Isn't that absent from the playtests though? On that basis it won't be possible to play an unarmed fighter in OneD&D at least initially.
If the issue is still wether Monks should be better able to support Strength builds then I'm in favour of doing it, as it's not like doing so will suddenly make them Fighters; aside from Extra Attack both classes function very differently.
There's also the fact that you currently can build a Strength-based Monk, but only by using the Tortle race; while that very much supports the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles demographic, what about the rest of us who'd like to play another race and still play a Monk that doesn't have limp noodle arms?
The problem becomes how do you make monks support STR builds. Dex is such a better stat compared to STR. So much so that my Dex Barbarian is okay giving up his additional rage damage, to gain better AC, better initiative, and an improvement in a more common saving throw. If you decide to make a Str based monk you would be forfeiting those things. So the monk is actually designed with two of the most commonly used saves as its primary stats. I’ve made attempts to make a more STR friendly monk and they are often received negatively. Also Remember Monk pre 5e did actually need Str, Dex, and Wis.
Although I would have liked WotC to do more with the monk I think your fixes are probably more in line with what WotC is willing to do.
I still think Hand’s Open Hand Technique should have no saves. Addle (before it was given that name) didn’t have one and Push and Topple are now weapon masteries that are just free, though Push WM is less distance. It’s nice that it isn’t contingent on using FOB but why is it more difficult than what anyone with WM can do? At minimum Push and Addles should be no save (Shocking Grasp doesn’t give a save to take away reactions. Unless that changes in the spells UA coming in the future)
Even though my idea of a monk goes against yours I still have to say it. As stated previously, in my opinion the monk is a warrior class with supernatural powers. Magic? Perhaps, but it could also be called life force or life energy. Kind of like The Force in Star Wars. And that is what distinguishes it from the magic of the other magical or semi-magical classes. Up to here I think almost everybody agrees with me.
Going on the subject of martial arts. These were developed anciently so that a physically inferior person could still fight against someone physically superior. Because someone already strong does not need to develop fighting techniques if they are already strong in themselves, but the weak person does. This is different for those who fight in war, but in this case they are fighters. This led to the development of the soft and hard techniques of martial arts. The hard techniques, although they use a part of physical performance are not completely influenced by it, but by the stance that uses the resistance from the ground to the strike. Occasionally it is also just the speed and force of movement that give power to the attack and not physical prowess. Imagine someone running at you and jumping toward you preparing them in midair to deliver a powerful knee strike. In this case it is not the leg strength but the speed of movement in the air that conveys the force of the blow. Very often the difference between an army fighter and a martial arts master is precisely physical training. The necessary time used to meditate and improve martial arts form comes to harm in the physical training of a martial arts master (at least in ancient times it was so). This is supposed to represent a bit of the mystical monk.
Now scientific information about the biology of muscles: As muscles, There are 2 different types of muscles (searching the web). One type of muscle that is very powerful but slow (red muscle) and another type of muscle that is less powerful but fast (white muscle). It is also told of a third type, pink muscle that has both properties (but I read about it in the Kenichi Ryozanpaku manga).
Conclusion: So a person who develops dexterity is not a person without muscles, but with more compact muscles specifically for speed, sprinting and fluidity in movement. From the information I have given you, I think the monk should be mainly with white muscles (Dexterity) and in the case of a monk with red muscles (Strength) should be uniquely in some subclass.
Magic and supernatural are synonyms. It’s weird to me that people are getting caught up on calling what the monks do Magic. I’m not saying they should cast spells or work mechanically different than they already do. I’m stating by calling it Magic, life force magic, or inner magic we move away from Asian inspired ki while still acknowledging what it actually is, Magic. That doesn’t mean they cast spells. Again there are tons of things that are magic and have nothing to do with spells.
As a real life Army Veteran who has trained in BJJ, Wrestling, Taekwondo, American Kenpo, a little swordplay (fencing and hand and a half), and a little eskrima I have to tell you they are all martial arts. The base DND fighter is a martial artist. It’s when you add the magical element you get the fantasy troupe the monk is trying to fulfill.
On another note if there was a Unarmored fighting style feat that allowed you to add either your Int, Wis, or Cha to your Dex would it be broken.
magic and supernatural aren't used interchangeably. But whatever, semantics, we understand words differently, if you mean what I mean, its fine.
