D&D (2024) New Classes for 5e. Is anything missing?

[Minigiant]

And I'm saying that I would change that. Capiche?

I'm saying oaths are mostly external but the monk is flavored as the master of the internal.

We can have European, African, and American stylized monks. But Oaths feel off in monks and belonging to either paladins or a new class flavorwise.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm saying oaths are mostly external but the monk is flavored as the master of the internal.

We can have European, African, and American stylized monks. But Oaths feel off in monks and belonging to either paladins or a new class flavorwise.

(1) I don't care about your internal/external dichotomy you are making here with vows, because it won't necessarily hold up. (2) I'm framing this primarily in terms of vows. Are you going to tell me that monastic vows are somehow inappropriate for monks?

 

[Mecheon]

Are you going to tell me that monastic vows are somehow inappropriate for monks?

I mean, in they way they are in D&D.... Yeah? Its just applying a western monk idea to a chassis for something completely different. The western monk doesn't really fight, aside from the one big exception.

The warrior using Ki as a weapon is a longstanding thing that's representated as the monk, but includes plenty of varied stuff that fits the general theme. A warrior using vows as their strength, I gotta be honest, I'd think that'd be more "Barbarian" because that's Cu Chullain and his geas' right there

 

[Mind of tempest]

(1) I don't care about your internal/external dichotomy you are making here with vows, because it won't necessarily hold up. (2) I'm framing this primarily in terms of vows. Are you going to tell me that monastic vows are somehow inappropriate for monks?

monastic vows have never had a to gain power thing to them, get closer to the divine or enlightenment but sacrifice sure but not abilities, besides I would rather just change the name to matter express it, mystical martial artist than go completely back to the drawing board.
now housing your idea for a hashashin might work.

 

[Aldarc]

I mean, in they way they are in D&D.... Yeah? Its just applying a western monk idea to a chassis for something completely different. The western monk doesn't really fight, aside from the one big exception.

Western monk? Monastic vows are also part of other non-Christian monastic traditions across the globe.

monastic vows have never had a to gain power thing to them,

Neither were Oaths until 5e.

 

[Remathilis]

(1) I don't care about your internal/external dichotomy you are making here with vows, because it won't necessarily hold up. (2) I'm framing this primarily in terms of vows. Are you going to tell me that monastic vows are somehow inappropriate for monks?

Please explain the difference between a monk using a vow, a paladin using an oath, and a cleric gaining power though faith. Explain it to me like I'm a child.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I actually think there is room for 2 gish classes, that are meaningfully different.

While it would be quite a time-sink, @Parmandur and others’ comments about artificers and runes has me wondering if the artificer’s chassis isn’t a good starting point for a swordmage. Runes in place of Infusions, cantrips and round up half casting, maybe no extra attack in the base class, etc. Or, just to encourage some new ideas with nomenclature 5e isn't using yet, call the infusion inspired features Dweomers, and make sure the class has spells like Glyph of Warding and Magic Circle. This Dweomer Mage would have a lot of abjuration, and a lot of stuff that boosts them or creates areas, and rely on weapons boosted by magic for offense. This speaks to the "get ready for battle and then wreck it" gish. Maybe boosted versions ofthe SCAG cantrips instead of a choice of cantrips? So when Booming Blade goes off, it's a 5ft radius, and green flame blade hits multiple targets with the secondary burn or it has greater reach. Something like that.

That idea could just as easily be an Artificer subclass. Like swords bard to battlesmith's valor bard, which proves it's okay.

That's a minimum answer to making a buffs-weapon-with-runes swordmage, but it works.

 

[Aldarc]

Please explain the difference between a monk using a vow, a paladin using an oath, and a cleric gaining power though faith. Explain it to me like I'm a child.

I would prefer not to explain it to anyone like a child.

There is certainly overlap between all three terms, particularly given the often solemn, religious, or sacred nature that faith, oaths, and vows often take. This should hardly be surprising considering that monks, paladins, and clerics have their roots in historical religions.

Nevertheless, there are distinctions, however fine or neglible one may think, between oaths and vows. As to the distinction between a "vow" and an "oath," this is a simple explanation that I found:

With the vow to accomplish something, a person dedicates himself to the task wholly. Whoever takes an oath to accomplish something is required to answer for it, for he has named himself or some one of his belongings as a pledge of his commitment and is thus bound by his very life, his honor, and his property.

Vows and oaths therefore affect a person's whole being; they put one's very existence in pawn. There is a distinct difference, however, between an oath and a vow: a vow is merely a personal promise, whereas an oath is a promise made before some institutional authority. In taking an oath, a person not only assumes an obligation but also becomes liable to prosecution; the state and society have an interest in his act. Oaths serve as objective guarantees of what is promised. Swearing to tell the truth, one guarantees that what one says is true. Oaths are self-endorsing.

The practice of oath taking by which a person places his very life at risk is an extremely ancient one. It is an institution of coercion, "the most powerful coercion known to primitive man" (Thurnwald, 1925, vol. 2, p. 39). Oaths are encountered among all peoples and in all cultures. They are a primal symbol of religion.

Because they are absolutely binding by nature, and because they are subject to both misuse and overuse, oaths are nevertheless looked upon with some suspicion in the fields of ethics, politics, and jurisprudence. They have to be judged in themselves, in relation to the particular substance of the promise they contain and the nature of the guarantee, as both tend to vary considerably depending on the level of the given culture and the conventions of the applicable code of law.

It's the reason why we don't talk of "monastic oaths" but, rather, of "monastic vows." Vows are found across monastic traditions in Christianity, Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. People already associate monks, in general, with the language of vows. That's one reason why I personally IMHO like tying monks with "vows," something that reinforces the already present idea of "monastic traditions" that we see with the 5e monk.

This is a personal preference reflecting the whole "why/how would you rewrite the monk?" bit earlier. I personally would prefer the flavor monks shifted to either Vows or Psionics. With the former, it moves Monks closer to the religious sphere (e.g., Clerics, Paladins) whereas the latter moves Monks closer to the psionic sphere (e.g., Psions, Psychic Warrior, etc.).

 

[Mind of tempest]

Western monk? Monastic vows are also part of other non-Christian monastic traditions across the globe.


Neither were Oaths until 5e.

bargain with heaven is a trope hence the paladin but it is not really a monastic thing

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That idea could just as easily be an Artificer subclass. Like swords bard to battlesmith's valor bard, which proves it's okay.

That's a minimum answer to making a buffs-weapon-with-runes swordmage, but it works.

I’m pretty much never going to be interested in an “answer” to a class concept that is just “it could just be a subclass”.

So could every other class.