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
Monks Are Not Tanks And Shouldn’t 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="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9073023" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>Grappling is absolutely part of the class fantasy. Grabbing, redirecting, or otherwise entangling your opponent is a key part of many films and shows featuring monk-like characters. Grappling is usually horrendous in DnD and is currently designed to exclude monks, but that doesn't mean it isn't iconic for many such characters. In fact, it is so iconic it is often added on to with special techniques and moves. </p><p></p><p>Plus, it is grabbing someone. If you can't find someone grabbing on to someone else during a fight choreography, there is something weird going on.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, it can be a choice... but at that point, why not drop them as a class and put a d8 "fist" weapon on the weapon list? If they are not defined by HOW they fight... they are just fighters. </p><p></p><p>And as much as you keep denying it, the Monk is the class that comes to mind when people ask for an unarmed combatant. So the design should focus on that, then have weapon use as an option, but not the focus.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, that brand of mysticism is the EXCUSE used to JUSTIFY the fist and no armor. Why are monks mystical? Because they are mysterious, why are they mysterious, because an unarmed, unarmored man can take down a man in armor who is wielding weapons. The two go hand in hand, but the execution of the "mystical" element is in service to the way they fight.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, it seems our two choices are "magical fighter" or "unarmed fighter" and frankly since everyone should be supernatural in DnD and magic is covered by the majority of other classes... I don't understand why this is a discussion. No one else has the primary fantasy of fighting unarmored and with their fists. Plenty of other people have "strange magical powers" or "religious beliefs" </p><p></p><p>Heck, the UA paladin of Redemption had abilities to go unarmored and use simple weapons, and would fit the aesthetic some of those characters would go for.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>They are linked in the final product by context. Seriously, this is very very simple. Let's try again. </p><p></p><p>My character uses an action to make a ranged attack that deals fire damage. Which class am I? Elemental Monks can do this, wizards can do this. Sorcerers can do this. Warlocks can do this. Druids can do this. Clerics can do this. </p><p></p><p>Fire damage is a flavor of story, the fantasy of dealing fire damage is reached from many different angle. And while the Mercy Monk does deal poison damage on a hit, that actually isn't the fantasy I was talking about, because the damage type I'm talking about would be better represented by Force damage. Because it turns out, even if mechanically identical, the damage creates a context. After all, hitting someone with thunder damage is different than hitting them with psychic damage. Not because the mechanics have to change at all, the mechanics can be identical, but the damage type changes the feel. </p><p></p><p>PArt of the issue seems to be, you are looking at the finished product, then declaring that that is how you start, with a finished product. No. When doing design work, you start with an unfinished product. The "vibes" of the story and fluff, like whether or not they deal fire or psychic damage, comes later. First you have to make them actually mechanically vibe in a useful way.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You almost get it, then you veer off in another direction. Yes, different expressions are different expressions. Here, let's try this. </p><p></p><p>How do you calculate AC? 10 + Dex. If you have a different AC calculation, it is generally 10 + Dex + another score. Here are four versions of that. Actually, let's do five, because there is another one that is easy to get</p><p></p><p>10 + Dex + Cha</p><p>10 + Dex + Wis</p><p>10 + Dex + Con</p><p>10 + Dex + Cha</p><p>10 + Dex + Int</p><p></p><p>Now, according to you, all five of these are completely different mechanics. They share almost nothing in common, according to your view, because the flavor is completely different for all of these. </p><p></p><p>But... two of them are literally identical. And mechanically... they are all the same thing. Sure, there is a different inherent in wisdom versus consitution, but mechanically this distinction doesn't matter. I even have a variant of a class that does 10 + Dex + STR to round it out and have one for every single other ability score. </p><p></p><p>The mechanic is the same. The logic behind it is largely the same. Don't wear armor, instead use a second score. Now, one of them cheats and does wear armor, but that is because it is a temporary ability, but just looking at this, if you didn't know exactly which class each of these belonged to... would you honestly be able to tell? </p><p></p><p>There is no "extreme ripple effect" here. There is an acknowledgement of how design works. "Make an attack as a bonus action" represents both extreme skill and training, and divine providence, and unbridled fury. Same mechanic, but put a different name and a different trigger, and you have created a different story.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Of course they don't exist in a vaccuum. But you don't design a class by saying "I need the story of..." exclusively. The Monk has a story, it has a context, we agree on this. But you keep arguing that we have to only focus on that and we can't set that aside, look at the absolute garbage fire of mechanics we are dealing with and say "okay, mechanically, what do I want this to do" </p><p></p><p>We need "what does a baseline monk DO in a fight? What do they do in a social situation?" Not, what is the story of the avatar who does Z,X,Y, A,B C because that's a subclass, and we are looking at the base class, trying to figure out what it can do first.