Comparing to the real world in terms of magic kind of misses the point. If we lived in a world where 'magic' was a basic force of nature inherent in all things, and some creatures owed there power in part to this 'magic' then many martial arts would focus on harnessing or chanelling this energy. For many martial arts, even in the real world, have tried, or claim to be able to do this.
regardless to all that, a fighter in 5e is not necessarily a martial artist. They could only use bows and crossbows and heavy armor. Their fighting system could be completely original or self taught. Just because you are a warrior/martial doesnt mean you are a 'martial artist'
But maybe we are getting lost in meaning. What I think a monk should represent in dnd is a character who trains mind and body expressed through combat in pursuit of knowledge/inspiration/art/understanding/awareness to the extent that they go beyond the bounds of what can normally be achieved (this could be 'magic')
A fighter is a warrior who uses all tools(primarily physical) at their disposal in pursuit of defeating their enemies. There is overlap here, which is normal for dnd classes. Note that fighter is by the phb's own description a general term. What makes barbarian, paladin, monk, Ranger, rogue not a fighter is that they aren't primarily defined by just being fighter. The have themes/identities that are more central to the character/class than the fact they engage in battle)
Quick Summary so hopefully we can move forwards rather than going round and round in circles..
Only Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter are capable of representing IRL people because all other classes are fundamentally tied to magic
Fighter is the class for all mundane combat-specialists including unarmed ones
For that last bullet item, how would you differentiate that from the Barbarian? Aren't they also a combat specialist of a sort? I would sort of suggest sophisticated technique based combat specialists (Fighter) vs unsophisticated adrenal rage and aggression based combat specialists (Barbarian). (in the larger scope of this post, I don't have a specific assertion about Barbarians and Martial Arts, I'm just trying to get a clarification about why Barbarians aren't in that last bullet item).
And, at the risk of bringing up an old argument ... what about non-Rage-warriors and non-combat-specialists, who are "IRL people", and are adventurers (but aren't criminals nor cops)? Which "IRL people" class do they fall into? (I'm asking you how you fit them into your bullet list -- I wont follow up with a counter argument, so as to avoid re-creating that past argument)
Quick Summary so hopefully we can move forwards rather than going round and round in circles..
IRL martial arts require strength, dexterity, and technique
IRL martial artists wear armour and use weapons when engaging in real combat rather than sport, training, or entertainment
D&D is a overly simplified game that does not simulate IRL combat well at all.
The D&D Monk is a magic-based martial class that does not represent IRL martial artists
Only Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter are capable of representing IRL people because all other classes are fundamentally tied to magic
Fighter is the class for all mundane combat-specialists including unarmed ones
barbarian channels primal power now, and emotional power before. They are supernatural. Even in 5e
"Barbarians come alive in the chaos of combat. They can enter a berserk state where rage takes over, giving them superhuman strength and resilience."
fighter is not intrinsically about being mundane, and is not the class for all mundane specialists. Note, eldritch knight, rune knight, echo knight, psi warrior. Often another class may be a better fit for certain fantasies. If someone wants to play a wilderness tracker, a ranger is a better fit for example.
" Fighters learn the basics of all combat styles. Every fighter can swing an axe, fence with a rapier, wield a longsword or a greatsword, use a bow, and even trap foes in a net with some degree of skill. Likewise, a fighter is adept with shields and every form of armor. Beyond that basic degree of familiarity, each fighter specializes in a certain style of combat. Some concentrate on archery, some on fighting with two weapons at once, and some on augmenting their martial skills with magic. This combination of broad general ability and extensive specialization makes fighters superior combatants on battlefields and in dungeons alike."
Also, fighters didnt even have a means of getting more than d4 in unarmed fighting, which every class had access to, until Tasha's. So I highly doubt they can be considered the primary method of expressing the concept of unarmed fighting. Just like I cant claim monk is the best representation of weapon fantasy because they got dedicated weapon in Tasha's.
Based on the description, what sets fighters apart is that they are so heavily focused on combat and so general.
I feel like breaking down Str and Dex relationship to martial arts is going to take us down a rabbit hole of unimportant nonsense. Especially since the game stat of Dexterity doesn’t only represent the development of fast twitch muscles. It also encompasses hand eye coordination and reaction time. That might be the real reason that Dex is superior to Str. Str only covers jumping, physical lifting, and grip strength. If we wanted realism we would have a system that forced you to invest into both to some degree to be competent. All attack rolls would be dex and melee damage rolls would be str+dex/2. Bows and crossbows would require Str knock or load, but damage would rolls would be dex because where you hit is what determines the damage.
As far as street fighter characters they don’t correlate to any single class 9in 5e dnd. Just from the game concept I would give all of them at least 1 level of monk. Guile’s story is he is Air Force so he is definitely a fighter or at the least soldier background. Because of the weapons and combat training he would have received I can’t place him as a pure monk. It would be far easier to put these characters in the game as monster statblocks and not build them as player characters. If you could cheat and use any race but they all look human I guess you could pull it off by using races with magic or magical abilities.
