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.
I'm not arguing for a Strength focus, I'm arguing that they should be allowed to use Strength in place of Dexterity. That's it.
They literally have a feature already that lets them do this (Martial Arts let's you choose), the problem is that Unarmored Defense is a basically mandatory feature that immediately takes that choice away, because it only works with Dexterity, and it's the only way for a Monk to get a decent AC and still use its martial arts feature (unless you go specific races).
I'm not necessarily against allowing Monks to use Wisdom as a primary stat for attacking and their mystical powers, but I'd very much prefer to have the freedom to choose, in the same way that an Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight doesn't actually need Intelligence (they can choose spells that don't require it). This probably means I'm currently leaning towards unarmored defence becoming a purely Monk level based feature, so Wisdom then just becomes a choice of whether we want to prioritise Ki/Discipline abilities that use it or not, though obviously we need a lot more base Ki/Discipline features to actually make that a worthwhile decision (currently it's literally just Stunning Strike and nothing else on the base class, and only some sub-classes add more).
Mechanically what is supposed to differentiate Monk is supposed to be their versatility, though obviously it's never quite been fully realised (too resource bound, even compared to casters), I see no reason that shouldn't extend at least in part to how they're built. Literally nobody has given a single decent argument for why Monk shouldn't be able to properly use Strength instead of Dexterity, because such an argument simply doesn't exist.
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.
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
Not all of them, Warlocks in the new edition will have the same attacking & save DC stat - CHA, Artificer has multiple subclasses where you can get the same attacking & save DC stat - INT. So why couldn't Monk be like them and have the same attacking & save DC stat - WIS?
For AC either make it solo-Wis, or update Kensei to let them use both weapons and amour. While their at it remove the restriction on Heavy weapons, a STR monk should have the choice to use a Greatsword or a Halberd, just like a STR Ranger.
Aside.. if STR-Ranger is viable without an AC equivalent to heavy armour why wouldn't a STR monk? In that case all that would be necessary is 13+Wis for "mystic armour" as that would already max out at an AC higher than a STR-Ranger.
Or again Swords Bards only get light armour but have a resource-limited AC buff, but are completely viable. If Deflect Missiles was changed to Deflect Attack wouldn't that compensate for lower AC?
Though I realized above I'm focusing too much on mechanical details. So here's the big core issue:
Ok say we give monk exactly what you want : AC equal to that of Heavy Armour and no monk features require either Wisdom or Dexterity. Then how is this new monk different from a Fighter?
Though I realized above I'm focusing too much on mechanical details. So here's the big core issue:
Ok say we give monk exactly what you want : AC equal to that of Heavy Armour and no monk features require either Wisdom or Dexterity. Then how is this new monk different from a Fighter?
Monks as a Class should be dissolved and their features be spread out between a subset of Fighters and Rogues. Ninjas are really Rogues who wear form-fitting dark costumes and throw shuriken. The Psi Knight is a Monk-like Figther b/c of its movement abilities and obvs parallel to Star Wars' universe Jedi knights, the philosophy of which is clearly influenced by East Asian philosophy related to yin and yang. Goku of the DBZ universe is an unarmed OP Fighter who can shoot nuclear crap out of his hands. Second Wind and Action Surge are basically abilities using the same mysterious source of energy that 5E Monks use for their own abilities. Monks as we know it are basically Fighters and Rogues that specialize in using Ki, which Fighters and Rogues also should have, but we don't call it that b/c they don't "fit" the East Asian archetype enough to apply a non-English word like "Ki" to them. Action Surge, Second Wind, Evasion, and Blindsense should actually be limited use Ki abilities.
There is an conceptual barrier right now between the Monk and other martial classes b/c the game devs have too little experience reading, writing, and thinking about any of the many commonalities between the East Asian martial arts and the martial arts practiced in "the West." This is a totally artificial mental barrier in the first place. I don't see why we need to continue this farcically exaggerated difference-making by continuing to separate Monks from Fighters and Rogues.
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
Not all of them, Warlocks in the new edition will have the same attacking & save DC stat - CHA, Artificer has multiple subclasses where you can get the same attacking & save DC stat - INT. So why couldn't Monk be like them and have the same attacking & save DC stat - WIS?
For AC either make it solo-Wis, or update Kensei to let them use both weapons and amour. While their at it remove the restriction on Heavy weapons, a STR monk should have the choice to use a Greatsword or a Halberd, just like a STR Ranger.
Aside.. if STR-Ranger is viable without an AC equivalent to heavy armour why wouldn't a STR monk? In that case all that would be necessary is 13+Wis for "mystic armour" as that would already max out at an AC higher than a STR-Ranger.
Or again Swords Bards only get light armour but have a resource-limited AC buff, but are completely viable. If Deflect Missiles was changed to Deflect Attack wouldn't that compensate for lower AC?
comparing unarmored to armored directly isnt actually fair. Armor can be improved via feats and items. Medium/heavy armor master, fighting style defense, and +1/2/3 items. Once again monk design suffers from not being well incorporated into the game. If they add unarmored feats, and change itemization recommendations and variety, we can consider them the same.
Short version Monk with a 3+wis AC is bad. (they are removing these for draconic sorcerer and dancer bard btw)
gaining deflect attack would help with overall defense substantially. I personally would like to see a more active defense, though I wouldn't want the reaction totally consumed by defense.
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
Not all of them, Warlocks in the new edition will have the same attacking & save DC stat - CHA, Artificer has multiple subclasses where you can get the same attacking & save DC stat - INT. So why couldn't Monk be like them and have the same attacking & save DC stat - WIS?
For AC either make it solo-Wis, or update Kensei to let them use both weapons and amour. While their at it remove the restriction on Heavy weapons, a STR monk should have the choice to use a Greatsword or a Halberd, just like a STR Ranger.
Aside.. if STR-Ranger is viable without an AC equivalent to heavy armour why wouldn't a STR monk? In that case all that would be necessary is 13+Wis for "mystic armour" as that would already max out at an AC higher than a STR-Ranger.
