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

[Stalker0]

I’d say the core issue with the monk is it’s reliance on KI. They need it for offense, they need it for defense.

Monks are likely fine if you give them the book expected number of rests, but if you don’t, they really suffer from it.

 

[Minigiant]

So what would that "modern interpretation" be and what would it look like? Also, why does it matter? I'm not sure there's a "modern" version of any of the classes.

Ryu, Ken, Kenshiro, Young Goku, Colin Mcgregor, The Rock, Mike Tyson, Aang, Jackie Chan, Rocky...

Other classes span ideas from many eras. The Monk is trying to mold 1 archetype into many.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Maybe, just maybe, people understand the difference and just don't agree with you.

For me the only measure of a class effectiveness? Is it fun to play. Do other people have fun playing? Answer is yes to both of those.

Is it focused on taking out 1 bad guy? Yes! Taking a single opponent out quickly is a very effective strategy. Feel free to add thoughts on what you would do to improve the monk but most of it (after a vague suggestion that you wanted a supernatural fighter) has just been pissing on other people's opinions that the monk is fine as designed.

When you do that people are going to push back. Add some specific ideas on what to change and people might try to build on what you said.

I wrote a long post with a ton of specific ideas. It's in this thread. Other people have also offered specific ideas. So I've already proven that people don't understand the difference. You don't even understand it - look, you're going on about taking out "1 bad guy". That has nothing to do with anything and shows you're profoundly not getting it, and as I said, want to argue the toss over specific mechanics. This is precisely the rote reaction I'm pointing out. The discussion was intended to be about more than that, as the OP has confirmed, but you want to bring it back to the same stuff that nobody even really disagrees about!

If your opinion is "fine as designed" you either shouldn't be in the thread, or should be one post and out, imho. Anything is else is borderline threadcrapping and it's hypocritical in the extreme for you to complain about me pointing that out (though I will grant YOU have no been spamming up the place, but others have, and you've just pointlessly repeated their arguments for the four hundredth time).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Ryu, Ken, Kenshiro, Young Goku, Colin Mcgregor, The Rock, Mike Tyson, Aang, Jackie Chan, Rocky...

Other classes span ideas from many eras. The Monk is trying to mold 1 archetype into many.

The Monk isn't really trying to be any of those, though, which is the problem. The Monk is trying to be "1970s martial arts movie Shaolin-trained Super-Monk" with it's basic built-in features. Because it's gone so extremely heavy on that with core, unalterable abilities, it can't be other things. Also it has the wrong name and wrong ethos. Most skilled martial artists, especially supernatural martial artists, in fiction, are not "monks" of any kind. Most monks in fiction are not martial artists of any kind. So what we get is "1970s martial arts movie Shaolin-trained Super-Monk with some powers that nod to Aang" and so on.

It's like, they could totally have build the 5E Monk as something that could have been any of those, they could even have kept the stupid name if they'd been unable to find anything else, but they should have build the core plain enough that it didn't have several wacky Shaolin powers, and instead moved more power into the subclasses.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Tbh, I don't see how the monk is any more thematically pigeonholed than the Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, or Paladin.

 

[Stalker0]

Tbh, I don't see how the monk is any more thematically pigeonholed than the Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, or Paladin.

I do agree with this, I don't think the monk's flavor is particularly constrained, especially when you consider subclasses (and you really do need to consider that to get the whole range of what a class offers flavorwise). Probably the one exception is that they can't wear any armor ever and get their abilities...that can be an odd restriction for some flavors.

 

[Minigiant]

Tbh, I don't see how the monk is any more thematically pigeonholed than the Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, or Paladin.

This issue isn't theme.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Tbh, I don't see how the monk is any more thematically pigeonholed than the Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, or Paladin.

I do agree with this, I don't think the monk's flavor is particularly constrained, especially when you consider subclasses (and you really do need to consider that to get the whole range of what a class offers flavorwise). Probably the one exception is that they can't wear any armor ever and get their abilities...that can be an odd restriction for some flavors.

thematics as less the problem more the failure to build a variety of options it honestly ends up with near false options or just less variety than the number of weapons fighter have as options and those are all I hit someone with something.
the subclasses barely bring anything to the table little flavour other than a new way to hit someone nor does it bother how to explain how to fit it into the world as it along with bard does not play much of a part in most modern fantasy aside from easter RPG video games and those are copying DnD.

 

[Asisreo]

If your opinion is "fine as designed" you either shouldn't be in the thread, or should be one post and out, imho. Anything is else is borderline threadcrapping and it's hypocritical in the extreme for you to complain about me pointing that out (though I will grant YOU have no been spamming up the place, but others have, and you've just pointlessly repeated their arguments for the four hundredth time).

I think, even if the poster isn't necessarily going with the thread's original flow, that they should be allowed to engage in the conversation however they would like.

Differences of opinions is what drives greater creative achievements.

If someone has a problem with the way monks are designed and another think they're fine, I think its good to discuss the details so any proposed changes can be made with the understanding of another's POV.

For instance, if a poster thinks the Monk has too little HP and another thinks its just right, it may be better to instead offer monks the ability to convert their Ki into Temporary HP ala a Ki ability. Maybe you'd both like it or maybe you'd both hate it but its interesting and, more importantly, does more than just a linear buff that someone else may be opposed to because it makes what they consider a strong class unjustly stronger for no trade-off.

 

[fearsomepirate]

So the beef here is the subclasses aren't transformative enough?