Gwar1 do you realize that magic and supernatural are literally synonyms in the English language? “It was like magic I can’t explain it,” and “it was supernatural I can’t explain it” mean the same thing. In game they mean the same thing. There are simply different sources of magic in game. The phb explains ki as magic. 5e even includes psionics as magic. I know previous editions didn’t do this. Psionics was its own non magic thing in previous editions. In 5e they all are magic in some different form. Fighter are 100% martial artist. I need you to look up what a martial art is before you make that claim. You are correct in you in your understanding of how a monk gets its magic. It is a magic that exist in living things and can’t be accessed through just knowledge alone, it take take a training and understanding of the body and how this magic moves through the body. I suppose you could say my fighter has no formal training, but most fighters are easily martial artist. Technically you could say your monk has no formal training then what, I guess they aren’t a martial artist.
If one sees the barbarian as the personification of brute force, non-technique but pure brutality the monk is the opposite. Technique and perfection excelling over strength and brutality. Finally the fighter who stands in between the two. That is why the barbarian, the fighter and the monk are called the 3 warrior classes.
Monks do not have the time to train their bodies all the time as a fighter might . Monks meditate for a large part of the day and so instead of seeking the pinnacle of strength they follow perfection in the form of movements and then in technique. Form is like a dance and dance is a way of meditation to seek perfection in their technique.
key question people should be asking is "is there a good mechanical or game balance reason why Monk shouldn't be viable using Strength?"
Disagree, D&D isn't just about mechanics, it is mechanics and theme.
Nothing about the theme of Monk makes Dexterity a requirement, they're a martial artist with mystical elements. And we've absolutely seen "hard" theming stripped away progressively in favour of greater player freedom; Paladins no longer requiring a deity for example. Because what matters is that they're a "holy" knight, which is what the mechanics represent.
One might equally ask, "is there a good mechanical or game balance reason why Cleric shouldn't be viable using Intelligence?"
Because "Cleric" is specifically the divine/spiritual caster, and Wisdom is the corresponding ability score, just as Wizard is the "learned" caster. These are poor examples because in the case of these casters they are the expansion of the ability score options as opposed to having a single "mage" class where you get to choose, choosing one of the full-casters is choosing the ability score. But there's no other martial artist class in the game.
Barbarians are STR-based because that is their theme, Rogues are DEX-based because that is their theme. Monks are DEX+WIS based because that is their theme.
Barbarians are Strength based because they're all about brute force, Rogues are Dexterity based because they're all about sneaking (and sneak attacking), Monks however are about being mystical martial artists; that doesn't require specifically Dexterity or Strength, but fits Wisdom mechanically (as Charisma is will/presence, Intelligence is academic, Wisdom is more experience/spiritual).
But neither Dexterity or Strength is intrinsic to martial arts, and the martial arts feature even specifically lets us use either; the problem is that that is currently a false choice thanks to Unarmored Defense.
If every class must be SAD then monk should be SAD on Wisdom, then you can throw you secondary stat into STR for RP reasons, just like Rogues throw secondary stats into intelligence or charisma for RP reasons.
Why argue against what I said then immediately agree with me?
Wisdom is already part of the Monk's "mystical" element, and they have the martial arts rules to allow Dexterity or Strength be viable for attacks, the only missing piece is currently going for Strength cripples your defence (unless you are a Lizardfolk or Tortle with natural AC). But this doesn't make them SAD, SAD is a class that can get by with a high score in one ability and weaker scores in everything else.
Only Fighter and Rogue are really currently SAD for "martials", because Barbarians want good STR and CON, Rogue can get by with only good DEX, and Fighter can get by with just good STR or DEX depending upon how you build them (if you go STR you probably also want CON, but DEX for ranged should take less damage usually, so they can dump ASIs into more feats).
Again, what's at issue here is not some radical or major structural change to the Monk, it's the tiniest of tiny tweaks required to remove a specific score dependency for one feature that actually conflicts with martial arts in its current form (martial arts allows choice, unarmored defense takes that choice away). And it's silly when specific races can solve the problem, but not everybody wants to play a Teenage Mutant Ninja Tortle (okay, maybe for a one shot or short adventure, not as a main for a full campaign 😝).
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.
