Ah yes, because a martial artist couldn't possibly be big and beefy
While all monks are martial artists, not all martial artists are monks.
what does one have to do with the other? Neither martial artist nor monk is linked to a specific body type in iconic fictions.
That said the main thing stopping monk from being beefy, is having the heaviest attribute requirement for two other stats. Its not like they said monk can't bee beefy, its just good luck when you are almost required to go 20/20 on dex/wis.
That said the main thing stopping monk from being beefy, is having the heaviest attribute requirement for two other stats. Its not like they said monk can't bee beefy, its just good luck when you are almost required to go 20/20 on dex/wis.
Which is why I favor completely dissociating unarmored defense from attributes. Just change it to 16 (17 at level 5, 18 at level 11, 19 at level 17).
Ah yes, because a martial artist couldn't possibly be big and beefy
While all monks are martial artists, not all martial artists are monks.
Hmmm maybe the Monk could be a subclass of an MMA class then.
"Martial Arts" doesn't have enough of a concept / archetype to build a class around, as pretty much their only common feature is that they don't need weapons to fight. Many of them use weapons others don't, some wear armour others don't, some have a mystical / magical elements while others don't, some use their whole body others don't, some are physically strong, others are not, some are sneaky & dextrous others are not, some use improvized weapons others do not, some wrestle their opponents without hurting them others kill with a single strike. It would be a class with only 1 class feature everything else would be subclass specific, that isn't a class, it's a feat.
Sumo wrestlers and Jedi just don't fit into the same class.
Ah yes, because a martial artist couldn't possibly be big and beefy
While all monks are martial artists, not all martial artists are monks.
Hmmm maybe the Monk could be a subclass of an MMA class then.
"Martial Arts" doesn't have enough of a concept / archetype to build a class around, as pretty much their only common feature is that they don't need weapons to fight. Many of them use weapons others don't, some wear armour others don't, some have a mystical / magical elements while others don't, some use their whole body others don't, some are physically strong, others are not, some are sneaky & dextrous others are not, some use improvized weapons others do not, some wrestle their opponents without hurting them others kill with a single strike. It would be a class with only 1 class feature everything else would be subclass specific, that isn't a class, it's a feat.
Sumo wrestlers and Jedi just don't fit into the same class.
You literally just described the monk, its subclasses, and typical use in play. If this is not enough of a concept to build a class around, I guess this is a good argument to fold monk into fighter?
Sumo wrestlers and Jedi just don't fit into the same class.
Don't they though? Neither of these wears armour, so they're looking for an unarmored class.
As I've said earlier in the thread, enabling Strength builds for Monk takes only the tiniest of changes; it only required Unarmored Defence to be 10 + WIS + the higher of DEX or STR. It's like a two or three word change and you can then build around Strength or Dexterity as you please. This wouldn't fix any of our real problems, but it enables a little bit more build versatility.
Sumo wrestler would probably want to sacrifice a little Wisdom in favour of Constitution, and you could probably argue it as Open Hand for the easier access to shoving; it would be better if Monk either had some grappling options as standard, or a grappling oriented sub-class but these are absolutely within the realm of possibility. While Barbarian might arguably be a better fit in 5e, that's because it grapples well as standard, but its damage without a weapon isn't great unless you add feats on top (and unarmed fighting style hasn't been a thing in the playtests so far, has it?).
Jedi is trickier as you need force powers, and the Monk sub-classes with extra powers have all had major mechanical problems, but that could, should and must be fixed. Really we just need a way to slap on thunderwave for a force push, because Step of the Wind already gives speed and big jumps. Meanwhile a sun blade is your lightsaber and is actually an excellent magic item for Monks as it requires nothing extra to use it.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
That said the main thing stopping monk from being beefy, is having the heaviest attribute requirement for two other stats. Its not like they said monk can't bee beefy, its just good luck when you are almost required to go 20/20 on dex/wis.
Which is why I favor completely dissociating unarmored defense from attributes. Just change it to 16 (17 at level 5, 18 at level 11, 19 at level 17).
Even if you do this, They'll still want high Wis and Dex though - the former for stunning strike and subclass abilities, the latter for attack and damage.
One solution I've seen is to change their AC calculation from 10+Dex+Wis to 8+PB+Dex+Wis. You still start out with 15-16 AC at level 1, but the scaling is much better, so you're not forced to rush for 20 Wis and Dex at the earliest opportunity (though you still can if you want really strong defenses.) You can max out just the one you need for offense or control, and deprioritize the other without making yourself overly squishy. For example, at level 7 if you have 18 Dex, 14 Wis and +3 PB, you'll have a total of 17 AC; if your Wis is 16 instead, you'd have 18 AC.
Ah yes, because a martial artist couldn't possibly be big and beefy
While all monks are martial artists, not all martial artists are monks.
Hmmm maybe the Monk could be a subclass of an MMA class then.
"Martial Arts" doesn't have enough of a concept / archetype to build a class around, as pretty much their only common feature is that they don't need weapons to fight. Many of them use weapons others don't, some wear armour others don't, some have a mystical / magical elements while others don't, some use their whole body others don't, some are physically strong, others are not, some are sneaky & dextrous others are not, some use improvized weapons others do not, some wrestle their opponents without hurting them others kill with a single strike. It would be a class with only 1 class feature everything else would be subclass specific, that isn't a class, it's a feat.
