D&D General me finally making the big monk discussion thread

[Hatmatter]

I have made the thread to discuss the monk class its strengths, its weaknesses and how we could improve it.
the class that has never really be done well.
the class that has never felt properly integrated.
let us discuss it now.

I will also talk endlessly about my own dumb ideas but that is inevitable.
shall we begin?

I do not think I can help you. I have played a few monks and have never had any complaints. I read people complain about it frequently here, though. My monks are very fun to play.

 

[CubicsRube]

Mind of tempest - have you played a monk?

We often get threads bemoaning the monk here and I wonder how many have played it.

I've played a monk from low levels to now level 17. A way of four elements monk even, which the Internet tells me should be a terrible experience.

I have a tonne of fun with it. And I can contribute a lot to the party doubling up on a fireball, sinking a bunch of ki points to air blast a mage to smithereens, flying up to stun flying creatures in the air, or getting into the middle of a bunch of minions and casting fireball centred on self. With evasion and prof to all saves, I'm near immune to a lot of area effects and traps which is great for scouting and simply squaring up to a lot of casters.

I don't want to insult your thread as this is about your issues with the monk. Just a reminder that at least one person finds them fun and useful.

 

[CubicsRube]

I do not think I can help you. I have played a few monks and have never had any complaints. I read people complain about it frequently here, though. My monks are very fun to play.

Agree. I really think this is a "monk on paper" vs a "monk in play" type of issue.

Monks have to be one of the most versatile martial characters and there's always a tonne of decision points to be made in combat.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Running off on a tangent here: you do see cleric-types in current Japanese fantasy light novels (which is what most current animes are based on) - and they're pretty close to the DnD version except they don't wear armor. Of course, in these setting fighters don't wear armor either, so it's not as much a stretch.

The reason clerics stuck, I think, is because they fill the distinct, logical niche of 'healer'. If there weren't clerics, there would be some other kind of healer, but clerics do the job well enough and are easier to attach flavor to that a more generic Healer class would be.

Tangent of a tangent: in a recent "Why no arcane half-caster?" thread, it was postulated that a big reason is the mechanical niche, while both obvious and popular, has never been linked to a good flavor-base to really complete it. Cleric is enough, as are wizard and thief, so you don't need much, and as you noted above (see, this is relevant) monks are too narrow to allow enough customization within the concept.

Yeah D&D hit like a bomb in Japan, even though people in the West don't always acknowledge it, and it actually reflected back to us a lot of the imagery that is sort of truly classic - the Tower of Doom Mystara beat'em-up art is almost so D&D it hurts, all the way back in 1994, but even before that a lot of their imagery - especially Dragon Quest was amazing D&D-ish. I remember Dragon Quest didn't really make it to the UK, but I saw in a game mag some concept and cover art from those games, in the very early 1990s, and it just so spot-on for D&D that it was amazing.

Re: Arcane Half-Caster I don't think it's quite as simple as a lack of archetype/flavour base. I think, if you look at fantasy literature, there are actually fair number of dabblers, but the thing is, in 1E and 2E, we had multiclassing. And multiclassing (or dual-classing) allowed you to simulate all these dabblers (with the possible exception of Kai/Magnakai but they were like Fighter/Psionicist/Mage). I think because these archetypal dabblers and non-master wizards were all possible to simulate that way, there was zero pressure to make an arcane half-caster. I think were was actually none for a divine half-caster either, it was just that D&D's designers specifically wanted Paladins to be human-only (weirdly), and Rangers to be Aragorn, and thus human (even though he wasn't... dude was 87... half-elf by D&D rules imo), and to not have to dual-class, so they created this divine half-caster concept.

Then 3E came out and it was totally retrograde and made a ton of bad decisions re: class design (I'd say it has by far the worst class design of any edition of D&D, from OD&D to 5E - no edition is as unbalanced and yet somehow dull in terms of core classes, and other edition has the PrC system to ruin things further), but we did finally self an arcane half-caster, in the form of the appallingly-designed 3E Bard (which hilariously was still an okay class because of how severe LFQW was), but that was a mess, and yeah, not a concept that should have been a half-caster. 2E's Bard wasn't really a half-caster, it was more like a 3/4 caster, given the rocket-like way it leveled up. I think with Bards you either need a system all their own, or just go with a full caster in a 3E/5E-style casting system.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Mind of tempest - have you played a monk?

We often get threads bemoaning the monk here and I wonder how many have played it.

I've played a monk from low levels to now level 17. A way of four elements monk even, which the Internet tells me should be a terrible experience.

I have a tonne of fun with it. And I can contribute a lot to the party doubling up on a fireball, sinking a bunch of ki points to air blast a mage to smithereens, flying up to stun flying creatures in the air, or getting into the middle of a bunch of minions and casting fireball centred on self. With evasion and prof to all saves, I'm near immune to a lot of area effects and traps which is great for scouting and simply squaring up to a lot of casters.