And, at the risk of bringing up an old argument ... what about non-Rage-warriors and non-combat-specialists, who are "IRL people", and are adventurers (but aren't criminals nor cops)? Which "IRL people" class do they fall into? (I'm asking you how you fit them into your bullet list -- I wont follow up with a counter argument, so as to avoid re-creating that past argument)
People who don't have a field of expertise related to violence aren't D&D adventurers, because D&D is a RPG built around a wargame.
And, at the risk of bringing up an old argument ... what about non-Rage-warriors and non-combat-specialists, who are "IRL people", and are adventurers (but aren't criminals nor cops)? Which "IRL people" class do they fall into? (I'm asking you how you fit them into your bullet list -- I wont follow up with a counter argument, so as to avoid re-creating that past argument)
People who don't have a field of expertise related to violence aren't D&D adventurers, because D&D is a RPG built around a wargame.
In truth you can do whatever you want. But it is true that 98% want to fight and solve enigmas and explore.
If every class must be SAD then monk should be SAD on Wisdom, then you can throw you secondary stat into STR for RP reasons, just like Rogues throw secondary stats into intelligence or charisma for RP reasons.
Why argue against what I said then immediately agree with me?
Because you did not say to make them SAD on Wisdom -> i.e. attacks are Wisdom (not STR), DC is Wisdom (not STR or DEX) and AC is Wisdom (not STR). You were arguing for a STR-focused monk which is not it's theme.
Quick Summary so hopefully we can move forwards rather than going round and round in circles..
IRL martial arts require strength, dexterity, and technique
IRL martial artists wear armour and use weapons when engaging in real combat rather than sport, training, or entertainment
D&D is a overly simplified game that does not simulate IRL combat well at all.
The D&D Monk is a magic-based martial class that does not represent IRL martial artists
Only Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter are capable of representing IRL people because all other classes are fundamentally tied to magic
Fighter is the class for all mundane combat-specialists including unarmed ones
barbarian channels primal power now, and emotional power before. They are supernatural. Even in 5e
"Barbarians come alive in the chaos of combat. They can enter a berserk state where rage takes over, giving them superhuman strength and resilience."
fighter is not intrinsically about being mundane, and is not the class for all mundane specialists. Note, eldritch knight, rune knight, echo knight, psi warrior. Often another class may be a better fit for certain fantasies. If someone wants to play a wilderness tracker, a ranger is a better fit for example.
Note I said they are capable of being IRL people, not that they must be IRL people. There are lots of subclasses for each of them that are definitely supernatural: Fighter : Psi Warrior, EK, Echo, Rune Knight, Arcane Archer Rogue : Soulknife, Phantom Barbarian : Zealot, Storm Herald, Ancestral Guardian (debatably also Totem and Zealot)
Rangers are pretty much all supernatural given they have spellcasting, if you want to play a mundane scout you need to be a Rogue with Wis as your RP offstat and taking wilderness skills for your proficiencies & expertise.
Rangers are pretty much all supernatural given they have spellcasting, if you want to play a mundane scout you need to be a Rogue with Wis as your RP offstat and taking wilderness skills for your proficiencies & expertise.
You can do it with a fighter using your bonus feats, but you're really fighting against the game system in that case. Far easier to just use the scout rogue.
And, at the risk of bringing up an old argument ... what about non-Rage-warriors and non-combat-specialists, who are "IRL people", and are adventurers (but aren't criminals nor cops)? Which "IRL people" class do they fall into? (I'm asking you how you fit them into your bullet list -- I wont follow up with a counter argument, so as to avoid re-creating that past argument)
People who don't have a field of expertise related to violence aren't D&D adventurers, because D&D is a RPG built around a wargame.
I didn’t say anything about violence. I said combat specialty. And the person I was replying to only identified 1 of the 3 “RL people” classes as being about combat specialty (I suggested it’s 2 of the 3 that are different types of combat specialist). So I am asking him where he puts not non-combat specialists who aren’t cops/criminals.
I didn’t say anything about violence. I said combat specialty. And the person I was replying to only identified 1 of the 3 “RL people” classes as being about combat specialty (I suggested it’s 2 of the 3 that are different types of combat specialist). So I am asking him where he puts not non-combat specialists who aren’t cops/criminals.
In D&D, the people who don't carry out their violence by being combat specialists are spellcasters. In a setting with higher tech there are alternative technical specializations that aren't magical, but in D&D, if you're not overtly magical and don't qualify as one of barbarian, fighter, or rogue, you really shouldn't be an adventurer.
I didn’t say anything about violence. I said combat specialty. And the person I was replying to only identified 1 of the 3 “RL people” classes as being about combat specialty (I suggested it’s 2 of the 3 that are different types of combat specialist). So I am asking him where he puts not non-combat specialists who aren’t cops/criminals.