Sumo wrestlers and Jedi just don't fit into the same class.
You literally just described the monk, its subclasses, and typical use in play. If this is not enough of a concept to build a class around, I guess this is a good argument to fold monk into fighter?
let's not forget transmutation wizards and moon druids. basically the same thing but different targets. fold those guys into the sorcerer class since some of those guys turn into dragons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Ah yes, because a martial artist couldn't possibly be big and beefy
While all monks are martial artists, not all martial artists are monks.
Hmmm maybe the Monk could be a subclass of an MMA class then.
"Martial Arts" doesn't have enough of a concept / archetype to build a class around, as pretty much their only common feature is that they don't need weapons to fight. Many of them use weapons others don't, some wear armour others don't, some have a mystical / magical elements while others don't, some use their whole body others don't, some are physically strong, others are not, some are sneaky & dextrous others are not, some use improvized weapons others do not, some wrestle their opponents without hurting them others kill with a single strike. It would be a class with only 1 class feature everything else would be subclass specific, that isn't a class, it's a feat.
Sumo wrestlers and Jedi just don't fit into the same class.
ehh, the same can be said of fighters, Rangers, wizards, etc. A wizard can be a summoned magic weapon wielding dexterous dancer, or a Huge burly guy who is super hard to hurt. (in fact this is common in 5e) A fighter could be a 300lb guy with a huge battle axe, or a skinny dexterous guy who throws daggers with unerring accuracy.
Ah yes, because a martial artist couldn't possibly be big and beefy
While all monks are martial artists, not all martial artists are monks.
Hmmm maybe the Monk could be a subclass of an MMA class then.
"Martial Arts" doesn't have enough of a concept / archetype to build a class around, as pretty much their only common feature is that they don't need weapons to fight. Many of them use weapons others don't, some wear armour others don't, some have a mystical / magical elements while others don't, some use their whole body others don't, some are physically strong, others are not, some are sneaky & dextrous others are not, some use improvized weapons others do not, some wrestle their opponents without hurting them others kill with a single strike. It would be a class with only 1 class feature everything else would be subclass specific, that isn't a class, it's a feat.
Sumo wrestlers and Jedi just don't fit into the same class.
You literally just described the monk, its subclasses, and typical use in play. If this is not enough of a concept to build a class around, I guess this is a good argument to fold monk into fighter?
people really can only conceive of magic and not magic huh? just because people don't have spells doesnt mean they are all the same. By this definition they should just have fighter wizard and fighter/wizard
You’re not going to be able to fulfill everyone’s fantasy for monk in the base class. The base needs solid ground to sit on and let the subclasses do the rest.
Want a STR monk? Make it a subclass with the third level feature that allows AC to be calculated using STR instead of DEX or maybe WIS. Would just have to work out how to handle levels 1 & 2 before the switch to STR for attack and AC.
Want an armored monk? a subclass like Kensei could fit that bill, etc
Ah yes, because a martial artist couldn't possibly be big and beefy
While all monks are martial artists, not all martial artists are monks.
Hmmm maybe the Monk could be a subclass of an MMA class then.
"Martial Arts" doesn't have enough of a concept / archetype to build a class around, as pretty much their only common feature is that they don't need weapons to fight. Many of them use weapons others don't, some wear armour others don't, some have a mystical / magical elements while others don't, some use their whole body others don't, some are physically strong, others are not, some are sneaky & dextrous others are not, some use improvized weapons others do not, some wrestle their opponents without hurting them others kill with a single strike. It would be a class with only 1 class feature everything else would be subclass specific, that isn't a class, it's a feat.
Sumo wrestlers and Jedi just don't fit into the same class.
ehh, the same can be said of fighters, Rangers, wizards, etc. A wizard can be a summoned magic weapon wielding dexterous dancer, or a Huge burly guy who is super hard to hurt. (in fact this is common in 5e) A fighter could be a 300lb guy with a huge battle axe, or a skinny dexterous guy who throws daggers with unerring accuracy.
Rangers are lightly armoured weapon users who can travel through harsh wilderness with ease and have an deep understanding of nature and the ability to magically manipulate it. They are generally light and dexterous so they can vanish into the foliage to ambush their prey using light weapons or bows.
Wizards are highly intelligent mages who rely on magic for everything they do, they are easily KOed and rely on magic to protect themselves - not armor, and have minimal ability to use weapons. However they are the most versatile and powerful spellcasters able to wipe out whole armies or cripple even the most powerful of creatures with the right spell.
Fighters are highly skilled warriors who specialize in a single combat style with highly honed physical bodies and skills to act tactically using the best weapons and armour that money can buy to turn the tide of a fight by using limited use powerful abilities at the right time and the right place.
Ah yes, because a martial artist couldn't possibly be big and beefy
While all monks are martial artists, not all martial artists are monks.
Hmmm maybe the Monk could be a subclass of an MMA class then.
"Martial Arts" doesn't have enough of a concept / archetype to build a class around, as pretty much their only common feature is that they don't need weapons to fight. Many of them use weapons others don't, some wear armour others don't, some have a mystical / magical elements while others don't, some use their whole body others don't, some are physically strong, others are not, some are sneaky & dextrous others are not, some use improvized weapons others do not, some wrestle their opponents without hurting them others kill with a single strike. It would be a class with only 1 class feature everything else would be subclass specific, that isn't a class, it's a feat.
