D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Minigiant]

Surprisingly he goes into this issue near the beginning. They were created by Brian Blum based on the Remo Williams novels (The Destroyer novels). Kung Fu moves, run across water, incapacitate people by poking them, etc..

I always thought it was from the Shao Lin Monks. Apparently...no. It's Remo Williams. Which isn't a particularly strong prototype.

But that's my point.

The monk has no in universe purpose for its existence.

For example, rangers were based on Aragorn. But Aragorn and the Rangers of the North/South served a purpose in the world and as adventurers. The barbarians and the fighters represent untrained and trained warriors respectively.

The monk is based on an archetype that has no purpose in the world nor as an adventurer. It's just a collection of cool powers like a monster.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The barbarians and the fighters represent untrained and trained warriors respectively.

Whuuuuh?

Not trained for formation combat, sure.

Not trained on a dedicated military site, ok.

But not trained?

The monk is based on an archetype that has no purpose in the world nor as an adventurer. It's just a collection of cool powers like a monster.

The cool thing about monks is that you can invent, as part of their backstory, the reason for their order/monastery/whatever existing.

Maybe they are the select bodyguard of some emperor.

Maybe they have a supernatural mission (a la Iron Fist).

Maybe they hire themselves out as assassins.

Maybe they study combat as artists, just for the sake of perfecting it.

 

[Retreater]

The monk's saving grace is that Ki recharges on a short rest. I have DMed for a couple of them in my campaigns, and they pulled their own weight. I have no problems with them.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I think Monk and Sorcerer are both evidence for why "one point per character level" key class resources are a mistake. You have too little at the low levels most people actually play to use your class features regularly while at high levels you barely have to manage the resource at all. And both then have capstone abilities to give them a few more points if they start a fight without, probably long after the last time that regularly happened to them.

It's okay for a class defining resource to just have a progression chart that doesn't follow a simple pattern.

 

[Minigiant]

Whuuuuh?

Not trained for formation combat, sure.

Not trained on a dedicated military site, ok.

But not trained?

I mean trained in a fighting style or martial art. Barbarians fight via raw athleticism, talent, and emotion. Discipline goes out the window when you rage anyway.

The cool thing about monks is that you can invent, as part of their backstory, the reason for their order/monastery/whatever existing.

Maybe they are the select bodyguard of some emperor.

Maybe they have a supernatural mission (a la Iron Fist).

Maybe they hire themselves out as assassins.

Maybe they study combat as artists, just for the sake of perfecting it.

Yeah but that's the point. The Emporer's bodyguards and the Emporer's assassins would NOT have the same features.

The D&D monk cannot decide if it is a "warrior" class, a "skills" class, or a mix of both.

D&D never bit the bullet an decided if the monk is a variant fighter, a variant rogue, a variant cleric, a variant ranger, or something else. Most other games that aren't D&D spinoffs have made the choice. The monk is either a fighter who doesn't use equipment or a rogue who uses fists over sneak attack or or something else.

In MMO terms, D&D didn't choose if the monk is a tank, offtank, healer, or DPS. Well except in 4e.

It didn't even go the WOW route and make your role based on your way specialization.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

But that's my point.

The monk has no in universe purpose for its existence.

For example, rangers were based on Aragorn. But Aragorn and the Rangers of the North/South served a purpose in the world and as adventurers. The barbarians and the fighters represent untrained and trained warriors respectively.

The monk is based on an archetype that has no purpose in the world nor as an adventurer. It's just a collection of cool powers like a monster.

I disagree with you. I guess I would agree with you if your 2nd to last sentence ended with
"in my world" or "at my table".

The character Aragorn isn't in Forgotten Realms or D&D. Neither are the Rangers of the North/South, if you are talking about Tolkein rangers. Nor is he "real world". Or at least, any more "real world" than Remo Williams, Kwai Chan Cane, or Wong Fei Hung.

The monk fits just perfectly well in my world, at my table.

 

[Undrave]

I think my biggest problm with the whole 'Lock down a single target' schtick is that it doesn't feel like it was the result of a design intent, but rather an emergent property of all the 'Classic Monk Abilities' the designers managed to stuff into the base class.

The Monk doesn't feel like it's designed to be good at anything in particular. It lacks an obvious design intent beyond 'Be recognizable as a D&D monk'. If the Lockdown concept was indeed the point, then there should be ways to do a lesser verson of it early on in the level progression. The Monk's apparently CORE defining feature, the reason why you should want to play a Monk, Stunning Strike, only comes online at level 6?!

 

[Eyes of Nine]

I think Monk and Sorcerer are both evidence for why "one point per character level" key class resources are a mistake. You have too little at the low levels most people actually play to use your class features regularly while at high levels you barely have to manage the resource at all. And both then have capstone abilities to give them a few more points if they start a fight without, probably long after the last time that regularly happened to them.

It's okay for a class defining resource to just have a progression chart that doesn't follow a simple pattern.

Yes, but monks refresh ki once per short or long rest. I think they get enough.

Now Sorcerers, I'm not so sure.

 

[Undrave]

D&D never bit the bullet an decided if the monk is a variant fighter, a variant rogue, a variant cleric, a variant ranger, or something else. Most other games that aren't D&D spinoffs have made the choice. The monk is either a fighter who doesn't use equipment or a rogue who uses fists over sneak attack or or something else.

In MMO terms, D&D didn't choose if the monk is a tank, offtank, healer, or DPS. Well except in 4e.

It didn't even go the WOW route and make your role based on your way specialization.

Ah! You ninja'd me. I feel the same way about the 5e Monk. I miss the clear design goals that 4e's Role brought to a class. There was no pretense, you knew right at a glance the type of class you were gonna be playing.

 

[ZeshinX]

But that's my point.

The monk has no in universe purpose for its existence.

For example, rangers were based on Aragorn. But Aragorn and the Rangers of the North/South served a purpose in the world and as adventurers. The barbarians and the fighters represent untrained and trained warriors respectively.

The monk is based on an archetype that has no purpose in the world nor as an adventurer. It's just a collection of cool powers like a monster.

They certainly serve a purpose in my games. They are the philosophers, warrior poets, spiritual counsellors, alternative clergy for certain faiths, teachers of matters academic and martial, and so on.

What purpose do they serve? That is the very core of their existence in my games...they ask questions and seek answers to help them understand. Each monk has their own purpose and it's up to them to discover that purpose, in whatever shape it manifests. They train the body. They train the mind. They share their knowledge or hoard it. They adventure to widen the understanding they seek. Some are heroes, some are villains...but all are seekers.

At least that's monks in my games.