Or again Swords Bards only get light armour but have a resource-limited AC buff, but are completely viable. If Deflect Missiles was changed to Deflect Attack wouldn't that compensate for lower AC?
comparing unarmored to armored directly isnt actually fair. Armor can be improved via feats and items. Medium/heavy armor master, fighting style defense, and +1/2/3 items. Once again monk design suffers from not being well incorporated into the game. If they add unarmored feats, and change itemization recommendations and variety, we can consider them the same.
Short version Monk with a 3+wis AC is bad. (they are removing these for draconic sorcerer and dancer bard btw)
gaining deflect attack would help with overall defense substantially. I personally would like to see a more active defense, though I wouldn't want the reaction totally consumed by defense.
All that means is they should add a unarmored feat and have bracers of armor that scale.
Though I realized above I'm focusing too much on mechanical details. So here's the big core issue:
Ok say we give monk exactly what you want : AC equal to that of Heavy Armour and no monk features require either Wisdom or Dexterity. Then how is this new monk different from a Fighter?
How is paladin/barbarian dif from fighter? Being a melee class doesn't make you the same as another class. Also fighter isn't even a melee class, it can be highly effective from any range.
Monk would differ from fighter by having substantially lower survivability. Fighter gets 2-5 second winds for d10+fighter level per day. It has a higher hit die, it has two more feats.
Fighter is also the most adaptable martial. Fighter has the most, and best use of mastery. It can attack from any range.
Monk has the least adaptable fighting style, it has the least weapon options, it must be within 5ft of the target on its turn, or loses 1/2 damage(and utility usually). Its the best melee chaser. And its Ki abilities should make border on superhuman.
How might I differentiate it further, if I was designing?
I would make its style of defense more active, which they were probably trying to do via dodge, but they messed up. the opportunity cost is too great (in lost damage/utility). I would also make them better at reactions than other classes, though, I think the designers really don't want anyone to get more than 1, so I doubt they'd do that. Perhaps a buff/effect if you react. Can also make monk use movement to add damage/utility. (weirdly current UA monk can't even use charger feat)
basically, monk actually needs to be very able to survive being within 5ft of the enemy some point during its turn, probably more than any other class in the game, because that's its base requirement to be effective. Even barbarians have reach weapons. There are many ways to achieve that, but the current design of monk does not achieve that.
A Paladin is fueled by divine power who wants to stay close to their allies in order to support them with healing, Aura of Protection, and other spells - like Crusader's Mantle, Bless, Sanctuary. It is exclusively a melee character, but is uniquely able to be mounted much of the time.
Barbarian in contrast can take much more punishment than the Fighter, and actively wants the enemies to attack and hit them (unlike fighters). They are exclusively STR-melee and have the extra movement to get them selves into melee much quicker and more reliably than the fighter. They also make a smaller number but more powerful attacks than any Fighter. Unlike fighters they don't need to wait for the most opportune moment to nova, they make their own opportunities through Reckless Attack.
In contrast, Fighters want to wait for their allies or other circumstances to present a opportune moment to unleash their devastating Action Surge, they can flexibly use either ranged/thrown or melee as the situation calls for it. They need to move and act tactically choosing which enemies to engage, because they are significantly more vulnerable than Paladins or Barbarians due to lack luster healing, no self-buffs, and no damage resistance.
Monk would differ from fighter by having substantially lower survivability.
No it wouldn't not if people get everything they are asking for, they will have higher survivability since they will have similar AC, same HP, and a ton more defensive abilities : evasion, deflect missiles / attack, and patient defence.
Fighter is also the most adaptable martial. Fighter has the most, and best use of mastery. It can attack from any range.
That just means monk would be a subset of Fighter, it doesn't mean monk is different from fighter.
Monk has the least adaptable fighting style, it has the least weapon options, it must be within 5ft of the target on its turn, or loses 1/2 damage
So monk's class identity is a subclass of fighter that is just worse than fighter in every way...
And its Ki abilities should make border on superhuman.
But they don't and aren't and have been nerfed in the UA, and nobody cares. They are arguing for a STR-monk, not any buffs to ki abilities.
And its Ki abilities should make border on superhuman.
I'm pulling this one part as I think it is a interesting idea. It is not what the monk is or likely will be, but maybe the monk or something like it should be the chassis for the quadratic martial. Make their strikes scale like cantrips depending on how far you go with the quadratic maybe like eldritch blast cantrips. If the quadratic is more like a wizards, then no, but if its more like a warlock then sure eldritch blast like. But have their use of ki be on par with spells. Maybe a shorter abilities known list but make ki work like a spell point system, give them 9th level ki effects etc.
I knew that this is a den of people who want the monk to disappear and become an subclass. Remember that if that happens there will be only one subclass and not many subclasses. It would be a shame to lose the variety of subclasses just because you want something from the fighter class.
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 incorrect. "Martial arts" as they have been taught in every generation going back to Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome etc. were techniques learned for "combat fighting" and they would give advantage to anyone, regardless of their level of strength. Historically the struggle for survival meant that very few people would be soft, fat, and weak, as we, too commonly, are today. Staying alive in a pre-industrial world is hard work. Of course the primary concern of martial arts was "armed" combat, but unarmed combat was also learned to encourage the fighting spirit, and to learn to engage with the enemy in close quarters, which was vital when most fighting was hand-to-hand. As Fairbairn noted drily, only stupid people engage in unarmed combat, because only a stupid person would be without a weapon. He did allow that occasionally you might need unarmed combat to get you to a weapon.
Eastern martial arts were largely developed because certain groups of people were forbidden to own and carry weapons, so they learned to turn their bodies into those weapons. Then they became traditions that were handed down even in countries like Japan where, prior to the late 19th century, every class could carry weapons (although only Samurai could carry the daisho). The practitioners were still expected to achieve a high degree of physical fitness. In the West, although we retained traditions of boxing and wrestling, along with other forms of unarmed fighting, prior to the modern era it was rare for people to be forbidden from carrying weapons. You might not carry a sword around town, but you could certainly carry one on the road, and everyone carried a knife since it was not only an effective close quarters weapon, it is also a very useful tool, and regular eating utensil. Apparently one of the reasons eating utensils like blunt knives were invented was to discourage drunken guests from fighting with their (very) sharp knives.