Sumo wrestlers and Jedi just don't fit into the same class.
You literally just described the monk, its subclasses, and typical use in play. If this is not enough of a concept to build a class around, I guess this is a good argument to fold monk into fighter?
people really can only conceive of magic and not magic huh? just because people don't have spells doesnt mean they are all the same. By this definition they should just have fighter wizard and fighter/wizard
Ah yes, because a martial artist couldn't possibly be big and beefy
While all monks are martial artists, not all martial artists are monks.
Hmmm maybe the Monk could be a subclass of an MMA class then.
"Martial Arts" doesn't have enough of a concept / archetype to build a class around, as pretty much their only common feature is that they don't need weapons to fight. Many of them use weapons others don't, some wear armour others don't, some have a mystical / magical elements while others don't, some use their whole body others don't, some are physically strong, others are not, some are sneaky & dextrous others are not, some use improvized weapons others do not, some wrestle their opponents without hurting them others kill with a single strike. It would be a class with only 1 class feature everything else would be subclass specific, that isn't a class, it's a feat.
Sumo wrestlers and Jedi just don't fit into the same class.
ehh, the same can be said of fighters, Rangers, wizards, etc. A wizard can be a summoned magic weapon wielding dexterous dancer, or a Huge burly guy who is super hard to hurt. (in fact this is common in 5e) A fighter could be a 300lb guy with a huge battle axe, or a skinny dexterous guy who throws daggers with unerring accuracy.
Rangers are lightly armoured weapon users who can travel through harsh wilderness with ease and have an deep understanding of nature and the ability to magically manipulate it. They are generally light and dexterous so they can vanish into the foliage to ambush their prey using light weapons or bows.
Wizards are highly intelligent mages who rely on magic for everything they do, they are easily KOed and rely on magic to protect themselves - not armor, and have minimal ability to use weapons. However they are the most versatile and powerful spellcasters able to wipe out whole armies or cripple even the most powerful of creatures with the right spell.
Fighters are highly skilled warriors who specialize in a single combat style with highly honed physical bodies and skills to act tactically using the best weapons and armour that money can buy to turn the tide of a fight by using limited use powerful abilities at the right time and the right place.
What is a monk?
Rangers can be str or dex based. they also are proficient with medium armor. They aren't focused on light weapons or bows. There is actually nothing linking them more to dexterity than strength.
'using limited powerful abilities at the right time and place' is every class except maybe rogue. Having access to all weapons and armor also fits cleric and paladin. they actually can specialize in multiple fighting styles, but regardless, the same can be said of paladin. The fighter is actually defined in the phb as a generalist.
wizards depend on magic, but so does sorcerer. Not sure if they are easily ko'ed. perhaps without magic, but you may as well say a fighter is easily koed without armor.
its just as easy to say this type of stuff for monk,
monk is a well trained warrior who focuses on mind and body, simple weapon or no weapon, armorless they are deadly as armored knights. Their ascetic training allows them to perform super natural feats of speed, power and mental prowess through their application of the hidden magical energy innate to all living things.
and they do say this type of thing in the pHb for every class.
its not really monk being hard to define thats the problem, they just didnt make a great version of it, and now that everyone else is more versatile, unique, and tightened in design, the monk is a lot worse by comparison. The monk's flaws are more about execution than base concepts.
monk is a well trained warrior who focuses on mind and body, simple weapon or no weapon, armorless they are deadly as armored knights. Their ascetic training allows them to perform super natural feats of speed, power and mental prowess through their application of the hidden magical energy innate to all living things.
fighters are well trained too. and barbarians focus on mind and body in lieu of armor as well. what that leaves out is why they choose to be less effective by giving up armor and martial weapons (and then didn't replace that with an exploration niche like rangers and the wilderness or rogues and other people's pockets). was this a response to weapon shortages or bans? or maybe these monk guys are all assassins, focusing on blending in with citizens to remove political rivals? maybe it's like with wizards, they just spend all their time on research of old scrolls and developing new techniques: muscle mages?
I feel like any short blurb describing the uniqueness of monks shouldn't sound like it could belong to oath of glory paladins caught out in their pajamas.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
monk is a well trained warrior who focuses on mind and body, simple weapon or no weapon, armorless they are deadly as armored knights. Their ascetic training allows them to perform super natural feats of speed, power and mental prowess through their application of the hidden magical energy innate to all living things.
fighters are well trained too. and barbarians focus on mind and body in lieu of armor as well. what that leaves out is why they choose to be less effective by giving up armor and martial weapons (and then didn't replace that with an exploration niche like rangers and the wilderness or rogues and other people's pockets). was this a response to weapon shortages or bans? or maybe these monk guys are all assassins, focusing on blending in with citizens to remove political rivals? maybe it's like with wizards, they just spend all their time on research of old scrolls and developing new techniques: muscle mages?
I feel like any short blurb describing the uniqueness of monks shouldn't sound like it could belong to oath of glory paladins caught out in their pajamas.
the same can be said for fighters and paladins in the post I quoted, as I pointed out. Blurbs don't encompass everything that a character is, its the central themes. Specifically the fighter is a generalist, and overlaps with many. The Paladin and fighter both train, both use weapons and armor well, but the fighter is more focused on it than the paladin.
