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

[Celebrim]

...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.

There is an even bigger problem. In a world where someone can be trained to be as deadly with their hands they would be with a sword and armor, would a sword and armor ever be invented in the first place? Why would anyone bother?

It's not really a logically reconcilable problem. If it takes the same amount of training to produce a monk as a knight, then why bother going to the incredible overhead and expense of creating all the tools a knight needs to succeed? If on the other hand, it takes less training to produce a knight than a monk then it implies that monks are more experienced and hence higher level than knights. That only thing I could think to do is have not everyone can be trained to be monk because there is some special in fiction 'enlightened' trait that is a prerequisite - high midichlorian count or something - but while that works of arcane knights like the Jedi, for the literal usage of the term 'Monk' this undermines their color.

 

[TwoSix]

There is an even bigger problem. In a world where someone can be trained to be as deadly with their hands they would be with a sword and armor, would a sword and armor ever be invented in the first place? Why would anyone bother?

In a world where everyone can just build a gun, why did anyone invent swords and armor in the first place?

I always hate these arguments, because it implies that classes are presented to every NPC as some kind of menu that's freely available to everyone. Not everyone can be a monk. A monk is special. It doesn't matter how hard you train, you won't get the special monk abilities. It's no different than the fact that hundreds of thousands of kids play baseball, and yet only a few hundred make the major leagues. Those hundred of thousands of kids are the commoners and the town militia. The fighters and the monks are the major leaguers. There the ones with the ability to turn training into effects that no one else is capable of, and it's a talent that isn't reflected in a simple ability score.

 

[Celebrim]

In a world where everyone can just build a gun, why did anyone invent swords and armor in the first place?

Huh? That makes no sense. They invented swords and armor because they were in a world where everyone couldn't just build a gun.

I always hate these arguments, because it implies that classes are presented to every NPC as some kind of menu that's freely available to everyone.

I always hate these arguments, because it is clear that people don't read for content. Reread. It's more than possible I anticipated this objection.

Never mind that you undermine your whole argument when you include both the fighters and the monks in the major leaguers.

 

[Mistwell]

So what is the monk to you and where does it fit?

I think this is a very good question...and I don't have a good answer. It's why I've never played a monk, in any edition of D&D. I feel like it's a class that came out of the Bruce Lee fad of the 70s, and then like most of Lee's characters it simply wandered the D&D settings looking for a purpose since then.

I'd love it if 5e came up with a unique identity for the Monk that fits with the implied setting of the game, but I doubt they will. Not because they're not capable of doing so - but as you said, nobody really knows what the tradition is in D&D already, and they're going for the most traditional version of things. So it will probably end up being something of a Wuxia type character, and most players (and some DMs) will view it as misplaced in the implied medieval-ish westernized fantasy setting of D&D, and it will remain a relatively unpopular class in the game.

For me, it will probably be like the mysterious Blue Wizards of Lord of the Rings - we know they exist, but they're out east somewhere and not appearing in this story.

 

[TwoSix]

Huh? That makes no sense. They invented swords and armor because they were in a world where everyone couldn't just build a gun.

OK, let me clarify. Your point is that "Why be a knight when you can just be a monk." My point is that NPCs don't have that choice, because it's facile to assume that these skills and technologies are developed concurrently or in geographic parallel. Thus the guns and swords metaphor. People made swords because they figured out how to do metalworking long before they developed gunpowder and the more complicated metallurgy that a gun requires. Likewise, one region might have discovered a method of fighting that doesn't require metal armor or weapons because of a lack of available ore. A neighboring region might have an abundance of ore, and thus a cultural history of skilled blacksmiths, and thus a suit of heavy armor is the expected way for warriors to fight.

You're also making assumptions that I don't accept, such as that the amount of training is proportional to level. Someone might choose to become a knight because it's easier to learn to fight in sword and armor than it is to fight unarmed. So the monk takes years to develop a level of fighting skill that takes a knight a few months. Therefore, their expected output and effectiveness is roughly the same, and thus they are the same "level".

I always hate these arguments, because it is clear that people don't read for content. Reread. It's more than possible I anticipated this objection.

How charitable of you.

Never mind that you undermine your whole argument when you include both the fighters and the monks in the major leaguers.

I disagree, and thus circle gets the square.

 

[Minigiant]

Mechanically, there is a reason why you would train fighter knights than combat monks. In 2 editions, a combat heavy monk required higher ability scores than a combat worthy fighter/knight whereas knights required more money and learning of proficiencies. All on the campaign side though. More of a matter if your world favors external technique or internal abilty.

But the "doesn't fit" idea feels weird to me as many games, tabletop, board, and video, have have fit a monk or "master of self" guy into their lore due to D&D's influence.

 

[Derren]

But the "doesn't fit" idea feels weird to me as many games, tabletop, board, and video, have have fit a monk or "master of self" guy into their lore due to D&D's influence.

Right...
The influence of D&D...

 

[Tovec]

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.

