I'm curious - what classes would you redesign, given the chance? I'm curious more about peoples' perceptions of conceptual issues, rather than mechanical ones. I might be tempted to say ranger, for example, but my issues with the ranger are less about concept and more about mechanical execution.
For me, there are two big ones - cleric and monk. Both of these classes are designed in a way that is too thematically constraining, to the point that they would have been more appropriate as subclasses that modify a somewhat more generic parent class. This is arguably true of the druid, but it's a bit more debatable (I likely would have settled on a shaman class, with druid being a subclass for either clerics or shamans.)
Using domains as the subclass system for clerics is flawed, IMO. Choosing a domain makes sense, but the subclass for clerics really should revolve around type of calling, with domain being a more minor choice that just grants bonus spells and/or an additional use for CD. Using domains as the subclass system brings in a lot of problems. For example, why is a cleric of life automatically a martially trained melee cleric, while a cleric of light is automatically a less trained caster? That's extremely arbitrary - wouldn't that be more influenced by the personality of the god you're serving and the nature of your calling to serve them?
For monks, I'm a big disbeliever in incorporating a lot of cultural flavor into a base class, because that's the perfect role for subclasses. The monk should have been redesigned as a non-mystical, more generic pugilist class, with the monk flavor being brought through subclass option(s) - in the exact same way the Samurai is a subclass of the fighter instead of being its own class.
For monks, I'm a big disbeliever in incorporating a lot of cultural flavor into a base class, because that's the perfect role for subclasses. The monk should have been redesigned as a non-mystical, more generic pugilist class, with the monk flavor being brought through subclass option(s) - in the exact same way the Samurai is a subclass of the fighter instead of being its own class.
I agree that subclasses should provide the cultural or thematic flavor. The monk as written could be a subclass for either fighter or rogue, or possibly even bard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You, you and you- panic. Everyone else- follow me.
For monks, I'm a big disbeliever in incorporating a lot of cultural flavor into a base class, because that's the perfect role for subclasses. The monk should have been redesigned as a non-mystical, more generic pugilist class, with the monk flavor being brought through subclass option(s) - in the exact same way the Samurai is a subclass of the fighter instead of being its own class.
I agree that subclasses should provide the cultural or thematic flavor. The monk as written could be a subclass for either fighter or rogue, or possibly even bard.
I tend to disagree. Each basic class is supposed to cover a specific macro-archetype: the Fighter is the martial combatant, armour and melee/ranged weapons; the Rogue is the swift and "slimy" one, light armours and small weapons; the bard is the entertainer and jack-of-all-trades. Each of these have the basic functions of the class from 1st level.
The Monk is supposed to cover the unharmed macro-archetype, and therefore offers from 1st level the needed features to be effective as an unharmed fighter from level 1. Now, I understand the underlining flavour might seem too restrictive, or not appeal to everyone, and that people might prefer for this kind of monk to rather be a subclass, but I would not make it a subclass for any other already available base class, I'd rather modify the monk to make it more similar to a Pugilist kind of class, taking the Ki structure and substitute it with something else (did someone say Moxie?). All in all, though, I believe these are just stylistic and flavor changes, more than mechanical ones.
See, LeK, I don't know if I agree. I can see how you would think that, but I tend to be more interested in classes as mechanical archetypes. Fighters are guys that hit stuff. Barbarians are guys that absorb hits. Paladins are guys that can hit stuff AND cast magic. The list goes on (though the Sorcerer and Wizard are sitting uncomfortably inside each others' design space).
From that perspective, the monk is a guy that hits stuff... he just only uses specific weapons. It feels very iffy.
See, LeK, I don't know if I agree. I can see how you would think that, but I tend to be more interested in classes as mechanical archetypes. Fighters are guys that hit stuff. Barbarians are guys that absorb hits. Paladins are guys that can hit stuff AND cast magic. The list goes on (though the Sorcerer and Wizard are sitting uncomfortably inside each others' design space).
From that perspective, the monk is a guy that hits stuff... he just only uses specific weapons. It feels very iffy.