There is a difference between an Academic and an Engineer. They have both studied in order to do their jobs, but the studying is a more central part of being an Academic than it is being an Engineer. The Engineer studies when needed. The Academic is defined by studying. The Engineer isnt an Academic or vice versa. Another Analogy might be an Olympic Track star versus a body builder. The Olympic Track star trains to be better at running, the Body Builder's trains to perfect their body. Training is the central core of the body builder's effort. For the trackstar its a means to an end.
Also, barbarians aren't really representing the highly trained warrior, they are representing raw natural talent, instinct, and a strong drive, and now, their connection to primal forces.
And monks in dnd aren't like paladins, paladin's strength comes from faith in a certain god or idea. Monks power comes from within themselves through rigorous training. No gods, or faith are required. they also don't cast spells, they use natural magic of living creatures (mostly themselves). Its more like being a Jedi than a spell caster.
and they aren't choosing to be less effective, because they have figured out how to manipulate living energy, they are as effective without weapons as with them. They can use a sword or not, there should be no strong difference.
This is why the MA dice was supposed to scale with monk level for weapons and unarmed, and why they were supposed to be able to attain the same armor class as a fighter with a shield and armor, based on level/attributes.
this is what the phb, and one dnd say about these concepts.
The problem is that plenty of reasonable concepts only include one or two of those elements, and there isn't a great class choice for those people.
All three of these should be compatible with most concepts IMO; mechanically you're not really forced to be "mystical/spiritual" as opposed to disciplined/focused, and the renaming of Ki to Discipline actually helps that (though I prefer Focus as a term, personally).
I don't think anyone expects Monk to gain the ability to wear armour, and unarmed is also arguably a core part of it as well even if you favour your weapon attacks over any unarmed strikes you make.
The main problems are a) the core class doesn't scale into later tiers well enough (especially with Stunning Strike nerfed with no alternatives) and b) some of the sub-classes just straight up suck.
Kensai should be ideal for any player that wants to focus on their weapon(s) more, but it's mechanically a mess; it's not terrible and it kind of works most of the time, but could it be so easily improved. In my own "remaster" of it for example I made Agile Parry an expansion of Deflect Missiles (might be a bit too strong for 3rd-level though, might need to scale differently) and added a "Quick Strikes" feature so your unarmed strikes can deal the same damage type as a held weapon (i.e- you're striking with the weapon, not your body, but the damage is the same to maintain balance as they're not "proper" strikes), brought in Sharpen the Blade sooner (starting with only a +1, and extends to Quick Strikes later).
We have the same issue with anyone that wants to play an Avatar: The Last Airbender/Legend of Korra style character as four elements likewise is mechanically a mess; it has some of the right pieces, but it just ends up being a massive drain on your Ki to use anything beyond the best value abilities, and even some of those like Fangs of the Fire Snake have been one-upped by later sub-classes, as Astral Self's Astral Arms are better in pretty much every way for the same cost. Again it's not terrible, but you find yourself saving a lot of your four elements abilities only for when you can be sure to maximise them, which can end up feeling like you're barely using your sub-class.
So it's not that the options and flexibility aren't there, they just aren't good enough.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Ah yes, because a martial artist couldn't possibly be big and beefy
While all monks are martial artists, not all martial artists are monks.
Hmmm maybe the Monk could be a subclass of an MMA class then.
"Martial Arts" doesn't have enough of a concept / archetype to build a class around, as pretty much their only common feature is that they don't need weapons to fight. Many of them use weapons others don't, some wear armour others don't, some have a mystical / magical elements while others don't, some use their whole body others don't, some are physically strong, others are not, some are sneaky & dextrous others are not, some use improvized weapons others do not, some wrestle their opponents without hurting them others kill with a single strike. It would be a class with only 1 class feature everything else would be subclass specific, that isn't a class, it's a feat.
Sumo wrestlers and Jedi just don't fit into the same class.
ehh, the same can be said of fighters, Rangers, wizards, etc. A wizard can be a summoned magic weapon wielding dexterous dancer, or a Huge burly guy who is super hard to hurt. (in fact this is common in 5e) A fighter could be a 300lb guy with a huge battle axe, or a skinny dexterous guy who throws daggers with unerring accuracy.
Rangers are lightly armoured weapon users who can travel through harsh wilderness with ease and have an deep understanding of nature and the ability to magically manipulate it. They are generally light and dexterous so they can vanish into the foliage to ambush their prey using light weapons or bows.
Wizards are highly intelligent mages who rely on magic for everything they do, they are easily KOed and rely on magic to protect themselves - not armor, and have minimal ability to use weapons. However they are the most versatile and powerful spellcasters able to wipe out whole armies or cripple even the most powerful of creatures with the right spell.
Fighters are highly skilled warriors who specialize in a single combat style with highly honed physical bodies and skills to act tactically using the best weapons and armour that money can buy to turn the tide of a fight by using limited use powerful abilities at the right time and the right place.
What is a monk?
Rangers can be str or dex based. they also are proficient with medium armor. They aren't focused on light weapons or bows. There is actually nothing linking them more to dexterity than strength.
