Why not combine the Fighter and Monk Classes?

[TwoSix]

So we can can roll the Barbarian, Monk, Ranger, Paladin, Rogue, Assassin, Warlord and Fighter into one class then?

Can we do it to Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard, Cleric, Druid, and Warlock while we're at it?

Two classes.

I would say three.

Warrior = Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk, Warlord.
Rogue = Ranger, Rogue, Assassin, Bard
Mage = Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Warlock

 

[mlund]

But my point is that there's enough to the monk class to be worth working into its own design, with its own unique combat mechanics. He's not just "a fighter, but ASIAN," he's unique in his mobility, resistance to spells, and later on, in his mystical attributes.

I agree he's a unique build. The problem is, historically, we wind up with a super-narrow class that basically has to boggart everything about Martial-Arts to itself and bind them forever in the theme and background of Eastern Mysticism and Monasticism - which doesn't even support all the Eastern Cultural archetypes that are martial artists, let alone fantasy archetypes.

You seem fond of saying that monk abilities would make a good theme. (And in your defense, they've made it pretty clear that there will be "advanced" themes going from level 6-10, so we're talking 6 feats, not 3.) But here's the thing: there are a lot of different kinds of unarmed enlightened warriors I might want to play. If I have to use up my first theme just to make sure he can walk around bare-fisted with no armor and not get eaten by the first bugbear he encounters, that's not a lot of room for flexibility.

No. You shouldn't be using a theme for that. That should come with the package of being a Fighter (Martial Artist). If your fighting style is "beat the snot out of people with Ku-Fung" you get Fighter Hit Dice, to-hit bonuses, bonus attacks, weapon proficiency, Combat Superiority and you trade out your Armor Proficiency for Unarmored Fighting.

Spend your background on Monastic Life (or not, maybe your tough-luck street-fighter always looking for a stronger opponent or a prestigious royal guard rocking out of those braids that runs down to your knee)

Spend your theme on whatever complements your Martial-Arts style - maybe something violent and extroverted or something passive and introverted. Yin vs. Yang has a pretty awesome vibe.

Even if I get a little flexibility in choosing fighter powers, there are only going to be so many that are appropriate (or even possible) for an unarmed fighter. Every monk ends up looking almost exactly the same.

What powers? Extra damage dice when you hit? Two extra attacks per day? Trading out damage dice to push, knock down, disarm, or stun enemies? With most of what the fighter does being agnostic as to what exactly you want to hit them with it seems like a clean fit.

- Marty Lund

 

[Minigiant]

I would say three.

Warrior = Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk, Warlord.
Rogue = Ranger, Rogue, Assassin, Bard
Mage = Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Warlock

Why not 5?

Warrior
Mage
Explorer
Diplomat
Rogue


Okay. Seriously.
If they can make a Monk into a half decent Background and Theme combo that fulfills the image of one in the minds of many D&D fans, then they should do it.

They just should not hand over a watered down acrobat background and boxer theme in order to fit it in the them and BG templates.

 

[Sammael]

Wizards and Sorcerers should be two kits of the same class (replace "kit" with whatever term you wish to use, I call them Traditions of Magic in Fatebinder).

Fighters and Monks are very, very similar - they both rely on martial training and maneuvers (3.x bonus feats), only the monk receives some rogue-ish skills and a few mystical abilities that are thematically inappropriate for many traditional fantasy campaigns.

IMO, the Monk can (and should be) a Fighter kit that replaces armor reliance with Wisdom-based AC bonuses, is more resilient against mental attacks, and gains some resistances or immunities due to the control he can exert over his own body. Everything else can be gained through background/theme or some light multiclassing (as appropriate for each campaign).

 

[Dausuul]

A D&D class is more than just a set of mechanics. It's a concept, an archetype. And the "fighter" archetype and the "monk" archetype are very different beasts. Quasi-mystical abilities are part of what defines the monk. As for the Asian flavor... shrug. If you don't want it in your setting, unleash the banhammer. That's what it's for.

The real challenge with monks is figuring out what exactly they're supposed to do as adventurers. My inclination would be to make them specialists at a) disabling and debuffing enemies, b) scouting and exploring, and c) overcoming magical threats.

 

[Piratecat]

I'd totally play a moghter-fink.

 

[Sammael]

Why with the hyperbole?

The ONLY thing that defines the wizard are his spells. Remove the spells and you have no wizard left.

The MAIN things that define the monk are his rigorous monastic martial training that fuels his ability to effectively fight unarmed and unarmored, and his maneuvers that are aimed at crippling or disabling foes. I am pretty positive that slow fall, minor self-healing, and the ability to dimension door once per day are not the defining features of this class. For those who want them, as I said, they should be easily attainable via feats, multiclassing, or some other means (with a suggested progression listed in the monk kit description).

 

[Minigiant]

Why with the hyperbole?

The ONLY thing that defines the wizard are his spells. Remove the spells and you have no wizard left.

The MAIN things that define the monk are his rigorous monastic martial training that fuels his ability to effectively fight unarmed and unarmored, and his maneuvers that are aimed at crippling or disabling foes. I am pretty positive that slow fall, minor self-healing, and the ability to dimension door once per day are not the defining features of this class. For those who want them, as I said, they should be easily attainable via feats, multiclassing, or some other means (with a suggested progression listed in the monk kit description).

You got it backwards
The main things that define a monk is slow fall, jumping, running fast, wearing no armor, no being mind controlled, and doing crazy stuff after meditation or some spiritual line.

Kicking butt with fists, feet, and farmer's weapons is a bonus.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So we can can roll the Barbarian, Monk, Ranger, Paladin, Rogue, Assassin, Warlord and Fighter into one class then?

Except for the Paladin, they'd all fit pretty neatly into the Martial Source. Though, Assassin is more a profession and Barbarian more a cultural origin - Background in 5e parlance. And, in 5e, the martial source looks likely to be thinned out to the Fighter & Thief, so, yeah, darn close.

Can we do it to Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard, Cleric, Druid, and Warlock while we're at it?

Two classes.

Don't laugh, /no classes/ is an option that's worked very well for a lot of games.

 

[Someone]

I don't believe a monk is incompatible with a strong unarmed or unarmored option for the fighter, and in fact I think it'd be a good asset provided neither option is grossly superior to the other. Those who want to customize his fighter choosing the right options should be able to do so, those who want an easy, preplanned unarmed combatant that doesn't require special system knowledge to pull off or want the supernatural baggage should have a monk class.

The same thing applies to rangers, paladins and other narrow niches; I'd prefer if there's an easy option for the lightly armored two weapon fighter and also a good two weapon fighting path for the fighter for those who don't neccesarily like the nature theme.