In unarmed combat size and strength are only trumped by skill up to a point. Bruce Lee was a highly skilled martial artist, but he was a small man. 130 pounds IIRC. An equally skilled but larger man would have beaten him in a fight. Against someone like Mike Tyson, who was not only astoundingly fast, but also incredibly strong (as are all heavyweight boxers), and almost twice his weight, it would have been a very one sided beating. It's also why watching the 110 pound female protagonist of a movie punch her way through multiple 200 pound men is eye-rollingly laughable. There's a reason we separate male and female fighters after all, and put each into weight divisions.
The reason we get this strength/dexterity divide is purely a game mechanic. People have shown pictures of bodybuilders, but a shredded bodybuilder on competition day is the weakest they'll ever be, because the process of stripping out water and body fat to get that shredded look also deprives their muscles of any energy reserves. Chris Hemsworth, in his Thor role, had to dehydrate before shooting, and it would leave him light headed and sickly.
Tenoch Huerta Mejía, the actor who played Namor in Black Panther 2, although he got some criticism for not being shredded like other actors in Marvel movies who get their shirts off, did actually look like a strong man. Slightly stocky, because the core muscles support your back and everything above the waist, with thick neck, arms, and legs. As others have mentioned acrobats are strong, and weight lifters, because they force their bodies through a full range of motion, are still very limber.
An acrobat might be 14 Str 18 Dex, but a weight lifter could also be 18 Str 14 Dex.
Although it's not going to happen, we could put D&D's stats into 3, Physical, which covers strength, dexterity, and constitution, Mental, which covers intelligence and wisdom, and Charm, for charisma.
after reading all that str vs dex vs wis junk and seeing the pictures of ripply inflatable guys and whatnot, it occurs to me that debating about what a monk is turned out a little counter productive. instead, it highlights how many character ideas can center around being tough, finding the courage within, and sweeping the leg. what's needed is a martial arts system for base d&d and all classes. take a cunning strike resource economy but call it a strike number (name is a work in progress). trade in strikes from the pool for status effects or increased defense. what's not siphoned away for other things then goes into the "flurry of blows" or multiple strikes during Attack action. low number of strikes to begin with, monks get more as a class feature (which they can spend on movement, defense, or a flurry of strikes). requires two empty hands, unless you've got a feat for martial arts weapons.
scale the number of strike actions instead of scaling the damage dice. take a line of nested feats (or class features) to increase the static damage die and learn techniques. martials would get a free feat including an understanding (whether trained or acquired the hard way) in basic strikes and grappling. monks could get additional strikes (so that every attack can be a flurry of blows, if you don't need the defense).
might seem nitty gritty, but then shiny balloon-chest guy could be a barbarian or fighter but also a martial artist, for whatever that's worth.
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!
I knew that this is a den of people who want the monk to disappear and become an subclass. Remember that if that happens there will be only one subclass and not many subclasses. It would be a shame to lose the variety of subclasses just because you want something from the fighter class.
False. What you are seeing is people who just want to play a martial artist state that it could just be a subclass of fighter or rogue, or feats. Honestly I see room for feats like that and a Revised Monk to coexist. Monk is a magical, mystical, supernatural martial artist. It’s not the same as a fighter with unarmed fighting and unarmored defense from my imaginary feat or a 1 level Barbarian dip. They could both be in a party and have a different feel. One reason people want a d10 and increased defense on a monk is because WotC have failed to make it a functioning skirmisher. Also it has trash defense. Monks Unarmed Defense is objectively worse than Barbarians. Since monks can’t use shields they need a boost to their Unarmored Defense. I suggest something as simple as half proficiency bonus. If you look at my rework for monk it gives them multiple opportunities to be skirmishers and disengage meaning they don’t need a bigger hit die. If the monk is meant to apply conditions then they need something early and then 5th level stunning strike that something should scale with their attack modifier not their Wis. Having something like Cunning Strikes that scaled on attack modifier might create space for monks who semi dump wis and use the cunning strike like feature and don’t worry about stunning strikes as much. If they allow monks to wear light armor you have created a path for a Str and Dex build monk that doesn’t invest in heavily into Wisdom. There is also an option to make monks SAD wisdom by making there attack stat wisdom, but my fear there is druid and cleric multiclasses will become rampant.
A Paladin is fueled by divine power who wants to stay close to their allies in order to support them with healing, Aura of Protection, and other spells - like Crusader's Mantle, Bless, Sanctuary. It is exclusively a melee character, but is uniquely able to be mounted much of the time.
Barbarian in contrast can take much more punishment than the Fighter, and actively wants the enemies to attack and hit them (unlike fighters). They are exclusively STR-melee and have the extra movement to get them selves into melee much quicker and more reliably than the fighter. They also make a smaller number but more powerful attacks than any Fighter. Unlike fighters they don't need to wait for the most opportune moment to nova, they make their own opportunities through Reckless Attack.
In contrast, Fighters want to wait for their allies or other circumstances to present a opportune moment to unleash their devastating Action Surge, they can flexibly use either ranged/thrown or melee as the situation calls for it. They need to move and act tactically choosing which enemies to engage, because they are significantly more vulnerable than Paladins or Barbarians due to lack luster healing, no self-buffs, and no damage resistance.
Monk would differ from fighter by having substantially lower survivability.
No it wouldn't not if people get everything they are asking for, they will have higher survivability since they will have similar AC, same HP, and a ton more defensive abilities : evasion, deflect missiles / attack, and patient defence.
Fighter is also the most adaptable martial. Fighter has the most, and best use of mastery. It can attack from any range.
That just means monk would be a subset of Fighter, it doesn't mean monk is different from fighter.
Monk has the least adaptable fighting style, it has the least weapon options, it must be within 5ft of the target on its turn, or loses 1/2 damage
So monk's class identity is a subclass of fighter that is just worse than fighter in every way...
And its Ki abilities should make border on superhuman.
But they don't and aren't and have been nerfed in the UA, and nobody cares. They are arguing for a STR-monk, not any buffs to ki abilities.