I would've said that a monk was a guy that punches stuff and doesn't get hit, all without wearing armor.
See, LeK, I don't know if I agree. I can see how you would think that, but I tend to be more interested in classes as mechanical archetypes. Fighters are guys that hit stuff. Barbarians are guys that absorb hits. Paladins are guys that can hit stuff AND cast magic. The list goes on (though the Sorcerer and Wizard are sitting uncomfortably inside each others' design space).
From that perspective, the monk is a guy that hits stuff... he just only uses specific weapons. It feels very iffy.
That is most definitely another way of seeing it, but going by your idea, the Barbarian as well could be considered just another "guy that hits things (really hard) with a quirk", wouldn't you agree?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
So, people want to make the monk into a generic pugilist. Okay, fair enough. Now, let me ask this, if I could. What would you be taking out from the monk class to do that? Forge your body into a magical weapon! So, immunity to diseases and the like makes sense (peak physical health), can't be aged (just a meaningless ribbon in the first place)... know all languages? Okay, that's admittedly strange, but I find that knowing languages tends to be meaningless unless dealing with extra planar creatures or spying on orcs/goblins on a regular basis, neither of which monks are exactly renowned for, making this something I couldn't care less about. Empty body? The invisibility and astral projection are a bit odd for punching, but the resistances are spot on.
That's my opinion anyways. Those two abilities are the only ones I can see changing. Does someone have a different idea here?
See, LeK, I don't know if I agree. I can see how you would think that, but I tend to be more interested in classes as mechanical archetypes. Fighters are guys that hit stuff. Barbarians are guys that absorb hits. Paladins are guys that can hit stuff AND cast magic. The list goes on (though the Sorcerer and Wizard are sitting uncomfortably inside each others' design space).
From that perspective, the monk is a guy that hits stuff... he just only uses specific weapons. It feels very iffy.
From that perspective, monks are the melee controllers. Stuns, knock downs, redirecting, negating ranged attacks, etc. They shape the battlefield with their tricks like a battlemaster does, except as an entire class, and not a single subclass.
As for what classes I would redesign? Hmmm... ranger needs some love, everyone knows that. I'd also fix up the warlock - it need more love than just the blade pact.
So, people want to make the monk into a generic pugilist. Okay, fair enough. Now, let me ask this, if I could. What would you be taking out from the monk class to do that? Forge your body into a magical weapon! So, immunity to diseases and the like makes sense (peak physical health), can't be aged (just a meaningless ribbon in the first place)... know all languages? Okay, that's admittedly strange, but I find that knowing languages tends to be meaningless unless dealing with extra planar creatures or spying on orcs/goblins on a regular basis, neither of which monks are exactly renowned for, making this something I couldn't care less about. Empty body? The invisibility and astral projection are a bit odd for punching, but the resistances are spot on.
That's my opinion anyways. Those two abilities are the only ones I can see changing. Does someone have a different idea here?
Well, if you're just a guy who punches things, instead of a cinematic martial arts master, you're probably a bit more durable (larger Hit Die/increased hit points per level); you're probably not unnaturally fast, let alone able to run across water (remove Unarmored Movement); you probably focus on Strength and Constitution more than Dexterity and Wisdom (change Unarmored Defense, change or remove Ki); you're probably no better at jumping off buildings than the next guy (remove Slow Fall); etc.
Once you hit a certain point, you might as well be making a barbarian subclass.
Well, that is the problem with a pugilist in dnd. Classes arent based on weapons like in final fantasy mmo - otherwise, paladins would be sword-board guy, barbarian is axe guy, rogue is knife only and all rangers use bows. Presumably fighter would become lancer (by process of elimination), all clerics use maces and bards all carry a harp into battle. So there is naturally going to be different types of fist fighters since dnd doesn't work like that.
So I'm thinking that we're still talking martial artists (who are taught how to take falls), and are defined by perception and flexibility, at least to me. Trying to remove that does, indeed, remove the distinctions between classes.