In D&D, the people who don't carry out their violence by being combat specialists are spellcasters.
Given the context of the bullet list,, that stated that only Fighters, in the list of “RL people” classes, are combat specialists…. Are you suggesting that then Barbarians and Rogue are Spellcasters? That would be a weird thing to suggest.
Also, again, neither I nor the author of the bullet list used the word violence, nor anything about those who don’t engage in violence. It’s a non-sequitur that has no basis is anything you’re replying to. The question isn’t who does or doesn’t use violence, the question is about who specializes in combat. And the bullet list author says that only the Fighter, of the “RL people” classes, is a combat specialist.
in D&D, if you're not overtly magical and don't qualify as one of barbarian, fighter, or rogue, you really shouldn't be an adventurer.
Sounds like you should be arguing with the person who wrote the bullet list. They’re the one who said that, of the “RL people” classes, only the Fighter is a combat specialist.
Rangers are pretty much all supernatural given they have spellcasting, if you want to play a mundane scout you need to be a Rogue with Wis as your RP offstat and taking wilderness skills for your proficiencies & expertise.
You can do it with a fighter using your bonus feats, but you're really fighting against the game system in that case. Far easier to just use the scout rogue.
A fighter would work as well you just wouldn't be as good at being a wilderness hunter as a rogue would. I personally don't like the scout rogue as I think it steps too much on the toes of the Ranger since with 6 Expertise vs Ranger's 1 Expertise, the scout rogue is better at out-of-combat ranger-y things than the ranger. A regular thief rogue can work as an Indiana-Jones type ranger just fine as it is.
rogue cannot compare to ranger as wilderness tracker/hunter. A lot of the wilderness tracking and hunting are made into spells, though normally they'd be mundane abilities (in other games/ranger fantasies), because 5e doesnt really want to create a group of abilities that aren't spells. (they do it sparingly)
hunters mark, pass without a trace, snare, ensnaring strike, spike growth, animal friendship, beast bond, alarm, hail of thorns, swift quiver, locate animals or plants, flame aRrows,, steel wind strike, commune with nature. All do things a wilderness based charachter would want to do, and can normally do without magic.
so yeah thief gets expertise, but ranger can just succeed at the thing.
Hunter's Mark -> only gives Adv on tracking, this is not as good as expertise which can be stacked on top of adv from other sources like the Help Action, Enhance Ability, or good roleplay.
Pass without Trace -> this is one spell that rangers can cast 2x per day that makes them better at stealth than a rogue for those 2 hours per day.
Animal Friendship -> this doesn't really do anything more than a high animal handling check would do, so a rogue with expertise in animal handling is just as good at befriending animals as a ranger expending a limited spell slot.
Spike Growth / Ensnaring Strike / Hail of Thorns / Swift Quiver / Flame Arrows / Steel Wind Strike -> combat spell, I specifically said out-of-combat ranger-y things, so while yes cool it does not make a ranger a better mundane wilderness hunter / scout than a rogue.
Locate animals or plants / Beast bond-> terrible spell I have never seen a ranger actually take it, with their small number of spells known a ranger can't waste one on a spell they will never use like this one. Something being a spell doesn't make it good, lots of spells are trash and not worth taking / using.
Commune with Nature -> this is also a pretty bad spell, it is really no more useful that just rolling a 25 perception check which a Rogue is guaranteed to do at this level with Expertise and Reliable Talent.
But we're getting seriously off-topic... could we please go back to talking about monks?
So anyway, we were talking about how monk is a fundamentally magic-based class and should be made SAD on Wisdom. The easiest way to do without nerfing their AC in the early game is to make their AC = 10 + 2*Wis, the potential problem here is the druid multiclassing temptation since druids in the UA only get light armour proficiency so they will have AC 15-16 since they need to invest in at least a +2 CON and need to take Warcaster/Resilient-CON (because ever spell on their list worth casting is concentration) and max out their WIS so will not be able to increase their Dex at all, leaving them with a +1 or +2 depending on how many stats they are willing to dump. A one-level dip for AC18-20 and and off-hand unarmed strike is looking pretty good.
Alternatively, if Patient Defense only cost one attack rather than 2 it would be much more tempting and AC of 14-16 isn't so bad since DA is roughly equivalent to +5 AC making it a 19-21 effective AC for 1 ki per turn. It just requires ki to be less limiting in early play.
So anyway, we were talking about how monk is a fundamentally magic-based class and should be made SAD on Wisdom.