I don't want to insult your thread as this is about your issues with the monk. Just a reminder that at least one person finds them fun and useful.

I think you're confusing two issues, that of whether the class is fun and what the OP actually asked.

We often see this kind of defensiveness about Monks. It's like "HOW DARE PEOPLE DISCUSS MONKS CRITICALLY! I ENJOYED PLAYING ONE!!!", which like, I can understand, I've seen similar threads re: Bards and I like playing those, but it's fundamentally missing the point to come in and say "Well they play okay in 5E!" (which is true) when the thread clearly outlines the two issues it wants to discuss:

the class that has never really be done well.
the class that has never felt properly integrated.

You can have a class which is fun to play but hasn't been done well - i.e. it could be overpowered, it could be underpowered but fun, or it could simply, as in the case of Monk, be an overspecialized concept which is standing in for a much broader concept. And it's hard to deny the integration issue, which again stems from the issue that Monks are, conceptually, very specialized, and whilst 5E has tried to branch that out.

To be fair to you, you're not being quite that defensive (though "have you played a monk??!?!" doesn't come across as a very honest question), but I think it's pretty tiring to have the same "WELL I HAD FUN!" interjection over and over and over in literally any discussion of Monks. It's not like I go into every discussion of Bards and do that. If I do discuss them, I actually engage with the thread topic, rather than just saying "I ENJOY BARDS!!" (which I do).

Frankly if "fun" alone is a defense against all critical discussion and a reason to include a class, then it's a crime we don't have 2E Psionicists in 5E, or 4E Invokers or Warlords or Wardens (or indeed quite a few other classes in 4E, including a proper version of the Avenger).

 

[Mind of tempest]

I do not think I can help you. I have played a few monks and have never had any complaints. I read people complain about it frequently here, though. My monks are very fun to play.

Mind of tempest - have you played a monk?

We often get threads bemoaning the monk here and I wonder how many have played it.

I've played a monk from low levels to now level 17. A way of four elements monk even, which the Internet tells me should be a terrible experience.

I have a tonne of fun with it. And I can contribute a lot to the party doubling up on a fireball, sinking a bunch of ki points to air blast a mage to smithereens, flying up to stun flying creatures in the air, or getting into the middle of a bunch of minions and casting fireball centred on self. With evasion and prof to all saves, I'm near immune to a lot of area effects and traps which is great for scouting and simply squaring up to a lot of casters.

I don't want to insult your thread as this is about your issues with the monk. Just a reminder that at least one person finds them fun and useful.

you mistake me for other, I do play monk more exactly when I get to play monk is my go-to option but I see how limited it is how samey it gets how much more it could be, it is on the cusp of being a truly great class. I looked for solutions to fix the areas I find limiting but most homebrew just buffs the ki points or is simply a new style of martial art and I would like it to have more place in the world, more thematics as otherwise character options are very samey or things that just use it for mechanics and few of those I like. I want to fix it out of love.

I think you're confusing two issues, that of whether the class is fun and what the OP actually asked.

We often see this kind of defensiveness about Monks. It's like "HOW DARE PEOPLE DISCUSS MONKS CRITICALLY! I ENJOYED PLAYING ONE!!!", which like, I can understand, I've seen similar threads re: Bards and I like playing those, but it's fundamentally missing the point to come in and say "Well they play okay in 5E!" (which is true) when the thread clearly outlines the two issues it wants to discuss:

the class that has never really be done well.
the class that has never felt properly integrated.

You can have a class which is fun to play but hasn't been done well - i.e. it could be overpowered, it could be underpowered but fun, or it could simply, as in the case of Monk, be an overspecialized concept which is standing in for a much broader concept. And it's hard to deny the integration issue, which again stems from the issue that Monks are, conceptually, very specialized, and whilst 5E has tried to branch that out.

To be fair to you, you're not being quite that defensive (though "have you played a monk??!?!" doesn't come across as a very honest question), but I think it's pretty tiring to have the same "WELL I HAD FUN!" interjection over and over and over in literally any discussion of Monks. It's not like I go into every discussion of Bards and do that. If I do discuss them, I actually engage with the thread topic, rather than just saying "I ENJOY BARDS!!" (which I do).

Frankly if "fun" alone is a defense against all critical discussion and a reason to include a class, then it's a crime we don't have 2E Psionicists in 5E, or 4E Invokers or Warlords or Wardens (or indeed quite a few other classes in 4E, including a proper version of the Avenger).

well said.
remind me about the avenger when I get round to my massive rant about making the arcane divine split better also for fixing the ranger.

 

[steeldragons]

Clearly, the key to diversifying a "Martial Artist" class, is to give it...I dunno... Martial Arts?

