Stuff you don't have a problem with, but will never use

[Salamandyr]

Most are silly, but the lajatang is real, right?

My problem with double weapons isn't that there aren't real live objects with damaging bits at both ends, but that one uses the entirety of every weapon. Halberdier's use the butt to trip and thrust, swordsmen pommel smash and joint lock using the quillons, etc.

Without getting too bogged down on fighting styles and what I think is accurate and such, I feel which end of a weapon you're using at anyone moment is really something that should be kept part of the abstract part of "I swing my weapon".

 

[Lord Mhoram]

As I said, or at least implied. I don't like the monk because it stomps all over other character concepts, or, it's unnecessary because it's something that all warrior types should be able to do.

I can see that. When they have a class that lets me play an unarmed unarmored fighter whose life approach is meditation and philosophy (the way a paladin's if Faith) then I would be okay with that.

I have no problems with a Psionic monk - I've done similar things with multiclass or gestalt.

The thing I like most about the monk is that he has these odd abilities, that are him - not external magic, not grace given by gods, but supernatural/border supernatural abilities that he honed his spirit and body to be able to do.

The fighter that trains his muscles could learn the same thing, if he approach life as a balance of body/mind/spirit (in which case he would likely multiclass to monk though.. hmm...)

My favorite single class in D&D since 1st AD&D.

 

[Stalker0]

XP.

I don't like leveling my players based on what they fight. I level them as appropriate, and I'll never go back!

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

In the vein of things I don't like, and don't want in the games...monks.

I don't like monks. Not because they're Eastern. Eastern is fine. I would happily play in a game based on, say, the battle of Red Cliffs, or one where the fighter was refluffed as a samurai and such.

Why I don't like the monk is because the monk belongs to an entirely different class of storytelling than the other player characters. The fighter and rogue are designed to emulate sword & sorcery, essentially action stories, where the abilities of the protagonists, while improbable, are at least physically possible, if not particularly likely.

Monks belong to a wuxia, kung fu stories, where, if you train long and hard enough, you can balance on a leaf, leap 100 feet through the air, or dodge 100 arrows fired at you at one time. Likewise, if it's possible to slay a dragon naked, with your bare hands if you're skilled enough, what does that say about the skills of someone who needs to be encased in steel and wielding a sword to do the same thing?

In the world of Conan, the greatest of warriors, when armed in a corselet of Shemite steel and wielding an Aquilonion broadsword, can stand against all comers as long as his back is to a wall. In the world of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, the greatest of warriors can fly. To me, that's a difference in storytelling techniques, not character class. Both Li Mu Bayin CTHD and Conan are fighters, if you told Conan's tale as a wuxia story, he would be able to fly too, because that's what great fighters do.

You don't need two character classes "this one trains really hard and becomes a good fighter who is limited by the realities of flesh" and "this one trains really hard and becomes a superhero". You need one class, and two different campaign modules.

Not to derail, but I'd say the monk is a spiritual warrior who strives for enlightenment by serving his principles through combat... I.e., a Taoist/Confucian version of a paladin. Now obviously there are campaign worlds where paladins wouldn't fit either, but if you don't mind spiritual warrior classes and you don't mind Eastern flavor, I'd think you could make monks fit.

Ps: From what we've seen, a high-level 5e fighter will get like 90% of his damage from CS and probably COULD punch a dragon to death.

 

[triqui]

Monks belong to a wuxia, kung fu stories, where, if you train long and hard enough, you can balance on a leaf, leap 100 feet through the air, or dodge 100 arrows fired at you at one time. Likewise, if it's possible to slay a dragon naked, with your bare hands if you're skilled enough, what does that say about the skills of someone who needs to be encased in steel and wielding a sword to do the same thing?

Well, Beowulf killed a demon (grendel) naked, and with bare hands. Yet he is not a monk.

I think the problem you have with monks, is that you see them as "martial". They are not, they are mystical in nature. Sure, real life shaolin monks are martial. But the ones you see in a D&D world, are not.

Yes, they fly from leaf to leaf. But that does not make them more badass than Beowulf. They fly, just like the party cleric can cast Air Walk. I see them like a "fighter-wizard", which happen to use a different kind of magic. A fighter-wizard also fight without armor (he protect himself with "mage armor" and "shield" spells), and can fly, use dimensional door, become ethereal, and whatever. This does not step on Beowulf toes, because they are different kind of characters.

However, I might agree that (3e) fighters aren't "cool enough", compared to magical fighters (be it a "fighter-wizard" elven bladesinger, or a monk). But that's because fighters need cooler and unique things, something I hope 5e does right this time.

 

[Tovec]

Tovec,

You are correct; I am violating the terms of my thread. I throw myself upon the mercy of the court, pleading only it was going that way already, and I just went along for the ride.

It's all cool Gotta congratulate you though, three straight pages where you are the first poster - impressive.

As to your point about the monk. You pointed out something I did not explicitly say, but is implicit in what I did say (and it's close to something I said elsewhere). In fact, what you said kind of proves my point about monks. They step all over everybody else...especially the fighter.

What I tried to say is that monk Should carve out his own niche within classes. If we are going to subscribe to the four main classes/roles idea then the monk is 5. He should be GREAT at 5 but sup-par when compared to the elite of any of the 4. In my opinion if a monk specializes he could and perhaps should be a fighter+. That doesn't mean that he should replace the fighter or surpass him but it does mean that if a monk trains up I have no problems seeing him as good in battle. It doesn't ruin the fighter's schtick anymore than having a paladin does. A paladin and a monk are both different paths who happen to use fighting. But if someone wants to be that guy in full plate or the elite combat specialist he shouldn't be dallying around with anything else.