Nah. It's standard for mixed fighting/magical classes to use a different stat for attacking and save DCs. The only reason MAD is a problem is the AC issue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
magic and supernatural aren't used interchangeably. But whatever, semantics, we understand words differently, if you mean what I mean, its fine.
Comparing to the real world in terms of magic kind of misses the point. If we lived in a world where 'magic' was a basic force of nature inherent in all things, and some creatures owed there power in part to this 'magic' then many martial arts would focus on harnessing or chanelling this energy. For many martial arts, even in the real world, have tried, or claim to be able to do this.
regardless to all that, a fighter in 5e is not necessarily a martial artist. They could only use bows and crossbows and heavy armor. Their fighting system could be completely original or self taught. Just because you are a warrior/martial doesnt mean you are a 'martial artist'
But maybe we are getting lost in meaning. What I think a monk should represent in dnd is a character who trains mind and body expressed through combat in pursuit of knowledge/inspiration/art/understanding/awareness to the extent that they go beyond the bounds of what can normally be achieved (this could be 'magic')
A fighter is a warrior who uses all tools(primarily physical) at their disposal in pursuit of defeating their enemies. There is overlap here, which is normal for dnd classes. Note that fighter is by the phb's own description a general term. What makes barbarian, paladin, monk, Ranger, rogue not a fighter is that they aren't primarily defined by just being fighter. The have themes/identities that are more central to the character/class than the fact they engage in battle)
For that last bullet item, how would you differentiate that from the Barbarian? Aren't they also a combat specialist of a sort? I would sort of suggest sophisticated technique based combat specialists (Fighter) vs unsophisticated adrenal rage and aggression based combat specialists (Barbarian). (in the larger scope of this post, I don't have a specific assertion about Barbarians and Martial Arts, I'm just trying to get a clarification about why Barbarians aren't in that last bullet item).
And, at the risk of bringing up an old argument ... what about non-Rage-warriors and non-combat-specialists, who are "IRL people", and are adventurers (but aren't criminals nor cops)? Which "IRL people" class do they fall into? (I'm asking you how you fit them into your bullet list -- I wont follow up with a counter argument, so as to avoid re-creating that past argument)
barbarian channels primal power now, and emotional power before. They are supernatural. Even in 5e
"Barbarians come alive in the chaos of combat. They can enter a berserk state where rage takes over, giving them superhuman strength and resilience."
fighter is not intrinsically about being mundane, and is not the class for all mundane specialists. Note, eldritch knight, rune knight, echo knight, psi warrior. Often another class may be a better fit for certain fantasies. If someone wants to play a wilderness tracker, a ranger is a better fit for example.
" Fighters learn the basics of all combat styles. Every fighter can swing an axe, fence with a rapier, wield a longsword or a greatsword, use a bow, and even trap foes in a net with some degree of skill. Likewise, a fighter is adept with shields and every form of armor. Beyond that basic degree of familiarity, each fighter specializes in a certain style of combat. Some concentrate on archery, some on fighting with two weapons at once, and some on augmenting their martial skills with magic. This combination of broad general ability and extensive specialization makes fighters superior combatants on battlefields and in dungeons alike."
Also, fighters didnt even have a means of getting more than d4 in unarmed fighting, which every class had access to, until Tasha's. So I highly doubt they can be considered the primary method of expressing the concept of unarmed fighting. Just like I cant claim monk is the best representation of weapon fantasy because they got dedicated weapon in Tasha's.
Based on the description, what sets fighters apart is that they are so heavily focused on combat and so general.
I feel like breaking down Str and Dex relationship to martial arts is going to take us down a rabbit hole of unimportant nonsense. Especially since the game stat of Dexterity doesn’t only represent the development of fast twitch muscles. It also encompasses hand eye coordination and reaction time. That might be the real reason that Dex is superior to Str. Str only covers jumping, physical lifting, and grip strength. If we wanted realism we would have a system that forced you to invest into both to some degree to be competent. All attack rolls would be dex and melee damage rolls would be str+dex/2. Bows and crossbows would require Str knock or load, but damage would rolls would be dex because where you hit is what determines the damage.
As far as street fighter characters they don’t correlate to any single class 9in 5e dnd. Just from the game concept I would give all of them at least 1 level of monk. Guile’s story is he is Air Force so he is definitely a fighter or at the least soldier background. Because of the weapons and combat training he would have received I can’t place him as a pure monk. It would be far easier to put these characters in the game as monster statblocks and not build them as player characters. If you could cheat and use any race but they all look human I guess you could pull it off by using races with magic or magical abilities.