'using limited powerful abilities at the right time and place' is every class except maybe rogue. Having access to all weapons and armor also fits cleric and paladin. they actually can specialize in multiple fighting styles, but regardless, the same can be said of paladin. The fighter is actually defined in the phb as a generalist.
wizards depend on magic, but so does sorcerer. Not sure if they are easily ko'ed. perhaps without magic, but you may as well say a fighter is easily koed without armor.
its just as easy to say this type of stuff for monk,
monk is a well trained warrior who focuses on mind and body, simple weapon or no weapon, armorless they are deadly as armored knights. Their ascetic training allows them to perform super natural feats of speed, power and mental prowess through their application of the hidden magical energy innate to all living things.
and they do say this type of thing in the pHb for every class.
its not really monk being hard to define thats the problem, they just didnt make a great version of it, and now that everyone else is more versatile, unique, and tightened in design, the monk is a lot worse by comparison. The monk's flaws are more about execution than base concepts.
Lack of heavy armour proficiency requires Rangers to have at least a 14 Dex, they lack access to the GWF fighting style making them worse at using heavy weapons than other martials, many of their class-unique spells only work with ranged weapons which are Dex-based and several class features benefit stealth which is Dex-based and the PHB explicitly says they are Dex-based. Sure it is possible to build a Str ranger but they are definitely against type.
Barbarians, Rangers, and Rogues, all lack nova abilities and instead primarily use sustained-effects whether that's concentration spells from Ranger, or Rage that typically lasts all combat. In contrast all Fighter's limited use abilities last for only 1 round or less (only a couple of Rune Knight abilities violate this pattern).
Sorcerers gain magic innately so have far less versatility than Wizards and instead focus on maximizing the power of a small number of spells vs the wizard that focuses on having the right spell for the job.
Paladin's differ from Fighters in having strong support & out-of-combat abilities and being magical holy warriors with far less association with tactics (the "lawful stupid" paladin trope didn't just appear from nothing). The only difference between what STR-monk people want for Monk and a Fighter is that the monk doesn't use weapons or armour, which now doesn't make them unique at all b/c of the Brawler subclass for Fighter which fulfills all the archtype needs for a STR-based unarmed fighter.
Many many archtypes people want monk to fulfill are not mystical at all : Jackie Chan & other action stars, MMA fighters, Wrestlers, Boxers. Quite a few use armour and/or weapons - i.e. historical martial arts used by soldiers / armies, samurai.
monk is a well trained warrior who focuses on mind and body, simple weapon or no weapon, armorless they are deadly as armored knights. Their ascetic training allows them to perform super natural feats of speed, power and mental prowess through their application of the hidden magical energy innate to all living things.
fighters are well trained too. and barbarians focus on mind and body in lieu of armor as well. what that leaves out is why they choose to be less effective by giving up armor and martial weapons (and then didn't replace that with an exploration niche like rangers and the wilderness or rogues and other people's pockets). was this a response to weapon shortages or bans? or maybe these monk guys are all assassins, focusing on blending in with citizens to remove political rivals? maybe it's like with wizards, they just spend all their time on research of old scrolls and developing new techniques: muscle mages?
I feel like any short blurb describing the uniqueness of monks shouldn't sound like it could belong to oath of glory paladins caught out in their pajamas.
the same can be said for fighters and paladins in the post I quoted, as I pointed out. Blurbs don't encompass everything that a character is, its the central themes. Specifically the fighter is a generalist, and overlaps with many. The Paladin and fighter both train, both use weapons and armor well, but the fighter is more focused on it than the paladin.
There is a difference between an Academic and an Engineer. They have both studied in order to do their jobs, but the studying is a more central part of being an Academic than it is being an Engineer. The Engineer studies when needed. The Academic is defined by studying. The Engineer isnt an Academic or vice versa. Another Analogy might be an Olympic Track star versus a body builder. The Olympic Track star trains to be better at running, the Body Builder's trains to perfect their body. Training is the central core of the body builder's effort. For the trackstar its a means to an end.
Also, barbarians aren't really representing the highly trained warrior, they are representing raw natural talent, instinct, and a strong drive, and now, their connection to primal forces.
And monks in dnd aren't like paladins, paladin's strength comes from faith in a certain god or idea. Monks power comes from within themselves through rigorous training. No gods, or faith are required. they also don't cast spells, they use natural magic of living creatures (mostly themselves). Its more like being a Jedi than a spell caster.
and they aren't choosing to be less effective, because they have figured out how to manipulate living energy, they are as effective without weapons as with them. They can use a sword or not, there should be no strong difference.
This is why the MA dice was supposed to scale with monk level for weapons and unarmed, and why they were supposed to be able to attain the same armor class as a fighter with a shield and armor, based on level/attributes.
this is what the phb, and one dnd say about these concepts.
what sparked my response was that you had critiqued the ranger blub by picking apart how others wear medium armor and can build for dex. it looked like you were saying 'that's not very unique,' but ignoring the wilderness connection. the "what is a monk?" question was itself a callout for lack of unique cohesive features that might fit in a monk blurb. your answering blub was "well trained," "no weapon," "armorless," and "magical energy" which didn't answer the question of how monks are a class rather than a flavor theme. something like rage, spellbook, action surge, or metamagic. sure 'wilderness expert' is a little thin but it's easily a profession. on the other hand, 'punches powered by strict discipline' seems even thinner, more like a backstory or theme any roleplay-heavy warrior could slip on.