Yes, monk's current design is poor, thats why this thread exists. Monk is not achieving its fantasy/potential in onednd. Its actually comparatively worse due to other classes getting more options. Open hand is now mostly inferior to mastery any martial has access to for example.
And AC is only one aspect of survivability. Max Hp, all forms of mitigation, hp recovery, and risk required for effectiveness all factor in.
It needs changes. The people talking about its unarmored defense are trying to solve its high dependence on two stats to be basically OK, because that effects some of its issues. People are sharing and discussing ideas, not finished designs. There are many possible solutions, and a number of problems. I don't think anyone is claiming that allowing str builds of monk alone solves all its problems, or that its the only solution. Allowing str builds mostly allow flavor, and makes monk the premier grappler. Fixing monks Heavy dependency on dex/wis allows their CON investment to be similar to every other d8 hit die guy, instead of being a -. These are just two issues, and two solutions, not every monk player's desires, or all monk needs.
Monk's ki does enable superhuman feats, it could use more baseline from the class, but its often used in subclasses.
Also classes are not determined in this game by combat roles, classes are determined by what fantasy they represent.Many classes can handle multiple roles. Sorcerer and wizard are both casters, they aren't representing the same fantasy. Str based or not isnt what defines a class as unique. paladin barbarian ranger and fighter can all have strength builds, that doesnt make them the same. Fighter is by design a generalist without unique aspects. Monk is a specialist with many unique aspects. They are not the same.
being a subclass of fighter means you are the same as fighter with 3-4 different features. It also means no sub versions. No monk player is asking for that.
If you don't understand what the difference in fantasy/concept is between a monk and a fighter, it would be hard for you to be helpful in discussions of how to improve monk.
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 incorrect. "Martial arts" as they have been taught in every generation going back to Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome etc. were techniques learned for "combat fighting" and they would give advantage to anyone, regardless of their level of strength. Historically the struggle for survival meant that very few people would be soft, fat, and weak, as we, too commonly, are today. Staying alive in a pre-industrial world is hard work. Of course the primary concern of martial arts was "armed" combat, but unarmed combat was also learned to encourage the fighting spirit, and to learn to engage with the enemy in close quarters, which was vital when most fighting was hand-to-hand. As Fairbairn noted drily, only stupid people engage in unarmed combat, because only a stupid person would be without a weapon. He did allow that occasionally you might need unarmed combat to get you to a weapon.
Eastern martial arts were largely developed because certain groups of people were forbidden to own and carry weapons, so they learned to turn their bodies into those weapons. Then they became traditions that were handed down even in countries like Japan where, prior to the late 19th century, every class could carry weapons (although only Samurai could carry the daisho). The practitioners were still expected to achieve a high degree of physical fitness. In the West, although we retained traditions of boxing and wrestling, along with other forms of unarmed fighting, prior to the modern era it was rare for people to be forbidden from carrying weapons. You might not carry a sword around town, but you could certainly carry one on the road, and everyone carried a knife since it was not only an effective close quarters weapon, it is also a very useful tool, and regular eating utensil. Apparently one of the reasons eating utensils like blunt knives were invented was to discourage drunken guests from fighting with their (very) sharp knives.
So you claim that martial arts were not created to defend and fight against stronger or genetically superior people? Aren't martial arts a system to attack and defeat the opponent with as little effort and as quickly as possible? A way that in war even the weakest people can be useful during a fight? Of course, then there are martial arts for the public's entertainment, but mainly these were created for war purposes, so that when a war broke out the less trained population could learn quickly and not be behind the naturally strong people, but here it would get more into techniques of battle formations and basic armed combat.
In my view, martial arts techniques are designed to the situation, each martial art reflecting its history and developed to their use. Often unarmed martial arts were developed for the public's entertainment, or to escape from slavery (where weapons were not accessible), or for self-defense for those who made long journeys and could not afford to be armed at all times, or even for places where weapons are not allowed, etc. But the principle is always the same, be most effective and use as little force and effort as possible for maximum results. But the principle is always the same, to be as effective as possible using as little force and effort as possible for maximum results or at least to survive. The main principle of martial arts is the optimization of minimum effort, minimum movement, minimum force required, maximum precision and maximum effectiveness... is this false?
In unarmed combat size and strength are only trumped by skill up to a point. Bruce Lee was a highly skilled martial artist, but he was a small man. 130 pounds IIRC. An equally skilled but larger man would have beaten him in a fight. Against someone like Mike Tyson, who was not only astoundingly fast, but also incredibly strong (as are all heavyweight boxers), and almost twice his weight, it would have been a very one sided beating. It's also why watching the 110 pound female protagonist of a movie punch her way through multiple 200 pound men is eye-rollingly laughable. There's a reason we separate male and female fighters after all, and put each into weight divisions.
Yes very often a person's strength is very much related to one's body mass and weight. Martial arts have precisely developed stances where a person's weight is enhanced by the stance performed, so a good stance allows for greater strength in its attacks. Clearly, weight always has some importance in attack power. But this point would be more about constitution than strength.
The reason we get this strength/dexterity divide is purely a game mechanic. People have shown pictures of bodybuilders, but a shredded bodybuilder on competition day is the weakest they'll ever be, because the process of stripping out water and body fat to get that shredded look also deprives their muscles of any energy reserves. Chris Hemsworth, in his Thor role, had to dehydrate before shooting, and it would leave him light headed and sickly.
Those pictures is to better communicate the difference of a dexterity-based physique than a strength-based physique. Someone who develops dexterity does not mean that they do not have a good physique, because dexterity itself is a type of musculature. That was just the meaning of those images. If people want to see beyond the meaning of the pictures I posted, here is no other meaning.
Tenoch Huerta Mejía, the actor who played Namor in Black Panther 2, although he got some criticism for not being shredded like other actors in Marvel movies who get their shirts off, did actually look like a strong man. Slightly stocky, because the core muscles support your back and everything above the waist, with thick neck, arms, and legs. As others have mentioned acrobats are strong, and weight lifters, because they force their bodies through a full range of motion, are still very limber.
Yes a good musculature serves to take the blows. Muscle elasticity distributes the damage and transmits it to a wider area thus decreasing the injury. Maybe that is why the monk has only d8 and the barbarian has d12 hit points?