Gwar1 do you realize that magic and supernatural are literally synonyms in the English language? “It was like magic I can’t explain it,” and “it was supernatural I can’t explain it” mean the same thing. In game they mean the same thing. There are simply different sources of magic in game. The phb explains ki as magic. 5e even includes psionics as magic. I know previous editions didn’t do this. Psionics was its own non magic thing in previous editions. In 5e they all are magic in some different form.
Fighter are 100% martial artist. I need you to look up what a martial art is before you make that claim.
You are correct in you in your understanding of how a monk gets its magic. It is a magic that exist in living things and can’t be accessed through just knowledge alone, it take take a training and understanding of the body and how this magic moves through the body.
I suppose you could say my fighter has no formal training, but most fighters are easily martial artist. Technically you could say your monk has no formal training then what, I guess they aren’t a martial artist.
If one sees the barbarian as the personification of brute force, non-technique but pure brutality the monk is the opposite. Technique and perfection excelling over strength and brutality. Finally the fighter who stands in between the two. That is why the barbarian, the fighter and the monk are called the 3 warrior classes.
Monks do not have the time to train their bodies all the time as a fighter might . Monks meditate for a large part of the day and so instead of seeking the pinnacle of strength they follow perfection in the form of movements and then in technique. Form is like a dance and dance is a way of meditation to seek perfection in their technique.
Nothing about the theme of Monk makes Dexterity a requirement, they're a martial artist with mystical elements. And we've absolutely seen "hard" theming stripped away progressively in favour of greater player freedom; Paladins no longer requiring a deity for example. Because what matters is that they're a "holy" knight, which is what the mechanics represent.
Because "Cleric" is specifically the divine/spiritual caster, and Wisdom is the corresponding ability score, just as Wizard is the "learned" caster. These are poor examples because in the case of these casters they are the expansion of the ability score options as opposed to having a single "mage" class where you get to choose, choosing one of the full-casters is choosing the ability score. But there's no other martial artist class in the game.
Barbarians are Strength based because they're all about brute force, Rogues are Dexterity based because they're all about sneaking (and sneak attacking), Monks however are about being mystical martial artists; that doesn't require specifically Dexterity or Strength, but fits Wisdom mechanically (as Charisma is will/presence, Intelligence is academic, Wisdom is more experience/spiritual).
But neither Dexterity or Strength is intrinsic to martial arts, and the martial arts feature even specifically lets us use either; the problem is that that is currently a false choice thanks to Unarmored Defense.
Why argue against what I said then immediately agree with me?
Wisdom is already part of the Monk's "mystical" element, and they have the martial arts rules to allow Dexterity or Strength be viable for attacks, the only missing piece is currently going for Strength cripples your defence (unless you are a Lizardfolk or Tortle with natural AC). But this doesn't make them SAD, SAD is a class that can get by with a high score in one ability and weaker scores in everything else.
Only Fighter and Rogue are really currently SAD for "martials", because Barbarians want good STR and CON, Rogue can get by with only good DEX, and Fighter can get by with just good STR or DEX depending upon how you build them (if you go STR you probably also want CON, but DEX for ranged should take less damage usually, so they can dump ASIs into more feats).
Again, what's at issue here is not some radical or major structural change to the Monk, it's the tiniest of tiny tweaks required to remove a specific score dependency for one feature that actually conflicts with martial arts in its current form (martial arts allows choice, unarmored defense takes that choice away). And it's silly when specific races can solve the problem, but not everybody wants to play a Teenage Mutant Ninja Tortle (okay, maybe for a one shot or short adventure, not as a main for a full campaign 😝).
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.
People who don't have a field of expertise related to violence aren't D&D adventurers, because D&D is a RPG built around a wargame.
In truth you can do whatever you want. But it is true that 98% want to fight and solve enigmas and explore.
Because you did not say to make them SAD on Wisdom -> i.e. attacks are Wisdom (not STR), DC is Wisdom (not STR or DEX) and AC is Wisdom (not STR). You were arguing for a STR-focused monk which is not it's theme.
Note I said they are capable of being IRL people, not that they must be IRL people. There are lots of subclasses for each of them that are definitely supernatural:
Fighter : Psi Warrior, EK, Echo, Rune Knight, Arcane Archer
Rogue : Soulknife, Phantom
Barbarian : Zealot, Storm Herald, Ancestral Guardian (debatably also Totem and Zealot)
Rangers are pretty much all supernatural given they have spellcasting, if you want to play a mundane scout you need to be a Rogue with Wis as your RP offstat and taking wilderness skills for your proficiencies & expertise.
Nicely put.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
You can do it with a fighter using your bonus feats, but you're really fighting against the game system in that case. Far easier to just use the scout rogue.