(sorry for not going back to quote all the relevant ziggurats, too difficult on mobile. maybe later.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
monk is a well trained warrior who focuses on mind and body, simple weapon or no weapon, armorless they are deadly as armored knights. Their ascetic training allows them to perform super natural feats of speed, power and mental prowess through their application of the hidden magical energy innate to all living things.
fighters are well trained too. and barbarians focus on mind and body in lieu of armor as well. what that leaves out is why they choose to be less effective by giving up armor and martial weapons (and then didn't replace that with an exploration niche like rangers and the wilderness or rogues and other people's pockets). was this a response to weapon shortages or bans? or maybe these monk guys are all assassins, focusing on blending in with citizens to remove political rivals? maybe it's like with wizards, they just spend all their time on research of old scrolls and developing new techniques: muscle mages?
I feel like any short blurb describing the uniqueness of monks shouldn't sound like it could belong to oath of glory paladins caught out in their pajamas.
the same can be said for fighters and paladins in the post I quoted, as I pointed out. Blurbs don't encompass everything that a character is, its the central themes. Specifically the fighter is a generalist, and overlaps with many. The Paladin and fighter both train, both use weapons and armor well, but the fighter is more focused on it than the paladin.
There is a difference between an Academic and an Engineer. They have both studied in order to do their jobs, but the studying is a more central part of being an Academic than it is being an Engineer. The Engineer studies when needed. The Academic is defined by studying. The Engineer isnt an Academic or vice versa. Another Analogy might be an Olympic Track star versus a body builder. The Olympic Track star trains to be better at running, the Body Builder's trains to perfect their body. Training is the central core of the body builder's effort. For the trackstar its a means to an end.
Also, barbarians aren't really representing the highly trained warrior, they are representing raw natural talent, instinct, and a strong drive, and now, their connection to primal forces.
And monks in dnd aren't like paladins, paladin's strength comes from faith in a certain god or idea. Monks power comes from within themselves through rigorous training. No gods, or faith are required. they also don't cast spells, they use natural magic of living creatures (mostly themselves). Its more like being a Jedi than a spell caster.
and they aren't choosing to be less effective, because they have figured out how to manipulate living energy, they are as effective without weapons as with them. They can use a sword or not, there should be no strong difference.
This is why the MA dice was supposed to scale with monk level for weapons and unarmed, and why they were supposed to be able to attain the same armor class as a fighter with a shield and armor, based on level/attributes.
this is what the phb, and one dnd say about these concepts.
what sparked my response was that you had critiqued the ranger blub by picking apart how others wear medium armor and can build for dex. it looked like you were saying 'that's not very unique,' but ignoring the wilderness connection. the "what is a monk?" question was itself a callout for lack of unique cohesive features that might fit in a monk blurb. your answering blub was "well trained," "no weapon," "armorless," and "magical energy" which didn't answer the question of how monks are a class rather than a flavor theme. something like rage, spellbook, action surge, or metamagic. sure 'wilderness expert' is a little thin but it's easily a profession. on the other hand, 'punches powered by strict discipline' seems even thinner, more like a backstory or theme any roleplay-heavy warrior could slip on.
(sorry for not going back to quote all the relevant ziggurats, too difficult on mobile. maybe later.)
what I was saying was those specific facets that I mentioned were not unique.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
what does one have to do with the other? Neither martial artist nor monk is linked to a specific body type in iconic fictions.
That said the main thing stopping monk from being beefy, is having the heaviest attribute requirement for two other stats. Its not like they said monk can't bee beefy, its just good luck when you are almost required to go 20/20 on dex/wis.
Which is why I favor completely dissociating unarmored defense from attributes. Just change it to 16 (17 at level 5, 18 at level 11, 19 at level 17).
"Martial Arts" doesn't have enough of a concept / archetype to build a class around, as pretty much their only common feature is that they don't need weapons to fight. Many of them use weapons others don't, some wear armour others don't, some have a mystical / magical elements while others don't, some use their whole body others don't, some are physically strong, others are not, some are sneaky & dextrous others are not, some use improvized weapons others do not, some wrestle their opponents without hurting them others kill with a single strike. It would be a class with only 1 class feature everything else would be subclass specific, that isn't a class, it's a feat.
Sumo wrestlers and Jedi just don't fit into the same class.
You literally just described the monk, its subclasses, and typical use in play. If this is not enough of a concept to build a class around, I guess this is a good argument to fold monk into fighter?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Don't they though? Neither of these wears armour, so they're looking for an unarmored class.
As I've said earlier in the thread, enabling Strength builds for Monk takes only the tiniest of changes; it only required Unarmored Defence to be 10 + WIS + the higher of DEX or STR. It's like a two or three word change and you can then build around Strength or Dexterity as you please. This wouldn't fix any of our real problems, but it enables a little bit more build versatility.
