I mean, Barbarians aren't actually super restricted. They can still use up to Medium armor with shield while Raging. Their Unarmored Defense is just for people who want to full-on "shirtless berserker" for their build. For Monks it's more a matter of aesthetic, yeah, plus a trade-off for some of the other stuff they can do.
Those warrior monks were more Samurai than Monk or think of them more as a multi class Monk-Fighter. They had the title of monk, but fought with all sorts of Samurai weapons.
Those warrior monks were more Samurai than Monk or think of them more as a multi class Monk-Fighter. They had the title of monk, but fought with all sorts of Samurai weapons.
They were Buddhist Monks that practiced martial arts and wore armor in battle. They used the same weapons and armor that were common for the era, just like Shinobi ("ninjas") did. I really wish people would stop ignoring cultural and historical realities just to play out their narrow fantasies of East Asian culture. I know the Shaolin Monk is a favorite Western stereotype for martial arts and D&D Monks, but that is only one example of East Asian martial arts culture and history. I think that is why I kind of wish Monk as a class would just go away completely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
Those warrior monks were more Samurai than Monk or think of them more as a multi class Monk-Fighter. They had the title of monk, but fought with all sorts of Samurai weapons.
They were Buddhist Monks that practiced martial arts and wore armor in battle. They used the same weapons and armor that were common for the era, just like Shinobi ("ninjas") did. I really wish people would stop ignoring cultural and historical realities just to play out their narrow fantasies of East Asian culture. I know the Shaolin Monk is a favorite Western stereotype for martial arts and D&D Monks, but that is only one example of East Asian martial arts culture and history. I think that is why I kind of wish Monk as a class would just go away completely.
I do believe they plan to make it more culturally neutral in 1D&D to recognize there are many cultures that developed a style of unarmed fighting. And they plan to rename ki as spirit points or something.
Those warrior monks were more Samurai than Monk or think of them more as a multi class Monk-Fighter. They had the title of monk, but fought with all sorts of Samurai weapons.
They were Buddhist Monks that practiced martial arts and wore armor in battle. They used the same weapons and armor that were common for the era, just like Shinobi ("ninjas") did. I really wish people would stop ignoring cultural and historical realities just to play out their narrow fantasies of East Asian culture. I know the Shaolin Monk is a favorite Western stereotype for martial arts and D&D Monks, but that is only one example of East Asian martial arts culture and history. I think that is why I kind of wish Monk as a class would just go away completely.
I mean, it’s pretty rare to find a warrior monk in anime or similar material who wears armor and uses conventional weapons over one wearing some variant of traditional monastic garb and fighting bare-handed or with a staff, so it’s hardly a uniquely Western image. Also, it’s not like you can’t incorporate a monastic aesthetic into a Fighter if you wish to emulate such a warrior monk style. The purpose of the Monk class is specifically to draw on the barehanded and unarmored warrior of great inner discipline tropes; obviously it will no more perfectly encapsulate all real world martial monastic orders than the Barbarian class will perfectly emulate factions of warriors across various cultures who went into battle heavy on weapons and light on armor. But both archetypes are fairly universal by this point, so it seems inaccurate to label this as Western stereotyping.
Those warrior monks were more Samurai than Monk or think of them more as a multi class Monk-Fighter. They had the title of monk, but fought with all sorts of Samurai weapons.
They were Buddhist Monks that practiced martial arts and wore armor in battle. They used the same weapons and armor that were common for the era, just like Shinobi ("ninjas") did. I really wish people would stop ignoring cultural and historical realities just to play out their narrow fantasies of East Asian culture. I know the Shaolin Monk is a favorite Western stereotype for martial arts and D&D Monks, but that is only one example of East Asian martial arts culture and history. I think that is why I kind of wish Monk as a class would just go away completely.
I mean, it’s pretty rare to find a warrior monk in anime or similar material who wears armor and uses conventional weapons over one wearing some variant of traditional monastic garb and fighting bare-handed or with a staff, so it’s hardly a uniquely Western image. Also, it’s not like you can’t incorporate a monastic aesthetic into a Fighter if you wish to emulate such a warrior monk style. The purpose of the Monk class is specifically to draw on the barehanded and unarmored warrior of great inner discipline tropes; obviously it will no more perfectly encapsulate all real world martial monastic orders than the Barbarian class will perfectly emulate factions of warriors across various cultures who went into battle heavy on weapons and light on armor. But both archetypes are fairly universal by this point, so it seems inaccurate to label this as Western stereotyping.
I wasn't saying that it was a stereotype created by Westerners, I am saying it seems to be a popular stereotype with Westerners. Buddhist Monks across the world have a similar aesthetic so it isn't surprising that they generally look the same when they appear in popular media. Martial Artists on the other hand are incredibly diverse in their representation across all forms of media and include but are not limited to semi naked with fans, armored with big heavy weapons, and bullet proof suits with guns.
The spiritual Monk concept could be absorbed into Cleric while the Martial Arts concept could be absorbed by the Fighter or they could broaden the concept of the Monk class into a more diverse Martial Artist class that allows a more varied playstyle than "Shaolin Monk".
