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

[Argyle King]

I think what needs to happen in the context of D&D is a splitting of the monk classes into pieces.

For unarmed fighting, I think there simply needs to be an option for a guy (or girl) who is skilled at fighting unarmed.

For the mystic chi warrior archetype, there needs to be something which explains why everyone doesn't just train to be a monk.

I also believe monk needs to be some sort of background/fluff as well.

It's certainly possible for one character to have all of these.


The problem with the first idea is that it raises the question of how effective an unarmed strike can be against armor. Realistically, if you can acquire a weapon, you normally do. However, it's hard to argue realism when some of the other things that are possible in D&D are possible. Still, it might be best for an unarmed warrior in the context of D&D to focus on things such as throws and locks. Such a character might very well also learn unarmed strikes, but such things would most likely not be the main focus of the class. Taking an opponent off of his feet or using leverage to move your opponent into a certain position can be important even in an armed and armored fight. I suppose many of those things would be feats though.

The mystic warrior idea is pretty easy to do, and there are several ways it could work. In a world where a paladin can channel divine energy to smite foes with a sword, why couldn't a monk channel the will of a god into his fists? Why couldn't Chi be a type of sorcery which focuses on inner magic (meaning augmenting yourself) and provide things like metal splitting punches and kicks instead of focusing on outward effects such as fireballs and magic missiles. 4th Edition's take on making the class psionic could make sense as well. Maybe multiple styles exist and all of those ideas are simply different methods of tapping into similar techniques.

 

[pemerton]

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?

Maybe Zan Yae, Zuoken and the Cat Lord taught their first disciples how to fight as monks, while Heironeous and Hextor taught their first disciples to make and wield arms and armour?

In a fantasy world I tend to assume that most cultural practices - and most everything, for that matter - is as or more likely to have a non-naturalistic rather than naturalistic explanation.

 

[pemerton]

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

<snip>

Whatever has to happen I want the eastern mysticism backed off from and that means for me removing the punching is better than weapons

The monk has never been a caster, and has always exemplified "the mysterious wisdom of the east" (which is Celebrim's Orientalism point).

Changing those things would seem to be a mistake. Make a new class like that, sure (wouldn't that be a Pscyhic Warrior in 3E terms?) but you're no longer talking about the traditional D&D monk.

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.

I think this is a good analysis of both the commercial and gaming logic of D&Dnext.

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?

Exactly!

I mean, in the current playtest the barbarian has skin that's as tough as dragon leather - but we don't ask why the thief doesn't just train as a barbarian to save the cost of buying armour! The barbarian exhibits its genre tropes, the thief its. And the monk its.

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.

No. The fighter is differently trained. Just like the thief and barbarian are differently trained. And at least traditionally in D&D it has been an advantage, rather than a detriment, to use weapons and armour because magic armour is more common than magic cloaks or rings, and until 3E there were no items to benefit monk unarmed attacks at all other than Slippers of Kicking.

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.

Whatever mechanical benefits the fighter has over the paladin, s/he can have the same ones (mutatis mutandis) over the monk.

As for the thematic oomph of the fighter, D&Dnext seems to be sticking to the traditional lack of such a thing.

 

[Li Shenron]

The monk has never been a caster, and has always exemplified "the mysterious wisdom of the east" (which is Celebrim's Orientalism point).

Changing those things would seem to be a mistake. Make a new class like that, sure (wouldn't that be a Pscyhic Warrior in 3E terms?) but you're no longer talking about the traditional D&D monk.

Me too have always seen the Monk basically like that, perhaps because that was the way the Monk was introduced to me the first time in D&D, as a "mysterious wise traveller from faraway lands". I am all in favour of WotC maintaining tradition as much as possible.

That said, the Monk never grew much on me beyond that concept. Truth is probably, I just like traditional genres to stay separate. I might enjoy once adding up asian themes to the baseline fantasy, or once including aliens, or once including firearms. Otherwise I have my limits to the kitchen sink approach.

And that has nothing to do with the current implementation of the Monk, which as far as I can tell is very good. It's only that when I want to play classic D&D, I don't like asian themes, or sci-fi themes, or too modern techs. I prefer playing in a clear, full-asian setting (Rokugan is my favourite).