The first half at least is right I think. YouOne doesn't play a monk, I don't at least, for the "fights like a fighter" aspect. They might, but one plays them because they have combat ability (warrior) mixed with mystic (aka grab bag of) abilities (priest). So, a monk should be able to fight (people are going to use them that way anyway) in melee front lines, but they shouldn't be expected to be as good as fighter in combat. A fighter maxes out on his combat ability, and monks do less (but in the same vein) while also getting that grab bag of things that .. allow them to run up walls, or ki strike, or slow fall, or whatever. They are fighter+ but they should never be better than or equal to a fighter in pure combat.

My objection Salamandyr is still how you go from the perfectly reasonable first half to the second half without the steps in between - something I said last time. Let's substitute some other variables in and see if you think it still holds water.

You (direct quote):
"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."

Obviously not you:
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 [are blessed by a deity], you are as hard to damage as someone in plate armor and as deadly with your [sword] 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.

Again, I don't see how that follows. The problem you seem to have is hands = sword. That is it. That is all. But a paladin who is blessed by his god, I'm assuming, you would have no problem with when he has sword + smite (extra damage or effect). Or a rogue who has sword + sneak attack (whatever extra form it ends up being). But the second fists = sword (and usually a fair bit less damage overall) then it becomes crazy and breaks your fiction?

Also, your assumption is "not that highly trained," which he IS. In a different field. A wizard (at level 1) can cast spells. A fighter (IMHO) never should have that ability. Therefore (by your logic) is the inherent assumption that a guy who uses plate armor and swords is not that highly trained. Except by my assumptions he IS... in a different field.

I don't get it but if that is your breaking point I guess I have two solutions. First make the monk require a weapon, problem solved. Second, don't play a monk, ever. No one is forcing you to. And when I don't have a problem with the guy with fists as swords (which I already disproved last post too) then I can still play the guy with fists as swords.

It's no different than the fact that hundreds of thousands of kids play baseball, and yet only a few hundred make the major leagues. Those hundred of thousands of kids are the commoners and the town militia.

Millions of kids even I played baseball for years and was terrible at it, it is just the thing kids do.. isn't it? I guess the example today would be soccer. What were we talking about? Oh yeah,..

Overall, agreed TwoSix, just can't XP you.

Huh? That makes no sense. They invented swords and armor because they were in a world where everyone couldn't just build a gun.

If gold was widely available, in order to make a gold standard, how did silver coins become popular? With elves(or dwarves) who are such master craftsmen, why did human crafting become so popular? If alchemy existed (to create everburning torches) why did lanterns become to popular?

Those kinds of questions ultimately fail. You start analyzing the specifics and motives of the world of DnD? Monks have different training. Why do clerics exist if druids can already cast divine spells, why do fighters exist when barbarians exist, why does 4th edition exist since 3e worked? The answer isn't limited to monks, fighters and baseball.

Never mind that you undermine your whole argument when you include both the fighters and the monks in the major leaguers.

It's true. It is more like fighters are major-leaguers in baseball, and monks are master painters. Silly TwoSix. Jugglers and Olympic level swimmers. Arcane Archmagi and Divine Heirophants. Should there only be one?

I'd love it if 5e came up with a unique identity for the Monk that fits with the implied setting of the game, but I doubt they will. Not because they're not capable of doing so - but as you said, nobody really knows what the tradition is in D&D already, and they're going for the most traditional version of things. So it will probably end up being something of a Wuxia type character, and most players (and some DMs) will view it as misplaced in the implied medieval-ish westernized fantasy setting of D&D, and it will remain a relatively unpopular class in the game.

*Reads "implied setting"*
*Groans*
*Thinks up a half dozen different objections to comment*
*Groans again*
*Decides it isn't worth it, deletes those half dozen objections*
*Sighs in relief*

Mechanically, there is a reason why you would train fighter knights than combat monks. In 2 editions, a combat heavy monk required higher ability scores than a combat worthy fighter/knight whereas knights required more money and learning of proficiencies. All on the campaign side though. More of a matter if your world favors external technique or internal abilty.

But the "doesn't fit" idea feels weird to me as many games, tabletop, board, and video, have have fit a monk or "master of self" guy into their lore due to D&D's influence.

Agreed, I think.

 

[Remathilis]

There is an even bigger problem. In a world where someone can be trained to be as deadly with their hands they would be with a sword and armor, would a sword and armor ever be invented in the first place? Why would anyone bother?

Eff that noise; if it takes the same amount of XP to become a knight, monk, or wizard, why the hell would you ever train anyone to be anything BUT a wizard! Wizard's decimate armies at 5th level. They assassinate kings at 9th. The re-write reality at 13th. Why would weapons, armor, siege engines, castles, armies, or calvary be invented in a world with teleport, fireball, scying, flight, and invisibility spells?

Unless, of course, not everyone can be a wizard. Like not everyone can be a monk.

 

[Cyberen]

This thread is erring dangerously on the "Fighters are just dude with pointy sticks - not everybody can be as cool as [insert class here]". I don't want another edition where every fighter variant outshines the fighter because of Special Training / Manifest Destiny vs ordinary dude.
I want the Fighter to be designed as the Last Man Standing. Feel free to include (or not) a Brawler subclass.
I would love the Monk build to be one flavour ("default subclass") of psychic warriors, so I don't have to invite Bruce Lee to delve into the Moria.