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 9073023, member: 6801228"] Grappling is absolutely part of the class fantasy. Grabbing, redirecting, or otherwise entangling your opponent is a key part of many films and shows featuring monk-like characters. Grappling is usually horrendous in DnD and is currently designed to exclude monks, but that doesn't mean it isn't iconic for many such characters. In fact, it is so iconic it is often added on to with special techniques and moves. Plus, it is grabbing someone. If you can't find someone grabbing on to someone else during a fight choreography, there is something weird going on. Sure, it can be a choice... but at that point, why not drop them as a class and put a d8 "fist" weapon on the weapon list? If they are not defined by HOW they fight... they are just fighters. And as much as you keep denying it, the Monk is the class that comes to mind when people ask for an unarmed combatant. So the design should focus on that, then have weapon use as an option, but not the focus. No, that brand of mysticism is the EXCUSE used to JUSTIFY the fist and no armor. Why are monks mystical? Because they are mysterious, why are they mysterious, because an unarmed, unarmored man can take down a man in armor who is wielding weapons. The two go hand in hand, but the execution of the "mystical" element is in service to the way they fight. Well, it seems our two choices are "magical fighter" or "unarmed fighter" and frankly since everyone should be supernatural in DnD and magic is covered by the majority of other classes... I don't understand why this is a discussion. No one else has the primary fantasy of fighting unarmored and with their fists. Plenty of other people have "strange magical powers" or "religious beliefs" Heck, the UA paladin of Redemption had abilities to go unarmored and use simple weapons, and would fit the aesthetic some of those characters would go for. They are linked in the final product by context. Seriously, this is very very simple. Let's try again. My character uses an action to make a ranged attack that deals fire damage. Which class am I? Elemental Monks can do this, wizards can do this. Sorcerers can do this. Warlocks can do this. Druids can do this. Clerics can do this. Fire damage is a flavor of story, the fantasy of dealing fire damage is reached from many different angle. And while the Mercy Monk does deal poison damage on a hit, that actually isn't the fantasy I was talking about, because the damage type I'm talking about would be better represented by Force damage. Because it turns out, even if mechanically identical, the damage creates a context. After all, hitting someone with thunder damage is different than hitting them with psychic damage. Not because the mechanics have to change at all, the mechanics can be identical, but the damage type changes the feel. PArt of the issue seems to be, you are looking at the finished product, then declaring that that is how you start, with a finished product. No. When doing design work, you start with an unfinished product. The "vibes" of the story and fluff, like whether or not they deal fire or psychic damage, comes later. First you have to make them actually mechanically vibe in a useful way. You almost get it, then you veer off in another direction. Yes, different expressions are different expressions. Here, let's try this. How do you calculate AC? 10 + Dex. If you have a different AC calculation, it is generally 10 + Dex + another score. Here are four versions of that. Actually, let's do five, because there is another one that is easy to get 10 + Dex + Cha 10 + Dex + Wis 10 + Dex + Con 10 + Dex + Cha 10 + Dex + Int Now, according to you, all five of these are completely different mechanics. They share almost nothing in common, according to your view, because the flavor is completely different for all of these. But... two of them are literally identical. And mechanically... they are all the same thing. Sure, there is a different inherent in wisdom versus consitution, but mechanically this distinction doesn't matter. I even have a variant of a class that does 10 + Dex + STR to round it out and have one for every single other ability score. The mechanic is the same. The logic behind it is largely the same. Don't wear armor, instead use a second score. Now, one of them cheats and does wear armor, but that is because it is a temporary ability, but just looking at this, if you didn't know exactly which class each of these belonged to... would you honestly be able to tell? There is no "extreme ripple effect" here. There is an acknowledgement of how design works. "Make an attack as a bonus action" represents both extreme skill and training, and divine providence, and unbridled fury. Same mechanic, but put a different name and a different trigger, and you have created a different story. Of course they don't exist in a vaccuum. But you don't design a class by saying "I need the story of..." exclusively. The Monk has a story, it has a context, we agree on this. But you keep arguing that we have to only focus on that and we can't set that aside, look at the absolute garbage fire of mechanics we are dealing with and say "okay, mechanically, what do I want this to do" We need "what does a baseline monk DO in a fight? What do they do in a social situation?" Not, what is the story of the avatar who does Z,X,Y, A,B C because that's a subclass, and we are looking at the base class, trying to figure out what it can do first. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Monks Are Not Tanks And Shouldn’t Be
Top