There is also a component of historical accuracy, but it's minimal. It's more about overall "look & feel". When I play in a traditional fantasy setting, I want it to feel like our characters are adventuring in an alternate dark-ages/medieval Europe, perhaps in a Homer's epic or a Dante's book. Having someone doing kung fu chops just doesn't fit for my tastes.

Thus in the most general terms, the Monk is and will always be for me a character for an Asian-themed fantasy setting.

However, in practical terms, I think the mystic/monastic/withdrawn lifestyle and extreme training focused on self-control, inner strength, and spirituality is the most essential defining characteristic of a Monk, for my preferences. Not so much the unarmed fighting, in fact I think that I will always prefer them armed (with light weapons mostly). Supernatural abilities are OK for me, but subject to the general tone of low/high magic in a current campaign, so I'd rather have stock Monks with only few supernatural abilities, and let variants increase that (more or less what 5e is doing with Monk subclasses).

 

[pemerton]

Not so much the unarmed fighting, in fact I think that I will always prefer them armed (with light weapons mostly).

In 4e they can use weapons or not - their attacks have the same hit-bonus and damage regardless. But they can take feats to leverage different weapons. And once magic items come into play, different sorts of weapon or non-weapon attack enhancers open up different possibilities for rider effects, special attacks etc.

 

[Celebrim]

Maybe Zan Yae, Zuoken and the Cat Lord taught their first disciples how to fight as monks, while Heironeous and Hextor taught their first disciples to make and wield arms and armour?

In a fantasy world I tend to assume that most cultural practices - and most everything, for that matter - is as or more likely to have a non-naturalistic rather than naturalistic explanation.

The origin of the skills is not really important to the point. The point is that if fighting bare handed really is as effective as fighting with weapons, then Heironeous and Hextor have taught their followers and inherently inferior form of warfare. The armies that oppose their followers can be more cheaply equipped, more easily maintained, move more rapidly in the field, will suffer less from the effects of climate, and can never be disarmed. You would expect over time the practitioners of the weapon techniques to lose to the practitioners of the unarmed techniques.

For me, it comes down to the fact that even if you imagine the monk, it doesn't really work for me cinematically. Every sword vs. open hand kata I've ever seen just looks dumb and is so clearly impractical. Watching them advantage of a sword is pretty clear - it makes a merely ordinary athlete or warrior every bit the equal or superior to a kung fu master. The notion is illogical on every level, even down to its verisimilitude to the story material. In Kung Fu movies, typically either no one uses swords (weapons) or everyone does as a convention of the story. There is nothing in the conventions of Wuxia that says that the contest is equal if two equal skilled practitioners meet and one is armed and one isn't. Instead, a 'low level' swordsman is defeated by a 'higher level' unarmed martial artist. Li Mu Bai is a swordsman, and CTHT is a swords movie, and no one in it is a monk. The Shaolin where warrior monks who did not willing meet armed foes unarmed. The practice of unarmed martial arts in the east shouldn't be taken as some mystical narrative driven equivalency between weapons and no weapons (because it doesn't exist), but as the result of the particular sociopolitical history of the region that forced ordinary non-aristocratic people to learn how to defend themselves unarmed or with simple or improvised weapons.

Ultimately, the mystical equivalency between no weapons and weapons comes down to the need to not portray graphic violence in a 1970's American TV show. You might as well have a gaming system that when PC's and NPC's fight, big animated text boxes that say, "Splat!' and "Kapow!" appear in the game universe.

 

[TwoSix]

Ultimately, the mystical equivalency between no weapons and weapons comes down to the need to not portray graphic violence in a 1970's American TV show. You might as well have a gaming system that when PC's and NPC's fight, big animated text boxes that say, "Splat!' and "Kapow!" appear in the game universe.

With the HP system in general, I have trouble viewing combat any other way. Zoomed-in combat looks like Soul Calibur, and zoomed-out combat looks like Final Fantasy Tactics.

 

[Mistwell]

*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*

Don't be so passive-aggressive. And yes, you quoting someone and then groaning and sighing a bunch but not actually commenting is passive-aggressive. If you're unsure, ask yourself what would happen if you did that to your significant other. If you really decided it's not worth it, then just don't quote and comment and actually let it go. Is it really so hard to let "someone's wrong on the internet!" go?

