to certain skills? Monks might have good balance (as an example) but they have other class features too. That is like replacing fighters with a +3 to athletics, and nothing else.</p><p></p><p>Right, but a fighter isn't a monk. And a monk isn't a fighter. If anything a monk is closer to a rogue. So I guess you could play a rogue and say "he was raised in a monastery" but even then you wouldn't be playing a monk. You would be playing a guy who says he is something without being that thing.</p><p></p><p>Just like playing a fighter and calling himself a rogue, people would expect you to pick locks and you wouldn't be able to .. because you are a fighter really.</p><p></p><p>So, what happens if you want to be a monk? But not be saddled with all those silly backgrounds and traits?</p><p></p><p>Again, I think perhaps you are missing what I'm saying.</p><p></p><p>Your suggestion was to get all the monk features via backgrounds (which currently you can't). But assuming you could there are a lot of features that don't really conform to background abilities.</p><p></p><p>And assuming you could, then what are you no longer going to be able to do by putting all of your customization/specialization points into monk?</p><p>For example, in 3e: You have a monk class, and that monk can do certain things. If you wanted to make that monk into a monk-archer then you had a number of feats you could take to do that effectively.</p><p>With your idea: You have a fighter/rogue class, and that class has a number of things that are un-monk-like. You now have to spend all of your feats to get the monk powers to do that effectively. However, in so doing you are no longer going to be an effective archer. So, while you <em>might </em>be able to make a fighter-monk you could no longer make a fighter-monk-archer.</p><p></p><p>(I covered most of what this one was talking about in the previous section.)</p><p></p><p>Actually a monk kinda is related to that whole 'spent whole life training' thing. A fighter spends their whole life training too, but they do it differently. It is just like that wizard/cleric split. They both train in spells their whole life, but they do it very differently.</p><p></p><p>So, yes, 'spending whole life training' does describe a fighter, sorcerer, rogue, or cleric. I think 'spending whole life training' describes nearly all classes. What was important was WHAT they are spending their time on. Fighters spend their time on weapons and combat (arms and armor), they <em>may </em>learn to fight bare handed but usually not. Rogues are about cunning and tricks (talents, SA, etc.) but not usually about the mind or soul so much. And while clerics usually fill that ascetic/meditative niche, they rely on their connection to an external source (divine magic) to perform remarkable feats, whereas a monk draws their power from within. And sorcerers are a completely different kettle of hammers.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Hopefully I don't get a mod warning like Steely did, but I do have to ask if you have something against monks?</p><p></p><p>Or do you just really want just four classes or something?</p><p></p><p>As far as the classes not appearing and 'not been promised', well we kind of were. Beyond that, there would be a minor riot if classes got cut or didn't appear after they specifically said they would be included.</p><p></p><p>Now, if they (WotC) are able to perform that perception shift and convince us that they should be part of something else then that is fine. You aren't doing it Marty.</p><p></p><p>And, back to the quote, I can personally assure you I have never said monks should be the only unarmed (or even unarmored) combatant. Those are elements of monk, sure. But there are MANY more elements too. You may not like them, or think they are minutia, but clearly we don't think so.</p><p></p><p>There are elements of monks that can (and I say should) be used by other classes. I absolutely agree here. I'm not sure WotC sees it that way, if only because no classes look that way so far. I'm not saying it should be that way, but it is so far. I'm going to try my hardest to see that CS dice not stay locked with fighters, want to join me? If we can get that CS thing unrestricted then I'm sure you'll convince a few more on the monks aren't unarmed issue.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tovec, post: 6032651, member: 95493"] I gave how he was effective. And it wasn't effective at "being a barbarian" so I don't get where any of that comes from. In 3e, even a fighter is a poor barbarian. Besides that, a monk isn't a barbarian, nor is he trying to be? It is like comparing a rogue to a wizard and then saying "haha, see you are wrong Tovec, rogues aren't really a class, see!" Granted that comparison would be a little more extreme but the point remains. All valid ideas, do you want to discuss how to fix the monk? I have several ideas too. Sadly, I didn't realize that you were trying to fix it, instead it seemed you were trying to say monks don't belong. Which I happen to disagree with. I could be wrong, having never had an actual conversation with either gentleman, but