Classes are designed to encompass a broad, iconic fantasy archetype. The ki-powered fantasy monk is an iconic archetype with enough variations to justify a full class. The game already has a class dedicated to non-magical fighters; a non-magical pugilist could easily be made a Fighter subclass without having to take anything away from monks, just like the game can have both Scout Rogues and Rangers.
I've noticed that some people are saying that the monk is simply a boxer... and honestly I'm a little disappointed in the monk's design as well.
What is a monk for you? Maybe a master of martial arts? Because a fighter is one too. The "battle master" demonstrates this very well, after all, martial arts translates as the art of Mars, that is, the art of war.
What makes the monk different is the spiritual capacity that allows him to overcome the limits of the body. You can say that he is like a psionic fighter. (I admit that this is my point of view and I don't want to criticize other points of view).
To the main question, I answer that I would not only choose the monk to be redesigned, but, I'm having fun creating a new version of the monk myself. If you have any comments on my redesign you can write it on redit.com
To devise this class I thought about how much synergy there is with the rogue and cantrips attacks. Having only one action attack this allows him to use a cantrip attack while still taking advantage of the sneak attack.
The fighter is characterized by his many attacks in his attack action.
The monk is characterized by his unarmed strike and the use of ki.
This is written in the player's manual where they introduce the monk:
"The Magic of Ki:Monks make careful study of a magical energy that most monastic traditions call ki. This energy is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse specifically, the element that flows through living bodies.... "
Taking these cues I developed this concept:
Martial arts: You can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action. <<As a spell with bonus action time, can be performed before or after the action, and don't need to perform an attack action to be executed. >>
Flurry of Blows: You can spend 1 ki power to make one more unarmed strikes on your turn. <<I decided to leave the freedom to choose between action and bonus action.>>
Extra Unarmed Attack: Beginning at 5th level, after attacking with your bonus action unarmed strikes or with your secondary weapon, you can make an unarmed strikes as part of the same bonus action.
I've added more changes to the class.
To let it easily take advantage of its mobility I added to martial arts:
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
To make it more involved in group actions, I turned its special features for personal use to features that can also be used to help the group.
To make the class more interesting I added Martial style that is a version for the monk of the fighting style of the fighter / ranger / paladin.
At 15th level, I added a feature (Dao of Slaughter) that allows the monk to use its advantage to do more damage, so as to make up for the damage imbalance of the monk at higher levels.
This in addition to making the monk class more practical would make it interesting to the magical classes that want to fight in melee. If you have any critiques I would be delighted to hear them.
I'm curious - what classes would you redesign, given the chance? I'm curious more about peoples' perceptions of conceptual issues, rather than mechanical ones. I might be tempted to say ranger, for example, but my issues with the ranger are less about concept and more about mechanical execution.
For me, there are two big ones - cleric and monk. Both of these classes are designed in a way that is too thematically constraining, to the point that they would have been more appropriate as subclasses that modify a somewhat more generic parent class. This is arguably true of the druid, but it's a bit more debatable (I likely would have settled on a shaman class, with druid being a subclass for either clerics or shamans.)
Using domains as the subclass system for clerics is flawed, IMO. Choosing a domain makes sense, but the subclass for clerics really should revolve around type of calling, with domain being a more minor choice that just grants bonus spells and/or an additional use for CD. Using domains as the subclass system brings in a lot of problems. For example, why is a cleric of life automatically a martially trained melee cleric, while a cleric of light is automatically a less trained caster? That's extremely arbitrary - wouldn't that be more influenced by the personality of the god you're serving and the nature of your calling to serve them?
For monks, I'm a big disbeliever in incorporating a lot of cultural flavor into a base class, because that's the perfect role for subclasses. The monk should have been redesigned as a non-mystical, more generic pugilist class, with the monk flavor being brought through subclass option(s) - in the exact same way the Samurai is a subclass of the fighter instead of being its own class.
I might redesign druid to make Wild Shape optional. I would not redesign monk, because there's so much design space for monk subclasses.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
You, you and you- panic. Everyone else- follow me.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
LeK, you make an excellent point. I agree then, that the Monk class should be reduced to a more generic archtype.