 

[Minigiant]

Personally, I think the monk needs more weapons based support. The low level monk's unarmed attack should be good but no anywhere close to the blade of a fighter/barbarian/ranger/paladin. At low levels, staves, daggers, clubs, sickles, handaxes, and spears would be the monk's weapon of choice. Staff and kick over punch punch punch. The monk could still punch punch punch at low levels but it would not be ideal.

It works with the fluff more since a level 1-3 monks would not have the mastery of body to phase out physical weaponry. Many RPG, table and video, use this model. Previous edition monks did too.

And the walking stick butt-whooper is an iconic "monk" trope too. Spin staff to deflect arrows.

 

[Celebrim]

That said, the Monk never grew much on me beyond that concept. Truth is probably, I just like traditional genres to stay separate. I might enjoy once adding up asian themes to the baseline fantasy, or once including aliens, or once including firearms. Otherwise I have my limits to the kitchen sink approach.

I have a slightly different issue.

Asian doesn't exist in my homebrew. There is no 'east' or 'west', no 'old world' and 'new world', and to the extent that the people of Korrel think of those things, the portion of the continent of Sartha where all but one of my campaigns have taken place is thought of as being the 'far east' and is most analogous geographically to the far east (china/japan). Culturally, I like to think of my world as neither European nor Asian. Obviously, I can't invent cultures completely whole cloth and some cultures or portions of the culture are recognizably inspired by things, but if you are expected simple 1 to 1 parallels you'll be disappointed. When trying to explain the mindset to new players, I explain that culturally it is as if the Etruscans and not the Romans conquered Europe, and that Hinduism rather than Christianity dominated European thought and the arts, and that because of differences in technical capabilities (magic) globalization rather than tribalization was the dominate pattern of early human history. India is one of my most influential cultures in imagining what my world is like, with its castes and cosmopolitanism, clashing cultures, polytheism, and exotic wildlife. Domesticated mastodons are found on the streets of every city. In larger cities, there are populations of hill giants working as porters and stevedores. It's not that unusual to have a goblin population living in some dark corner of the city, and hobgoblins are in many places much more common sights on a street or in a bar than an elf would be - and are less feared. The gods are extremely numerous and active in peoples daily lives; so much so that I almost always try to have the first level PC's meet one. The PC's are frequently Heroes in a very Greek conception of the idea. There is a 5000 year continuous written history in my world, and humanity hasn't lived in separated tribes since the very early portion of it.

I feel I'm being most successful in my creation when you can't imagine the setting as being 'X' real world place. Ideally, I'd invent everything whole cloth, in the way that say Tolkien's Middle Earth isn't recognizably any place and often has surprising motifs upon close examination (Tolkien for example imagined Gondor as being much like Egypt).

There is no 'china' in my world, no far east, no kara-tur, no analogous region of any sort. There really isn't a Europe either. The cultural and intellectual bright shining center of the world would be in something analogous to central Africa (although of course, several different cities would contest that claim). Unarmed martial arts are of course known, but there is no distinction between what would be in our world wrestling, boxing, and pankration and judo, muay thai, and kung fu (of course, part of the reason for that is I don't distinguish between them and I have a wry smile for the fact that so many RPGs birthed in the late 70's and early 80's have separate skills for boxing and martial arts). For one thing, as someone else pointed out, the presence of skills in the world have a non-natural explanation - they are spread and taught by the gods whose influence is global.

Monasteries are known, and warrior monks are common (though usually by the term Templar, to invoke the fact that their most common duty is guarding temples), but the character of these monks is as diverse in many ways as the deities that they serve. Shaolin dress and outlook is not assumed by the term 'monk'. The in game class I most commonly stat a Templar out as is Fanatic - which be equivalent in standard 3.X to stating out most monks (the profession) as Barbarians (the class). So in other words, if you asked your average inhabitant of Korrel to imagine what weapon a monk had, their first thought might be great axe or two handed sword. Beyond that, what a 'monk' means depends on the deity involved. Most of the monks of a deity frequently worshiped by wizards are probably wizards, where as one of the PC's in my current campaign is in game a Templar in the service of the god of Death and Travelers, and prior to the current adventure served by backstory in that Templar's traditional role as protector of religious pilgrims (of all deities). Many of that deities monks are of the Explorer character class.

In other words, Dorothy, you aren't in Kansas anymore.

But even if my homebrew was explicitly a fantasy version of the real world Orient (as viewed through the eyes of the West), it wouldn't have the 'Monk' class in it.