D&D 5E The Monk - What is the monk to you and why?

[Minigiant]

I agree. In 4e, for instance, there are at least two ways of building a monk-like character: the monk class, and the avenger class.

You can also see this if you look at Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, in which his monk variant is The Oathsworn.

@Minigiant , @Salamandyr - I think your arguments, if followed through on, will tend to produce "monks" that no one will play. For instance, no one in a typical D&D game is going to build a 10th level fighter but then drop their armour and weapons and fight bare-handed against 5th level monsters. That's unreaslistic except in some pretty niche situations. So for those who want to play someone who fits the Jet Li or Crouching Tiger archetype, we need a class that makes fighting without arms or armour mechanically viable. And it needs to do so from 1st level, much like a paladin or fighter or thief needs to be a viable representation of their basic archetype from 1st level.

The monk would be able to do warrior stuff at 1st level. The real difference is that the unarmed/simpleweapon and unarmored tactic will not be the focus. They would get bonuses to tumbling, jumping, seeing things, and detecting lies.

The only difference is that you are not a Jedi Knight or Jedi Master at level 1. At level 1, a monk is more like a newbie padawan. No slouch but you'll only be able to knock away one thrown spear. Not 11. They are tricksters who can fight. Monks rely on all their learned abilities to fight on level with a warrior with weapon and armor.

This is why the Ki model is great. When they are using Ki they are warrior quality, for even better at fighting than a normal warrior. But when they don't/cant use ki, they are rogues without sneak attack. Much like a rogue with neither an advantage from their tricks and skills nor nearby friends can't fight equal level threats. Or a bard who is out of magic and songs can't fight off the pirates and orcs.

 

[Cyberen]

I am with [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] an [MENTION=40233]Salamandyr[/MENTION] here : the Monk doesn't really belong to a rationnally designed fantasy game, and neither the Barbarian nor the Ranger, blabla...
But, wait ! We can't afford to design a new game from top down here. We're talking D&D Next, which main duty is the ability to emulate previous editions out of the box. Previous material (either official, 3pp, or homebrewed) include "Barbarians", "Rangers" and "Monks", so Next has to support those *keywords* natively, even if the concepts are lousy.
I really dig the idea of psionic warriors, and I would theoretically put D&D monks, Jedi, and battleragers under this umbrella (and have the totem warrior be a flavour of ranger).

 

[Celebrim]

We're talking D&D Next, which main duty is the ability to emulate previous editions out of the box. Previous material (either official, 3pp, or homebrewed) include "Barbarians", "Rangers" and "Monks", so Next has to support those *keywords* natively, even if the concepts are lousy.

Yeah. The design team doesn't seem to have a lot of room. People have expectations about D&D. If their pet thing is redone or missing, they are up in arms.

As for psionic warriors, if it were me, I'd make some sort of generic mystic warrior class supporting monks, jedi, psionic warriors, sword mages, and whatever else you wanted to flavor here or say as fitting here. The present class in that space between warrior and wizard, the bard, just doesn't support what people usually want to play.

I haven't really been interested in psionics since 1e. In 1e it was a system for having magical power independent of the class/level system. I have never understood the point or attraction of having it part of the class/level system. I could see using the psion as your base wizard class if you didn't care for some of the Vancian tropes, but I can't see the point or the rationale behind both psions and wizards. People try to explain to me the difference between magic and psionics, and I'm like, "What?" I can see that it makes sense in other peoples heads, but I can't ever see what they are seeing.

 

[Herschel]

An unarmored psionic warrior.

In "classic" fantasy, they're guys in robes who are fighters who call on inner reserves of strength and power to do great feats. Many are unarmed, but they are often also portrayed as proficient with many different types of weapons.

 

[Minigiant]

But, wait ! We can't afford to design a new game from top down here. We're talking D&D Next, which main duty is the ability to emulate previous editions out of the box. Previous material (either official, 3pp, or homebrewed) include "Barbarians", "Rangers" and "Monks", so Next has to support those *keywords* natively, even if the concepts are lousy.
I really dig the idea of psionic warriors, and I would theoretically put D&D monks, Jedi, and battleragers under this umbrella (and have the totem warrior be a flavour of ranger).

Pretty much. The narrow hole we place in for the fighter and rogue class birthed the barbarian, ranger, monks, and most of the other classes. If you could just swap sneak attack for ki based martial arts or rages or whatever, there wouldnt be much of a question what monks are. You could pick supernaturall martial arts warrior or SMA trickster or SMA priest then pick the right skills/background and poof.

Because D&D has never taken that route, we must argue on where on the warrior-trickster axis the monk is.