You, you and you- panic. Everyone else- follow me.
See, LeK, I don't know if I agree. I can see how you would think that, but I tend to be more interested in classes as mechanical archetypes. Fighters are guys that hit stuff. Barbarians are guys that absorb hits. Paladins are guys that can hit stuff AND cast magic. The list goes on (though the Sorcerer and Wizard are sitting uncomfortably inside each others' design space).
From that perspective, the monk is a guy that hits stuff... he just only uses specific weapons. It feels very iffy.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
So, people want to make the monk into a generic pugilist. Okay, fair enough. Now, let me ask this, if I could. What would you be taking out from the monk class to do that? Forge your body into a magical weapon! So, immunity to diseases and the like makes sense (peak physical health), can't be aged (just a meaningless ribbon in the first place)... know all languages? Okay, that's admittedly strange, but I find that knowing languages tends to be meaningless unless dealing with extra planar creatures or spying on orcs/goblins on a regular basis, neither of which monks are exactly renowned for, making this something I couldn't care less about. Empty body? The invisibility and astral projection are a bit odd for punching, but the resistances are spot on.
That's my opinion anyways. Those two abilities are the only ones I can see changing. Does someone have a different idea here?
From that perspective, monks are the melee controllers. Stuns, knock downs, redirecting, negating ranged attacks, etc. They shape the battlefield with their tricks like a battlemaster does, except as an entire class, and not a single subclass.
As for what classes I would redesign? Hmmm... ranger needs some love, everyone knows that. I'd also fix up the warlock - it need more love than just the blade pact.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Well, that is the problem with a pugilist in dnd. Classes arent based on weapons like in final fantasy mmo - otherwise, paladins would be sword-board guy, barbarian is axe guy, rogue is knife only and all rangers use bows. Presumably fighter would become lancer (by process of elimination), all clerics use maces and bards all carry a harp into battle. So there is naturally going to be different types of fist fighters since dnd doesn't work like that.
So I'm thinking that we're still talking martial artists (who are taught how to take falls), and are defined by perception and flexibility, at least to me. Trying to remove that does, indeed, remove the distinctions between classes.
Classes are designed to encompass a broad, iconic fantasy archetype. The ki-powered fantasy monk is an iconic archetype with enough variations to justify a full class. The game already has a class dedicated to non-magical fighters; a non-magical pugilist could easily be made a Fighter subclass without having to take anything away from monks, just like the game can have both Scout Rogues and Rangers.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I've noticed that some people are saying that the monk is simply a boxer... and honestly I'm a little disappointed in the monk's design as well.
What is a monk for you? Maybe a master of martial arts? Because a fighter is one too. The "battle master" demonstrates this very well, after all, martial arts translates as the art of Mars, that is, the art of war.
What makes the monk different is the spiritual capacity that allows him to overcome the limits of the body. You can say that he is like a psionic fighter. (I admit that this is my point of view and I don't want to criticize other points of view).
To the main question, I answer that I would not only choose the monk to be redesigned, but, I'm having fun creating a new version of the monk myself. If you have any comments on my redesign you can write it on redit.com
https://www.reddit.com//r/UnearthedArcana/comments/uj7jjp/the_monk_is_a_different_class_from_the_fighter_it/
https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-Mz734bN8gWVYvErwFpw
To devise this class I thought about how much synergy there is with the rogue and cantrips attacks. Having only one action attack this allows him to use a cantrip attack while still taking advantage of the sneak attack.
The fighter is characterized by his many attacks in his attack action.
The monk is characterized by his unarmed strike and the use of ki.
This is written in the player's manual where they introduce the monk:
"The Magic of Ki: Monks make careful study of a magical energy that most monastic traditions call ki. This energy is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse specifically, the element that flows through living bodies.... "
Taking these cues I developed this concept:
I've added more changes to the class.
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
This in addition to making the monk class more practical would make it interesting to the magical classes that want to fight in melee. If you have any critiques I would be delighted to hear them.