Look at what you wrote, the fighter trains every day, but the monk is the "totality", "perfection". You're defining what it means to be the other class. And the thing is, for the monk to exist, you have to do that. For the monk to carve out a space of its own, it has to be "special". There's no room for the fighter who becomes one with his blade, the most perfect blend of martial form imaginable, because that's the monk. The fighter's just a guy who needs a toolbox of gear to do what the monk does with all his super special training that nobody else has access to.

What I also wrote is that the monk has a toolbox with completely different tools. If the fighter is a carpenter and crafter with all the best woodworking tools in the world that is great, then the monk could be a painter. The fighter creates something far more tangible and something useful every day but he'll never be able to create the same level of beauty of the monk's landscapes or evoke the same kind of emotional range of expression in his work. That is fine though because the monk is never going to craft a good solid chair that will support the weight of a 1000 lb man. They are different toolkits for a reason and I think both are equally valid.

The monk really does not fit in a campaign set in, for instance, Arthurian Britain. Knights of the Round Table don't wear armor because they need it. It's not a fashion choice. A guy who can fight so well that he needs neither sword nor armor to be as damaging and well protected as Lancelot, well it makes a mockery of the entire story.

Rangers, paladins, warlocks (as in the specific class it is now), sorcerers (as they are now - 2 souls and whatnot), clerics, bards, etc. None of these belong in Arthurian legend either. Merlin was the only true wizard to my (limited) knowledge - Morganna was a witch

The question shouldn't be if a class fits in one specific setting or another. The question should be if a class has a unique set of skills, role, or mechanic that validates creating a new class. Rangers aren't paladins and wizards aren't fighters. There is some blending or grey area between classes but I really would hate to see them do away with certain classes because they figured it was basically just a fighter or wizard or rogue.

As I said, or at least implied. I don't like the monk because it stomps all over other character concepts, or, it's unnecessary because it's something that all warrior types should be able to do.

Again, monks are the great number 5 class. They aren't fighters, they aren't rogues, they aren't wizards and they aren't clerics. They are a mix of all four. They (may) fight in melee as a fighter and possibly become (nearly) as good as him in that arena. They may gather skills and tricks to aid them in battle and out of battle, just as a rogue does but they aren't a rogue either. (Just a quick note: flurry of blows =/= sneak attack.) They may fly through the air, or jump from feather to feather, or perhaps even balance on water; but none of these things make them a wizard because they draw this power not from spells but through sheer ability. And lastly they MAY devote their whole life to attaining true understanding of their form and sequester their lives away in a mountain monastery for years, just as a cleric might, but they aren't going to go around healing people and turning undead.

I may have forgot to mention last time but if you don't like monks in your setting that is fine. A solution might be either to reclass them as mystics or it might be to not use them at all. But more people than just me seem to agree monk is and should remain its own class.

 

[triqui]

Rangers, paladins, warlocks (as in the specific class it is now), sorcerers (as they are now - 2 souls and whatnot), clerics, bards, etc. None of these belong in Arthurian legend either. Merlin was the only true wizard to my (limited) knowledge - Morganna was a witch

That's not true, most of those classes are in Arthuran legends. Sir Galahad is a Paladin, Morgana is what 5e calls a warlock, there are bards, and rangers, and clerics (the fisherman king) all around in arthurian legends. They don't have *exactly* the same features than in D&D (Merlin does not cast Vancian magic and do not have Rope Trick spell, either). but they roles are there.

 

[Tovec]

That's not true, most of those classes are in Arthuran legends. Sir Galahad is a Paladin, Morgana is what 5e calls a warlock, there are bards, and rangers, and clerics (the fisherman king) all around in arthurian legends. They don't have *exactly* the same features than in D&D (Merlin does not cast Vancian magic and do not have Rope Trick spell, either). but they roles are there.

Well there are two ways to look at a class, either with the flavour of the class or with the mechanics.

Either the flavour of paladins, warlocks, etc. don't fit - as knights aren't paladins and not divinely powered evil slaying what's its. For this, Merlin being a wizard is good enough regardless of vancian casting. Morganna would then be a Witch, not a Warlock. Either way there wouldn't be a 2 souled sorcerer - so I guess that class will have to go.

Or the mechanics don't fit - as paladins cannot smite or detect evil. The cleric can't turn undead. And as you said, Merlin doesn't have vancian casting so he isn't a wizard.

Either way, I can understand if you think the non-monk classes fit better into a psudo-european setting and the monk doesn't. I'm just saying that I have no problem thinking of the monk either as a monk or as a mystic.

Also, it becomes more and more of a problem when you try to fit the classes from DnD onto an existing non-classless system as the real world is. Not impossible but the lines are certainly blurred at best. But, if you don't like monk don't use him.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I still don't understand the eastern/oriental/ki etc obsession with the monk some seem to have, not of that is mentioned anywhere with the original monk.

 

[slobster]

I still don't understand the eastern/oriental/ki etc obsession with the monk some seem to have, not of that is mentioned anywhere with the original monk.

Well it meshes well with the eastern stereotype of the martial artist monk. A lot of the art for monks has obvious Eastern influences. Class abilities and attack abilities have names that call to mind zen and buddhism, and often include the word "ki". 3.5 monks at least have weapon proficiencies that come from asian sources. Prestige classes and paragon paths for monks are sometimes explicitly rooted in Eastern mythology or culture.

I think that's a good start for why some people associate monks with Eastern influences.