I didn’t say anything about violence. I said combat specialty. And the person I was replying to only identified 1 of the 3 “RL people” classes as being about combat specialty (I suggested it’s 2 of the 3 that are different types of combat specialist). So I am asking him where he puts not non-combat specialists who aren’t cops/criminals.
In D&D, the people who don't carry out their violence by being combat specialists are spellcasters. In a setting with higher tech there are alternative technical specializations that aren't magical, but in D&D, if you're not overtly magical and don't qualify as one of barbarian, fighter, or rogue, you really shouldn't be an adventurer.
Given the context of the bullet list,, that stated that only Fighters, in the list of “RL people” classes, are combat specialists…. Are you suggesting that then Barbarians and Rogue are Spellcasters? That would be a weird thing to suggest.
Also, again, neither I nor the author of the bullet list used the word violence, nor anything about those who don’t engage in violence. It’s a non-sequitur that has no basis is anything you’re replying to. The question isn’t who does or doesn’t use violence, the question is about who specializes in combat. And the bullet list author says that only the Fighter, of the “RL people” classes, is a combat specialist.
Sounds like you should be arguing with the person who wrote the bullet list. They’re the one who said that, of the “RL people” classes, only the Fighter is a combat specialist.
A fighter would work as well you just wouldn't be as good at being a wilderness hunter as a rogue would. I personally don't like the scout rogue as I think it steps too much on the toes of the Ranger since with 6 Expertise vs Ranger's 1 Expertise, the scout rogue is better at out-of-combat ranger-y things than the ranger. A regular thief rogue can work as an Indiana-Jones type ranger just fine as it is.
rogue cannot compare to ranger as wilderness tracker/hunter. A lot of the wilderness tracking and hunting are made into spells, though normally they'd be mundane abilities (in other games/ranger fantasies), because 5e doesnt really want to create a group of abilities that aren't spells. (they do it sparingly)
hunters mark, pass without a trace, snare, ensnaring strike, spike growth, animal friendship, beast bond, alarm, hail of thorns, swift quiver, locate animals or plants, flame aRrows,, steel wind strike, commune with nature. All do things a wilderness based charachter would want to do, and can normally do without magic.
so yeah thief gets expertise, but ranger can just succeed at the thing.
Hunter's Mark -> only gives Adv on tracking, this is not as good as expertise which can be stacked on top of adv from other sources like the Help Action, Enhance Ability, or good roleplay.
Pass without Trace -> this is one spell that rangers can cast 2x per day that makes them better at stealth than a rogue for those 2 hours per day.
Animal Friendship -> this doesn't really do anything more than a high animal handling check would do, so a rogue with expertise in animal handling is just as good at befriending animals as a ranger expending a limited spell slot.
Spike Growth / Ensnaring Strike / Hail of Thorns / Swift Quiver / Flame Arrows / Steel Wind Strike -> combat spell, I specifically said out-of-combat ranger-y things, so while yes cool it does not make a ranger a better mundane wilderness hunter / scout than a rogue.
Locate animals or plants / Beast bond-> terrible spell I have never seen a ranger actually take it, with their small number of spells known a ranger can't waste one on a spell they will never use like this one. Something being a spell doesn't make it good, lots of spells are trash and not worth taking / using.
Commune with Nature -> this is also a pretty bad spell, it is really no more useful that just rolling a 25 perception check which a Rogue is guaranteed to do at this level with Expertise and Reliable Talent.
But we're getting seriously off-topic... could we please go back to talking about monks?
So anyway, we were talking about how monk is a fundamentally magic-based class and should be made SAD on Wisdom. The easiest way to do without nerfing their AC in the early game is to make their AC = 10 + 2*Wis, the potential problem here is the druid multiclassing temptation since druids in the UA only get light armour proficiency so they will have AC 15-16 since they need to invest in at least a +2 CON and need to take Warcaster/Resilient-CON (because ever spell on their list worth casting is concentration) and max out their WIS so will not be able to increase their Dex at all, leaving them with a +1 or +2 depending on how many stats they are willing to dump. A one-level dip for AC18-20 and and off-hand unarmed strike is looking pretty good.
Alternatively, if Patient Defense only cost one attack rather than 2 it would be much more tempting and AC of 14-16 isn't so bad since DA is roughly equivalent to +5 AC making it a 19-21 effective AC for 1 ki per turn. It just requires ki to be less limiting in early play.
Nah. It's standard for mixed fighting/magical classes to use a different stat for attacking and save DCs. The only reason MAD is a problem is the AC issue.