An acrobat might be 14 Str 18 Dex, but a weight lifter could also be 18 Str 14 Dex.
Although it's not going to happen, we could put D&D's stats into 3, Physical, which covers strength, dexterity, and constitution, Mental, which covers intelligence and wisdom, and Charm, for charisma.
Exactly, and it could be said that physical abilities are not what they are in dnd and could be viewed this way.
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 incorrect. "Martial arts" as they have been taught in every generation going back to Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome etc. were techniques learned for "combat fighting" and they would give advantage to anyone, regardless of their level of strength. Historically the struggle for survival meant that very few people would be soft, fat, and weak, as we, too commonly, are today. Staying alive in a pre-industrial world is hard work. Of course the primary concern of martial arts was "armed" combat, but unarmed combat was also learned to encourage the fighting spirit, and to learn to engage with the enemy in close quarters, which was vital when most fighting was hand-to-hand. As Fairbairn noted drily, only stupid people engage in unarmed combat, because only a stupid person would be without a weapon. He did allow that occasionally you might need unarmed combat to get you to a weapon.
Eastern martial arts were largely developed because certain groups of people were forbidden to own and carry weapons, so they learned to turn their bodies into those weapons. Then they became traditions that were handed down even in countries like Japan where, prior to the late 19th century, every class could carry weapons (although only Samurai could carry the daisho). The practitioners were still expected to achieve a high degree of physical fitness. In the West, although we retained traditions of boxing and wrestling, along with other forms of unarmed fighting, prior to the modern era it was rare for people to be forbidden from carrying weapons. You might not carry a sword around town, but you could certainly carry one on the road, and everyone carried a knife since it was not only an effective close quarters weapon, it is also a very useful tool, and regular eating utensil. Apparently one of the reasons eating utensils like blunt knives were invented was to discourage drunken guests from fighting with their (very) sharp knives.
In unarmed combat size and strength are only trumped by skill up to a point. Bruce Lee was a highly skilled martial artist, but he was a small man. 130 pounds IIRC. An equally skilled but larger man would have beaten him in a fight. Against someone like Mike Tyson, who was not only astoundingly fast, but also incredibly strong (as are all heavyweight boxers), and almost twice his weight, it would have been a very one sided beating. It's also why watching the 110 pound female protagonist of a movie punch her way through multiple 200 pound men is eye-rollingly laughable. There's a reason we separate male and female fighters after all, and put each into weight divisions.
The reason we get this strength/dexterity divide is purely a game mechanic. People have shown pictures of bodybuilders, but a shredded bodybuilder on competition day is the weakest they'll ever be, because the process of stripping out water and body fat to get that shredded look also deprives their muscles of any energy reserves. Chris Hemsworth, in his Thor role, had to dehydrate before shooting, and it would leave him light headed and sickly.
Tenoch Huerta Mejía, the actor who played Namor in Black Panther 2, although he got some criticism for not being shredded like other actors in Marvel movies who get their shirts off, did actually look like a strong man. Slightly stocky, because the core muscles support your back and everything above the waist, with thick neck, arms, and legs. As others have mentioned acrobats are strong, and weight lifters, because they force their bodies through a full range of motion, are still very limber.
An acrobat might be 14 Str 18 Dex, but a weight lifter could also be 18 Str 14 Dex.
Although it's not going to happen, we could put D&D's stats into 3, Physical, which covers strength, dexterity, and constitution, Mental, which covers intelligence and wisdom, and Charm, for charisma.
So you claim that martial arts were not created to defend and fight against stronger or genetically superior people? Aren't martial arts a system to attack and defeat the opponent with as little effort and as quickly as possible? A way that in war even the weakest people can be useful during a fight? Of course, then there are martial arts for the public's entertainment, but mainly these were created for war purposes, so that when a war broke out the less trained population could learn quickly and not be behind the naturally strong people, but here it would get more into techniques of battle formations and basic armed combat.
In my view, martial arts techniques are designed to the situation, each martial art reflecting its history and developed to their use. Often unarmed martial arts were developed for the public's entertainment, or to escape from slavery (where weapons were not accessible), or for self-defense for those who made long journeys and could not afford to be armed at all times, or even for places where weapons are not allowed, etc. But the principle is always the same, be most effective and use as little force and effort as possible for maximum results. But the principle is always the same, to be as effective as possible using as little force and effort as possible for maximum results or at least to survive. The main principle of martial arts is the optimization of minimum effort, minimum movement, minimum force required, maximum precision and maximum effectiveness... is this false?
Martial arts aren't all the same, and don't all serve the same purpose. Also don't get that caught up in real world martial arts. Thats just the inspiration. DnD is a fantasy game, The monk's martial arts allow them to fight on par with weapon users and casters. Its not the same thing
The change needs to be that people who don't want to play a Monk, to engage with the specific mechanics of the class, to make use of the features and advantages the Monk possesses...shouldn't be obsessed with trying to turn a class into something it's not, and in doing so deprive people who enjoy what the Monk is of what they enjoy about the class.
What is the monk? How is it effectively played? What are its comparative advantages? What is it’s role in a party in the different pillars of play: combat, exploration, social? I’m asking because your statement assumes that the monk has some well defined roles and I believe it will be easier to discuss if I understand your view of the monk.
The change needs to be that people who don't want to play a Monk, to engage with the specific mechanics of the class, to make use of the features and advantages the Monk possesses...shouldn't be obsessed with trying to turn a class into something it's not, and in doing so deprive people who enjoy what the Monk is of what they enjoy about the class.
the mechanics of monk are up for review, and Very few monk players are satisfied with what was in the UA. There is no point coming into a situation of giving and discussing feedback, with a premise of everyone should be completely satisfied with this as is or walk away.
So you claim that martial arts were not created to defend and fight against stronger or genetically superior people?
I would claim that. Martial arts were created to fight better. There's nothing about them that limits their use to weaker people, and they're generally most effective when used by strong people.
TBH, 'martial arts' is not a useful way to describe monks, because fighters are absolutely martial artists. There appear to be three key components of the monk
Unarmed.