Sumo wrestler would probably want to sacrifice a little Wisdom in favour of Constitution, and you could probably argue it as Open Hand for the easier access to shoving; it would be better if Monk either had some grappling options as standard, or a grappling oriented sub-class but these are absolutely within the realm of possibility. While Barbarian might arguably be a better fit in 5e, that's because it grapples well as standard, but its damage without a weapon isn't great unless you add feats on top (and unarmed fighting style hasn't been a thing in the playtests so far, has it?).
Jedi is trickier as you need force powers, and the Monk sub-classes with extra powers have all had major mechanical problems, but that could, should and must be fixed. Really we just need a way to slap on thunderwave for a force push, because Step of the Wind already gives speed and big jumps. Meanwhile a sun blade is your lightsaber and is actually an excellent magic item for Monks as it requires nothing extra to use it.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Even if you do this, They'll still want high Wis and Dex though - the former for stunning strike and subclass abilities, the latter for attack and damage.
One solution I've seen is to change their AC calculation from 10+Dex+Wis to 8+PB+Dex+Wis. You still start out with 15-16 AC at level 1, but the scaling is much better, so you're not forced to rush for 20 Wis and Dex at the earliest opportunity (though you still can if you want really strong defenses.) You can max out just the one you need for offense or control, and deprioritize the other without making yourself overly squishy. For example, at level 7 if you have 18 Dex, 14 Wis and +3 PB, you'll have a total of 17 AC; if your Wis is 16 instead, you'd have 18 AC.
let's not forget transmutation wizards and moon druids. basically the same thing but different targets. fold those guys into the sorcerer class since some of those guys turn into dragons.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
There are three core features for the D&D monk:
The problem is that plenty of reasonable concepts only include one or two of those elements, and there isn't a great class choice for those people.
ehh, the same can be said of fighters, Rangers, wizards, etc. A wizard can be a summoned magic weapon wielding dexterous dancer, or a Huge burly guy who is super hard to hurt. (in fact this is common in 5e) A fighter could be a 300lb guy with a huge battle axe, or a skinny dexterous guy who throws daggers with unerring accuracy.
people really can only conceive of magic and not magic huh? just because people don't have spells doesnt mean they are all the same. By this definition they should just have fighter wizard and fighter/wizard
You’re not going to be able to fulfill everyone’s fantasy for monk in the base class. The base needs solid ground to sit on and let the subclasses do the rest.
Want a STR monk? Make it a subclass with the third level feature that allows AC to be calculated using STR instead of DEX or maybe WIS. Would just have to work out how to handle levels 1 & 2 before the switch to STR for attack and AC.
Want an armored monk? a subclass like Kensei could fit that bill, etc
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Rangers are lightly armoured weapon users who can travel through harsh wilderness with ease and have an deep understanding of nature and the ability to magically manipulate it. They are generally light and dexterous so they can vanish into the foliage to ambush their prey using light weapons or bows.
Wizards are highly intelligent mages who rely on magic for everything they do, they are easily KOed and rely on magic to protect themselves - not armor, and have minimal ability to use weapons. However they are the most versatile and powerful spellcasters able to wipe out whole armies or cripple even the most powerful of creatures with the right spell.
Fighters are highly skilled warriors who specialize in a single combat style with highly honed physical bodies and skills to act tactically using the best weapons and armour that money can buy to turn the tide of a fight by using limited use powerful abilities at the right time and the right place.
What is a monk?
Yeah, I think you are missing your target here...
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Rangers can be str or dex based. they also are proficient with medium armor. They aren't focused on light weapons or bows. There is actually nothing linking them more to dexterity than strength.
'using limited powerful abilities at the right time and place' is every class except maybe rogue. Having access to all weapons and armor also fits cleric and paladin. they actually can specialize in multiple fighting styles, but regardless, the same can be said of paladin. The fighter is actually defined in the phb as a generalist.
wizards depend on magic, but so does sorcerer. Not sure if they are easily ko'ed. perhaps without magic, but you may as well say a fighter is easily koed without armor.
its just as easy to say this type of stuff for monk,
monk is a well trained warrior who focuses on mind and body, simple weapon or no weapon, armorless they are deadly as armored knights. Their ascetic training allows them to perform super natural feats of speed, power and mental prowess through their application of the hidden magical energy innate to all living things.
and they do say this type of thing in the pHb for every class.
its not really monk being hard to define thats the problem, they just didnt make a great version of it, and now that everyone else is more versatile, unique, and tightened in design, the monk is a lot worse by comparison. The monk's flaws are more about execution than base concepts.
fighters are well trained too. and barbarians focus on mind and body in lieu of armor as well. what that leaves out is why they choose to be less effective by giving up armor and martial weapons (and then didn't replace that with an exploration niche like rangers and the wilderness or rogues and other people's pockets). was this a response to weapon shortages or bans? or maybe these monk guys are all assassins, focusing on blending in with citizens to remove political rivals? maybe it's like with wizards, they just spend all their time on research of old scrolls and developing new techniques: muscle mages?
I feel like any short blurb describing the uniqueness of monks shouldn't sound like it could belong to oath of glory paladins caught out in their pajamas.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
the same can be said for fighters and paladins in the post I quoted, as I pointed out. Blurbs don't encompass everything that a character is, its the central themes. Specifically the fighter is a generalist, and overlaps with many. The Paladin and fighter both train, both use weapons and armor well, but the fighter is more focused on it than the paladin.