 

[Cyberen]

I want to make one of my statement perfectly clear : I wouldn't put the compatibility (main) objective as a matter of tradition, nostalgia, grognardia, or even a business decision to get the OSR players back. I think WotC has decided to increase its back catalog value by rendering it compatible with its new and potentially evergreen edition. If in some 1e module, BECMI Gazeteer, 2e campaign guide, 3e AP, 4e Delve, and even PathFinder adventure, some "first PHB class" or "iconic monster" is mentionned, it'd better be supported by Next, in the sense Next should be able to create a new sheet/statblock functionnally close to the original intent.
I think it's a smart strategy, not a jerk move.

 

[Herschel]

There will never be an "Evergreen" edition as long as core books are the big sellers.

 

[Sadrik]

There is one other thing that I see the monk as which has not been expressed in this thread and that is the mystical angle and how it could relate to the 5e monk mechanically. The 5e monk has ki which are like power points for certain preselected abilities that it can power. The term ki is very much attached to eastern mysticism back off of that a bit. Make them power points. Also, make them a caster class, I mean these are supernatural abilities. If they are a caster class then that means they would be vancian. Then, I would make a casting methodolgy that could be applied, similar to a warlock's at-will or a psion's power point methodology but have it be an "always on" methodolgy. For instance they might have armor spell always on to signify their unarmored aspect.

Whatever has to happen I want the eastern mysticism backed off from and that means for me removing the punching is better than weapons (make a feat that allows that for any class). Bring it into the fold as a mystical warrior class as others have mentioned, so it fits into any game and the DM does not have to think... well actually, in my Ravenloft game your monk concept does not really fit...

 

[Mallus]

Li Mu Bai doesn't fit into a story with D'Artagnan and Conan, not because he's Asian, but because the fiction he inhabits has different assumptions about personal abilities.

But isn't traditional D&D about Li Mu Bai, D'Artagnan (or Errol Flynn!), and Conan, along with Gandalf, a Knight Templar, Cugel the Clever, Legolas, and a sort of hybrid of Legolas and Gandalf not only existing in the same story, but actively hanging out together? Typically this story begins with them all walking into a bar... and receiving a quest involving dangerous monsters and treasure.

Baseline D&D is a mash-up of different genres influences and assumptions. It's eclectic, to say the least. More focused campaigns and settings are outliers.

Personally, I think the monk exemplifies D&D-style fantasy. "Hey, this is cool, let's add it into the mix!".

FYI, the 13 Age playtest monk is quite good. There's a simple/elegant mechanic for emulating the flow of a movie martial arts combat. It's a very nice marriage of mechanics and fiction.

 

[Salamandyr]

But isn't traditional D&D about Li Mu Bai, D'Artagnan (or Errol Flynn!), and Conan, along with Gandalf, a Knight Templar, Cugel the Clever, Legolas, and a sort of hybrid of Legolas and Gandalf not only existing in the same story, but actively hanging out together? Typically this story begins with them all walking into a bar... and receiving a quest involving dangerous monsters and treasure.

Baseline D&D is a mash-up of different genres influences and assumptions. It's eclectic, to say the least. More focused campaigns and settings are outliers.

Personally, I think the monk exemplifies D&D-style fantasy. "Hey, this is cool, let's add it into the mix!".

FYI, the 13 Age playtest monk is quite good. There's a simple/elegant mechanic for emulating the flow of a movie martial arts combat. It's a very nice marriage of mechanics and fiction.

Stipulated that this is true, which is why I have pretty much accepted that the monk will be in the core game. To me this is kind of like the Justice League; if you think about it real hard, it kind of stops making sense to believe that Batman can contribute to the same extent Superman can. What normally happens is Batman gets a Justice League powerup that doesn't effect his normal books-because we really like to read stories where Batman and Superman hang out and do stuff (at least I do).

But this thread asked us what we thought of the monk, and I gave my opinion. The monk bugs me in the same way that including Buck Rogers into the party would bug me (okay that's actually pretty fun as an occasional diversion--but I don't really want the core game of D&D to be "Elves, Dwarves, Dragons, Barbarians, and Spacemen").

That reminds me of something. D&D has always had the monk as inferior to the fighter at fighting, but with more breadth. So if you wanted to be really, really good at fighting, you used a sword, but if you wanted a lot of wild-ass abilities and the ability to fight a little bit, you had the monk. What they're talking about now, is the monk being the equal of the fighter, only fighter will need toys to do what the monk does buck naked. And as I keep saying, if you're trying to created a coherent world, and included in that fiction is the idea that if you train hard enough, you are as hard to damage as someone in plate armor and as deadly with your hands as a sword, spear, or mace, then inherent in that fiction is the idea that the guy who uses plate armor and swords is not that highly trained.