Unarmored.
A mystical component to the fighting style.
Honestly, you could do an adequate job with the monk by giving them an unarmed/unarmored fighting style, then layering on paladin smites (and a few other spells) for the mystical component.
I'm not arguing for a Strength focus, I'm arguing that they should be allowed to use Strength in place of Dexterity. That's it.
They literally have a feature already that lets them do this (Martial Arts let's you choose), the problem is that Unarmored Defense is a basically mandatory feature that immediately takes that choice away, because it only works with Dexterity, and it's the only way for a Monk to get a decent AC and still use its martial arts feature (unless you go specific races).
I'm not necessarily against allowing Monks to use Wisdom as a primary stat for attacking and their mystical powers, but I'd very much prefer to have the freedom to choose, in the same way that an Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight doesn't actually need Intelligence (they can choose spells that don't require it). This probably means I'm currently leaning towards unarmored defence becoming a purely Monk level based feature, so Wisdom then just becomes a choice of whether we want to prioritise Ki/Discipline abilities that use it or not, though obviously we need a lot more base Ki/Discipline features to actually make that a worthwhile decision (currently it's literally just Stunning Strike and nothing else on the base class, and only some sub-classes add more).
Mechanically what is supposed to differentiate Monk is supposed to be their versatility, though obviously it's never quite been fully realised (too resource bound, even compared to casters), I see no reason that shouldn't extend at least in part to how they're built. Literally nobody has given a single decent argument for why Monk shouldn't be able to properly use Strength instead of Dexterity, because such an argument simply doesn't exist.
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.
One solution is to create a feature that allows the monk to cast Force/Ki/D armor.
10+3+WIS. 1 KI/D point for 8 hours? The +3 could evolve into +4 and +5 by leveling up.
Not all of them, Warlocks in the new edition will have the same attacking & save DC stat - CHA, Artificer has multiple subclasses where you can get the same attacking & save DC stat - INT. So why couldn't Monk be like them and have the same attacking & save DC stat - WIS?
For AC either make it solo-Wis, or update Kensei to let them use both weapons and amour. While their at it remove the restriction on Heavy weapons, a STR monk should have the choice to use a Greatsword or a Halberd, just like a STR Ranger.
Aside.. if STR-Ranger is viable without an AC equivalent to heavy armour why wouldn't a STR monk? In that case all that would be necessary is 13+Wis for "mystic armour" as that would already max out at an AC higher than a STR-Ranger.
Or again Swords Bards only get light armour but have a resource-limited AC buff, but are completely viable. If Deflect Missiles was changed to Deflect Attack wouldn't that compensate for lower AC?
Though I realized above I'm focusing too much on mechanical details. So here's the big core issue:
Ok say we give monk exactly what you want : AC equal to that of Heavy Armour and no monk features require either Wisdom or Dexterity. Then how is this new monk different from a Fighter?
Monks as a Class should be dissolved and their features be spread out between a subset of Fighters and Rogues. Ninjas are really Rogues who wear form-fitting dark costumes and throw shuriken. The Psi Knight is a Monk-like Figther b/c of its movement abilities and obvs parallel to Star Wars' universe Jedi knights, the philosophy of which is clearly influenced by East Asian philosophy related to yin and yang. Goku of the DBZ universe is an unarmed OP Fighter who can shoot nuclear crap out of his hands. Second Wind and Action Surge are basically abilities using the same mysterious source of energy that 5E Monks use for their own abilities. Monks as we know it are basically Fighters and Rogues that specialize in using Ki, which Fighters and Rogues also should have, but we don't call it that b/c they don't "fit" the East Asian archetype enough to apply a non-English word like "Ki" to them. Action Surge, Second Wind, Evasion, and Blindsense should actually be limited use Ki abilities.
There is an conceptual barrier right now between the Monk and other martial classes b/c the game devs have too little experience reading, writing, and thinking about any of the many commonalities between the East Asian martial arts and the martial arts practiced in "the West." This is a totally artificial mental barrier in the first place. I don't see why we need to continue this farcically exaggerated difference-making by continuing to separate Monks from Fighters and Rogues.
comparing unarmored to armored directly isnt actually fair. Armor can be improved via feats and items. Medium/heavy armor master, fighting style defense, and +1/2/3 items. Once again monk design suffers from not being well incorporated into the game. If they add unarmored feats, and change itemization recommendations and variety, we can consider them the same.
Short version Monk with a 3+wis AC is bad. (they are removing these for draconic sorcerer and dancer bard btw)
gaining deflect attack would help with overall defense substantially. I personally would like to see a more active defense, though I wouldn't want the reaction totally consumed by defense.
All that means is they should add a unarmored feat and have bracers of armor that scale.
How is paladin/barbarian dif from fighter? Being a melee class doesn't make you the same as another class. Also fighter isn't even a melee class, it can be highly effective from any range.
Monk would differ from fighter by having substantially lower survivability. Fighter gets 2-5 second winds for d10+fighter level per day. It has a higher hit die, it has two more feats.
Fighter is also the most adaptable martial. Fighter has the most, and best use of mastery. It can attack from any range.
Monk has the least adaptable fighting style, it has the least weapon options, it must be within 5ft of the target on its turn, or loses 1/2 damage(and utility usually). Its the best melee chaser. And its Ki abilities should make border on superhuman.
How might I differentiate it further, if I was designing?
I would make its style of defense more active, which they were probably trying to do via dodge, but they messed up. the opportunity cost is too great (in lost damage/utility). I would also make them better at reactions than other classes, though, I think the designers really don't want anyone to get more than 1, so I doubt they'd do that. Perhaps a buff/effect if you react. Can also make monk use movement to add damage/utility. (weirdly current UA monk can't even use charger feat)
basically, monk actually needs to be very able to survive being within 5ft of the enemy some point during its turn, probably more than any other class in the game, because that's its base requirement to be effective. Even barbarians have reach weapons. There are many ways to achieve that, but the current design of monk does not achieve that.
A Paladin is fueled by divine power who wants to stay close to their allies in order to support them with healing, Aura of Protection, and other spells - like Crusader's Mantle, Bless, Sanctuary. It is exclusively a melee character, but is uniquely able to be mounted much of the time.