There is a difference between an Academic and an Engineer. They have both studied in order to do their jobs, but the studying is a more central part of being an Academic than it is being an Engineer. The Engineer studies when needed. The Academic is defined by studying. The Engineer isnt an Academic or vice versa. Another Analogy might be an Olympic Track star versus a body builder. The Olympic Track star trains to be better at running, the Body Builder's trains to perfect their body. Training is the central core of the body builder's effort. For the trackstar its a means to an end.
Also, barbarians aren't really representing the highly trained warrior, they are representing raw natural talent, instinct, and a strong drive, and now, their connection to primal forces.
And monks in dnd aren't like paladins, paladin's strength comes from faith in a certain god or idea. Monks power comes from within themselves through rigorous training. No gods, or faith are required. they also don't cast spells, they use natural magic of living creatures (mostly themselves). Its more like being a Jedi than a spell caster.
and they aren't choosing to be less effective, because they have figured out how to manipulate living energy, they are as effective without weapons as with them. They can use a sword or not, there should be no strong difference.
This is why the MA dice was supposed to scale with monk level for weapons and unarmed, and why they were supposed to be able to attain the same armor class as a fighter with a shield and armor, based on level/attributes.
this is what the phb, and one dnd say about these concepts.
All three of these should be compatible with most concepts IMO; mechanically you're not really forced to be "mystical/spiritual" as opposed to disciplined/focused, and the renaming of Ki to Discipline actually helps that (though I prefer Focus as a term, personally).
I don't think anyone expects Monk to gain the ability to wear armour, and unarmed is also arguably a core part of it as well even if you favour your weapon attacks over any unarmed strikes you make.
The main problems are a) the core class doesn't scale into later tiers well enough (especially with Stunning Strike nerfed with no alternatives) and b) some of the sub-classes just straight up suck.
Kensai should be ideal for any player that wants to focus on their weapon(s) more, but it's mechanically a mess; it's not terrible and it kind of works most of the time, but could it be so easily improved. In my own "remaster" of it for example I made Agile Parry an expansion of Deflect Missiles (might be a bit too strong for 3rd-level though, might need to scale differently) and added a "Quick Strikes" feature so your unarmed strikes can deal the same damage type as a held weapon (i.e- you're striking with the weapon, not your body, but the damage is the same to maintain balance as they're not "proper" strikes), brought in Sharpen the Blade sooner (starting with only a +1, and extends to Quick Strikes later).
We have the same issue with anyone that wants to play an Avatar: The Last Airbender/Legend of Korra style character as four elements likewise is mechanically a mess; it has some of the right pieces, but it just ends up being a massive drain on your Ki to use anything beyond the best value abilities, and even some of those like Fangs of the Fire Snake have been one-upped by later sub-classes, as Astral Self's Astral Arms are better in pretty much every way for the same cost. Again it's not terrible, but you find yourself saving a lot of your four elements abilities only for when you can be sure to maximise them, which can end up feeling like you're barely using your sub-class.
So it's not that the options and flexibility aren't there, they just aren't good enough.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Lack of heavy armour proficiency requires Rangers to have at least a 14 Dex, they lack access to the GWF fighting style making them worse at using heavy weapons than other martials, many of their class-unique spells only work with ranged weapons which are Dex-based and several class features benefit stealth which is Dex-based and the PHB explicitly says they are Dex-based. Sure it is possible to build a Str ranger but they are definitely against type.
Barbarians, Rangers, and Rogues, all lack nova abilities and instead primarily use sustained-effects whether that's concentration spells from Ranger, or Rage that typically lasts all combat. In contrast all Fighter's limited use abilities last for only 1 round or less (only a couple of Rune Knight abilities violate this pattern).
Sorcerers gain magic innately so have far less versatility than Wizards and instead focus on maximizing the power of a small number of spells vs the wizard that focuses on having the right spell for the job.
Paladin's differ from Fighters in having strong support & out-of-combat abilities and being magical holy warriors with far less association with tactics (the "lawful stupid" paladin trope didn't just appear from nothing). The only difference between what STR-monk people want for Monk and a Fighter is that the monk doesn't use weapons or armour, which now doesn't make them unique at all b/c of the Brawler subclass for Fighter which fulfills all the archtype needs for a STR-based unarmed fighter.
Many many archtypes people want monk to fulfill are not mystical at all : Jackie Chan & other action stars, MMA fighters, Wrestlers, Boxers. Quite a few use armour and/or weapons - i.e. historical martial arts used by soldiers / armies, samurai.
what sparked my response was that you had critiqued the ranger blub by picking apart how others wear medium armor and can build for dex. it looked like you were saying 'that's not very unique,' but ignoring the wilderness connection. the "what is a monk?" question was itself a callout for lack of unique cohesive features that might fit in a monk blurb. your answering blub was "well trained," "no weapon," "armorless," and "magical energy" which didn't answer the question of how monks are a class rather than a flavor theme. something like rage, spellbook, action surge, or metamagic. sure 'wilderness expert' is a little thin but it's easily a profession. on the other hand, 'punches powered by strict discipline' seems even thinner, more like a backstory or theme any roleplay-heavy warrior could slip on.
(sorry for not going back to quote all the relevant ziggurats, too difficult on mobile. maybe later.)
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
what I was saying was those specific facets that I mentioned were not unique.