Now, whether this is more effective as "Subclasses": the "Way of the Tiger Fist, Way of the Sun Stork, Way of the Jade Jackal, etc..." OR more effective as a "Fighting Style" type of class character-by-character option -pick up ["master"] a new style every 3 or 4 levels...is a matter that might be debated.

As for the many comments (for years) about the name of the class being, at once, misleading and too specific, I decided a few years back that my homebrew game/setting would have a place for the "Martial Adept." I thought "Adept" was good for relaying that this is a "specialized expert in [something]" kind of warrior [hence the "Martial"]. It harkens to "Marital Artist" without just being [yawn] "Martial Artist." I think "Adept" has a certain "fantasy" kinda vibe, giving the class the necessary evocative room to allow for supernatural abilities (if that is desired. In my game/world it is). AND -and I think this may be most important- it does not immediately call to mind the "Xiaolin" reference that influences all character concepts within the class to require some kind of "Asian Empire/Japanalogue/Everybody is Kung Fu Fighting" kind of nation/realm that is the only place to learn this stuff.

 

[Hatmatter]

you mistake me for other, I do play monk more exactly when I get to play monk is my go-to option but I see how limited it is how samey it gets how much more it could be, it is on the cusp of being a truly great class. I looked for solutions to fix the areas I find limiting but most homebrew just buffs the ki points or is simply a new style of martial art and I would like it to have more place in the world, more thematics as otherwise character options are very samey or things that just use it for mechanics and few of those I like. I want to fix it out of love.

well said.
remind me about the avenger when I get round to my massive rant about making the arcane divine split better also for fixing the ranger.

Have it and enjoy! It's a game so have fun with it. When you write, "you mistake me for other," though, I think I did not mistake you...unless you were responding exclusively to Cubics Rube...but, you did quote me so it looks like you are responding to me. In your original post, you wrote, "the class that has never really be done well." I replied that I have played a couple monks and had a blast. I had not read what Cubics Rube had written, but having now read it, I would agree with it. I had to come to the Internet to learn that the monk class was not done well. I think it was done well because I had a blast with it and never thought twice about it.

That being said, clearly other people would like to improve. That's awesome. That's a good use for these forums...enjoy. Maybe I'll glean something useful.

 

[CubicsRube]

I think you're confusing two issues, that of whether the class is fun and what the OP actually asked.

We often see this kind of defensiveness about Monks. It's like "HOW DARE PEOPLE DISCUSS MONKS CRITICALLY! I ENJOYED PLAYING ONE!!!", which like, I can understand, I've seen similar threads re: Bards and I like playing those, but it's fundamentally missing the point to come in and say "Well they play okay in 5E!" (which is true) when the thread clearly outlines the two issues it wants to discuss:

the class that has never really be done well.
the class that has never felt properly integrated.

You can have a class which is fun to play but hasn't been done well - i.e. it could be overpowered, it could be underpowered but fun, or it could simply, as in the case of Monk, be an overspecialized concept which is standing in for a much broader concept. And it's hard to deny the integration issue, which again stems from the issue that Monks are, conceptually, very specialized, and whilst 5E has tried to branch that out.

To be fair to you, you're not being quite that defensive (though "have you played a monk??!?!" doesn't come across as a very honest question), but I think it's pretty tiring to have the same "WELL I HAD FUN!" interjection over and over and over in literally any discussion of Monks. It's not like I go into every discussion of Bards and do that. If I do discuss them, I actually engage with the thread topic, rather than just saying "I ENJOY BARDS!!" (which I do).

Frankly if "fun" alone is a defense against all critical discussion and a reason to include a class, then it's a crime we don't have 2E Psionicists in 5E, or 4E Invokers or Warlords or Wardens (or indeed quite a few other classes in 4E, including a proper version of the Avenger).

I was asking a genuine question, not trying to challenge the poster.

I'm also not invalidating anyones opinions. I'm merely trying to understand if this is a theory issue or a practical one.

I also didn't just talk about fun in my post. The monk character is a genuinely useful contributor to the party. So mechanically it doesn't appear unbalanced from my experience.

 

[CubicsRube]

you mistake me for other, I do play monk more exactly when I get to play monk is my go-to option but I see how limited it is how samey it gets how much more it could be, it is on the cusp of being a truly great class. I looked for solutions to fix the areas I find limiting but most homebrew just buffs the ki points or is simply a new style of martial art and I would like it to have more place in the world, more thematics as otherwise character options are very samey or things that just use it for mechanics and few of those I like. I want to fix it out of love.

well said.
remind me about the avenger when I get round to my massive rant about making the arcane divine split better also for fixing the ranger.

Thanks for clarifying.

The monk is in an odd thematic place in D&D. I think it's always had a bit of an identity crisis that way.