Barbarian in contrast can take much more punishment than the Fighter, and actively wants the enemies to attack and hit them (unlike fighters). They are exclusively STR-melee and have the extra movement to get them selves into melee much quicker and more reliably than the fighter. They also make a smaller number but more powerful attacks than any Fighter. Unlike fighters they don't need to wait for the most opportune moment to nova, they make their own opportunities through Reckless Attack.
In contrast, Fighters want to wait for their allies or other circumstances to present a opportune moment to unleash their devastating Action Surge, they can flexibly use either ranged/thrown or melee as the situation calls for it. They need to move and act tactically choosing which enemies to engage, because they are significantly more vulnerable than Paladins or Barbarians due to lack luster healing, no self-buffs, and no damage resistance.
No it wouldn't not if people get everything they are asking for, they will have higher survivability since they will have similar AC, same HP, and a ton more defensive abilities : evasion, deflect missiles / attack, and patient defence.
That just means monk would be a subset of Fighter, it doesn't mean monk is different from fighter.
So monk's class identity is a subclass of fighter that is just worse than fighter in every way...
But they don't and aren't and have been nerfed in the UA, and nobody cares. They are arguing for a STR-monk, not any buffs to ki abilities.
I'm pulling this one part as I think it is a interesting idea. It is not what the monk is or likely will be, but maybe the monk or something like it should be the chassis for the quadratic martial. Make their strikes scale like cantrips depending on how far you go with the quadratic maybe like eldritch blast cantrips. If the quadratic is more like a wizards, then no, but if its more like a warlock then sure eldritch blast like. But have their use of ki be on par with spells. Maybe a shorter abilities known list but make ki work like a spell point system, give them 9th level ki effects etc.
I knew that this is a den of people who want the monk to disappear and become an subclass. Remember that if that happens there will be only one subclass and not many subclasses. It would be a shame to lose the variety of subclasses just because you want something from the fighter class.
This is incorrect. "Martial arts" as they have been taught in every generation going back to Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome etc. were techniques learned for "combat fighting" and they would give advantage to anyone, regardless of their level of strength. Historically the struggle for survival meant that very few people would be soft, fat, and weak, as we, too commonly, are today. Staying alive in a pre-industrial world is hard work. Of course the primary concern of martial arts was "armed" combat, but unarmed combat was also learned to encourage the fighting spirit, and to learn to engage with the enemy in close quarters, which was vital when most fighting was hand-to-hand. As Fairbairn noted drily, only stupid people engage in unarmed combat, because only a stupid person would be without a weapon. He did allow that occasionally you might need unarmed combat to get you to a weapon.
Eastern martial arts were largely developed because certain groups of people were forbidden to own and carry weapons, so they learned to turn their bodies into those weapons. Then they became traditions that were handed down even in countries like Japan where, prior to the late 19th century, every class could carry weapons (although only Samurai could carry the daisho). The practitioners were still expected to achieve a high degree of physical fitness. In the West, although we retained traditions of boxing and wrestling, along with other forms of unarmed fighting, prior to the modern era it was rare for people to be forbidden from carrying weapons. You might not carry a sword around town, but you could certainly carry one on the road, and everyone carried a knife since it was not only an effective close quarters weapon, it is also a very useful tool, and regular eating utensil. Apparently one of the reasons eating utensils like blunt knives were invented was to discourage drunken guests from fighting with their (very) sharp knives.
In unarmed combat size and strength are only trumped by skill up to a point. Bruce Lee was a highly skilled martial artist, but he was a small man. 130 pounds IIRC. An equally skilled but larger man would have beaten him in a fight. Against someone like Mike Tyson, who was not only astoundingly fast, but also incredibly strong (as are all heavyweight boxers), and almost twice his weight, it would have been a very one sided beating. It's also why watching the 110 pound female protagonist of a movie punch her way through multiple 200 pound men is eye-rollingly laughable. There's a reason we separate male and female fighters after all, and put each into weight divisions.
The reason we get this strength/dexterity divide is purely a game mechanic. People have shown pictures of bodybuilders, but a shredded bodybuilder on competition day is the weakest they'll ever be, because the process of stripping out water and body fat to get that shredded look also deprives their muscles of any energy reserves. Chris Hemsworth, in his Thor role, had to dehydrate before shooting, and it would leave him light headed and sickly.
Tenoch Huerta Mejía, the actor who played Namor in Black Panther 2, although he got some criticism for not being shredded like other actors in Marvel movies who get their shirts off, did actually look like a strong man. Slightly stocky, because the core muscles support your back and everything above the waist, with thick neck, arms, and legs. As others have mentioned acrobats are strong, and weight lifters, because they force their bodies through a full range of motion, are still very limber.
An acrobat might be 14 Str 18 Dex, but a weight lifter could also be 18 Str 14 Dex.
Although it's not going to happen, we could put D&D's stats into 3, Physical, which covers strength, dexterity, and constitution, Mental, which covers intelligence and wisdom, and Charm, for charisma.
after reading all that str vs dex vs wis junk and seeing the pictures of ripply inflatable guys and whatnot, it occurs to me that debating about what a monk is turned out a little counter productive. instead, it highlights how many character ideas can center around being tough, finding the courage within, and sweeping the leg. what's needed is a martial arts system for base d&d and all classes. take a cunning strike resource economy but call it a strike number (name is a work in progress). trade in strikes from the pool for status effects or increased defense. what's not siphoned away for other things then goes into the "flurry of blows" or multiple strikes during Attack action. low number of strikes to begin with, monks get more as a class feature (which they can spend on movement, defense, or a flurry of strikes). requires two empty hands, unless you've got a feat for martial arts weapons.
scale the number of strike actions instead of scaling the damage dice. take a line of nested feats (or class features) to increase the static damage die and learn techniques. martials would get a free feat including an understanding (whether trained or acquired the hard way) in basic strikes and grappling. monks could get additional strikes (so that every attack can be a flurry of blows, if you don't need the defense).
might seem nitty gritty, but then shiny balloon-chest guy could be a barbarian or fighter but also a martial artist, for whatever that's worth.