I could have swore they created DnD as a WAR game. Not a team game. There may be cross-over elements between the two, but it seems like Gygax was never happiest except when PCs died in droves and the game mastery was on the GMs side. Should we now cut clerics because you find them redudant? I mean they are basically just wizards/druids. Not really what I said. I said I kind of get why you would want to make a monk-fighter, or a monk-rogue, but I definitely didn't get the monk-wizard. And I didn't understand why you didn't even try for the monk-cleric, which as a "background" would seem to be the most applicable. Then again, that monk background for the cleric would be based on a more traditional, and less DnD version of the monk word itself, but that isn't really important. I think you missed what I said with this one, because you didn't answer my question. How do you replace all the monk features with a background? Especially since backgrounds CURRENTLY only provide +3 to certain skills? Monks might have good balance (as an example) but they have other class features too. That is like replacing fighters with a +3 to athletics, and nothing else. Right, but a fighter isn't a monk. And a monk isn't a fighter. If anything a monk is closer to a rogue. So I guess you could play a rogue and say "he was raised in a monastery" but even then you wouldn't be playing a monk. You would be playing a guy who says he is something without being that thing. Just like playing a fighter and calling himself a rogue, people would expect you to pick locks and you wouldn't be able to .. because you are a fighter really. So, what happens if you want to be a monk? But not be saddled with all those silly backgrounds and traits? Again, I think perhaps you are missing what I'm saying. Your suggestion was to get all the monk features via backgrounds (which currently you can't). But assuming you could there are a lot of features that don't really conform to background abilities. And assuming you could, then what are you no longer going to be able to do by putting all of your customization/specialization points into monk? For example, in 3e: You have a monk class, and that monk can do certain things. If you wanted to make that monk into a monk-archer then you had a number of feats you could take to do that effectively. With your idea: You have a fighter/rogue class, and that class has a number of things that are un-monk-like. You now have to spend all of your feats to get the monk powers to do that effectively. However, in so doing you are no longer going to be an effective archer. So, while you [I]might [/I]be able to make a fighter-monk you could no longer make a fighter-monk-archer. (I covered most of what this one was talking about in the previous section.) Actually a monk kinda is related to that whole 'spent whole life training' thing. A fighter spends their whole life training too, but they do it differently. It is just like that wizard/cleric split. They both train in spells their whole life, but they do it very differently. So, yes, 'spending whole life training' does describe a fighter, sorcerer, rogue, or cleric. I think 'spending whole life training' describes nearly all classes. What was important was WHAT they are spending their time on. Fighters spend their time on weapons and combat (arms and armor), they [I]may [/I]learn to fight bare handed but usually not. Rogues are about cunning and tricks (talents, SA, etc.) but not usually about the mind or soul so much. And while clerics usually fill that ascetic/meditative niche, they rely on their connection to an external source (divine magic) to perform remarkable feats, whereas a monk draws their power from within. And sorcerers are a completely different kettle of hammers. Hopefully I don't get a mod warning like Steely did, but I do have to ask if you have something against monks? Or do you just really want just four classes or something? As far as the classes not appearing and 'not been promised', well we kind of were. Beyond that, there would be a minor riot if classes got cut or didn't appear after they specifically said they would be included. Now, if they (WotC) are able to perform that perception shift and convince us that they should be part of something else then that is fine. You aren't doing it Marty. And, back to the quote, I can personally assure you I have never said monks should be the only unarmed (or even unarmored) combatant. Those are elements of monk, sure. But there are MANY more elements too. You may not like them, or think they are minutia, but clearly we don't think so. There are elements of monks that can (and I say should) be used by other classes. I absolutely agree here. I'm not sure WotC sees it that way, if only because no classes look that way so far. I'm not saying it should be that way, but it is so far. I'm going to try my hardest to see that CS dice not stay locked with fighters, want to join me? If we can get that CS thing unrestricted then I'm sure you'll convince a few more on the monks aren't unarmed issue. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How Magical or Non-Magical Should the Monk Be?
Top