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!
False. What you are seeing is people who just want to play a martial artist state that it could just be a subclass of fighter or rogue, or feats. Honestly I see room for feats like that and a Revised Monk to coexist. Monk is a magical, mystical, supernatural martial artist. It’s not the same as a fighter with unarmed fighting and unarmored defense from my imaginary feat or a 1 level Barbarian dip. They could both be in a party and have a different feel. One reason people want a d10 and increased defense on a monk is because WotC have failed to make it a functioning skirmisher. Also it has trash defense. Monks Unarmed Defense is objectively worse than Barbarians. Since monks can’t use shields they need a boost to their Unarmored Defense. I suggest something as simple as half proficiency bonus. If you look at my rework for monk it gives them multiple opportunities to be skirmishers and disengage meaning they don’t need a bigger hit die. If the monk is meant to apply conditions then they need something early and then 5th level stunning strike that something should scale with their attack modifier not their Wis. Having something like Cunning Strikes that scaled on attack modifier might create space for monks who semi dump wis and use the cunning strike like feature and don’t worry about stunning strikes as much. If they allow monks to wear light armor you have created a path for a Str and Dex build monk that doesn’t invest in heavily into Wisdom. There is also an option to make monks SAD wisdom by making there attack stat wisdom, but my fear there is druid and cleric multiclasses will become rampant.
Yes, monk's current design is poor, thats why this thread exists. Monk is not achieving its fantasy/potential in onednd. Its actually comparatively worse due to other classes getting more options. Open hand is now mostly inferior to mastery any martial has access to for example.
And AC is only one aspect of survivability. Max Hp, all forms of mitigation, hp recovery, and risk required for effectiveness all factor in.
It needs changes. The people talking about its unarmored defense are trying to solve its high dependence on two stats to be basically OK, because that effects some of its issues. People are sharing and discussing ideas, not finished designs. There are many possible solutions, and a number of problems. I don't think anyone is claiming that allowing str builds of monk alone solves all its problems, or that its the only solution. Allowing str builds mostly allow flavor, and makes monk the premier grappler. Fixing monks Heavy dependency on dex/wis allows their CON investment to be similar to every other d8 hit die guy, instead of being a -. These are just two issues, and two solutions, not every monk player's desires, or all monk needs.
Monk's ki does enable superhuman feats, it could use more baseline from the class, but its often used in subclasses.
Also classes are not determined in this game by combat roles, classes are determined by what fantasy they represent.Many classes can handle multiple roles. Sorcerer and wizard are both casters, they aren't representing the same fantasy. Str based or not isnt what defines a class as unique. paladin barbarian ranger and fighter can all have strength builds, that doesnt make them the same. Fighter is by design a generalist without unique aspects. Monk is a specialist with many unique aspects. They are not the same.
being a subclass of fighter means you are the same as fighter with 3-4 different features. It also means no sub versions. No monk player is asking for that.
If you don't understand what the difference in fantasy/concept is between a monk and a fighter, it would be hard for you to be helpful in discussions of how to improve monk.
So you claim that martial arts were not created to defend and fight against stronger or genetically superior people? Aren't martial arts a system to attack and defeat the opponent with as little effort and as quickly as possible? A way that in war even the weakest people can be useful during a fight? Of course, then there are martial arts for the public's entertainment, but mainly these were created for war purposes, so that when a war broke out the less trained population could learn quickly and not be behind the naturally strong people, but here it would get more into techniques of battle formations and basic armed combat.
In my view, martial arts techniques are designed to the situation, each martial art reflecting its history and developed to their use. Often unarmed martial arts were developed for the public's entertainment, or to escape from slavery (where weapons were not accessible), or for self-defense for those who made long journeys and could not afford to be armed at all times, or even for places where weapons are not allowed, etc. But the principle is always the same, be most effective and use as little force and effort as possible for maximum results. But the principle is always the same, to be as effective as possible using as little force and effort as possible for maximum results or at least to survive. The main principle of martial arts is the optimization of minimum effort, minimum movement, minimum force required, maximum precision and maximum effectiveness... is this false?
Yes very often a person's strength is very much related to one's body mass and weight. Martial arts have precisely developed stances where a person's weight is enhanced by the stance performed, so a good stance allows for greater strength in its attacks. Clearly, weight always has some importance in attack power. But this point would be more about constitution than strength.
Those pictures is to better communicate the difference of a dexterity-based physique than a strength-based physique. Someone who develops dexterity does not mean that they do not have a good physique, because dexterity itself is a type of musculature. That was just the meaning of those images. If people want to see beyond the meaning of the pictures I posted, here is no other meaning.
Yes a good musculature serves to take the blows. Muscle elasticity distributes the damage and transmits it to a wider area thus decreasing the injury. Maybe that is why the monk has only d8 and the barbarian has d12 hit points?
Exactly, and it could be said that physical abilities are not what they are in dnd and could be viewed this way.
Strength: For+For+Con
Dexterity: Dex+Dex+For
Constitution: Con+Con+For
Martial arts aren't all the same, and don't all serve the same purpose. Also don't get that caught up in real world martial arts. Thats just the inspiration. DnD is a fantasy game, The monk's martial arts allow them to fight on par with weapon users and casters. Its not the same thing
What is the monk? How is it effectively played? What are its comparative advantages? What is it’s role in a party in the different pillars of play: combat, exploration, social? I’m asking because your statement assumes that the monk has some well defined roles and I believe it will be easier to discuss if I understand your view of the monk.
the mechanics of monk are up for review, and Very few monk players are satisfied with what was in the UA. There is no point coming into a situation of giving and discussing feedback, with a premise of everyone should be completely satisfied with this as is or walk away.
I would claim that. Martial arts were created to fight better. There's nothing about them that limits their use to weaker people, and they're generally most effective when used by strong people.
TBH, 'martial arts' is not a useful way to describe monks, because fighters are absolutely martial artists. There appear to be three key components of the monk
Honestly, you could do an adequate job with the monk by giving them an unarmed/unarmored fighting style, then layering on paladin smites (and a few other spells) for the mystical component.