The combination is the point, though. It’s about spiritual discipline of the self to improve the body, not connecting to an outside force like a Cleric does or simple martial discipline of a Fighter.
The combination is the point, though. It’s about spiritual discipline of the self to improve the body, not connecting to an outside force like a Cleric does or simple martial discipline of a Fighter.
That might be the point for you.
If you ask people where they draw their inspiration from for their Monk character and they will point to any number of characters, very very few of which are Monks but are instead just martial artists they think are cool.
For me, Martial Arts and Buddhism are a part of my heritage but they are not interconnected. My mother raised me as Buddhist, but when my father insisted that I learn self defense I chose Judo and Karate because I wanted to explore that part of my Japanese heritage.
The combination is the point, though. It’s about spiritual discipline of the self to improve the body, not connecting to an outside force like a Cleric does or simple martial discipline of a Fighter.
That might be the point for you.
If you ask people where they draw their inspiration from for their Monk character and they will point to any number of characters, very very few of which are Monks but are instead just martial artists they think are cool.
For me, Martial Arts and Buddhism are a part of my heritage but they are not interconnected. My mother raised me as Buddhist, but when my father insisted that I learn self defense I chose Judo and Karate because I wanted to explore that part of my Japanese heritage.
It’s not about what it means to me; it’s demonstrably what the class is meant to be.
Those warrior monks were more Samurai than Monk or think of them more as a multi class Monk-Fighter. They had the title of monk, but fought with all sorts of Samurai weapons.
They were Buddhist Monks that practiced martial arts and wore armor in battle. They used the same weapons and armor that were common for the era, just like Shinobi ("ninjas") did. I really wish people would stop ignoring cultural and historical realities just to play out their narrow fantasies of East Asian culture. I know the Shaolin Monk is a favorite Western stereotype for martial arts and D&D Monks, but that is only one example of East Asian martial arts culture and history. I think that is why I kind of wish Monk as a class would just go away completely.
You're coming at this from the wrong direction. Classes are descriptive, not prescriptive. Monk isn't a catch-all for any Eastern or Buddhist warrior, it is a platform for an agile martial artist who also values wisdom. Shaolin monks fit that pretty well but they aren't the only thing that does, and plenty of Eastern archetypes don't fit it well at all.
People run into the same issue when they try to make a brawny, strength-based, bare-knuckle brawler and try to shoehorn that into monk because they're the unarmed specialists. That's just not what monks are, for better and for worse.
Monk and barbarian have the unarmored feature because its part of the core identity of the class, not due to what the class may or may not represent to you. That's why class features exist - to distinguish how the class plays from other classes. If you want to play a real-world archetype, it's up to you to decide which class mechanics would best fit what you want to do.
Now if you feel that the art and presentation around monks are geared too hard towards Eastern cultures, that's a different and IMO legitimate issue. But that's not the fault of the class, it's a fault of how it is marketed. Ultimately monk exists to fill the trope of someone who fights quick and smart, a skirmisher that remains deadly even after you take away all their gear. That is a popular niche no matter how you want to flavor it.
The combination is the point, though. It’s about spiritual discipline of the self to improve the body, not connecting to an outside force like a Cleric does or simple martial discipline of a Fighter.
That might be the point for you.
If you ask people where they draw their inspiration from for their Monk character and they will point to any number of characters, very very few of which are Monks but are instead just martial artists they think are cool.
For me, Martial Arts and Buddhism are a part of my heritage but they are not interconnected. My mother raised me as Buddhist, but when my father insisted that I learn self defense I chose Judo and Karate because I wanted to explore that part of my Japanese heritage.
It’s not about what it means to me; it’s demonstrably what the class is meant to be.
I know what WotC meant for it to be in the 2014 PHB. I am saying what I think it should become in the future (2024) and why. Just because that is how it has been, is not a good enough reason to keep things as they are in my opinion. Just like you can play a shirtless Barbarian or the armored Barbarian, you should be able to play the shirtless Martial Artist or the armored Martial Artist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
Now if you feel that the art and presentation around monks are geared too hard towards Eastern cultures, that's a different and IMO legitimate issue. But that's not the fault of the class, it's a fault of how it is marketed.
I do indeed feel this way, but I don't want to go down that road on these forums.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
The combination is the point, though. It’s about spiritual discipline of the self to improve the body, not connecting to an outside force like a Cleric does or simple martial discipline of a Fighter.
That might be the point for you.
If you ask people where they draw their inspiration from for their Monk character and they will point to any number of characters, very very few of which are Monks but are instead just martial artists they think are cool.
For me, Martial Arts and Buddhism are a part of my heritage but they are not interconnected. My mother raised me as Buddhist, but when my father insisted that I learn self defense I chose Judo and Karate because I wanted to explore that part of my Japanese heritage.
It’s not about what it means to me; it’s demonstrably what the class is meant to be.
I know what WotC meant for it to be in the 2014 PHB. I am saying what I think it should become in the future (2024) and why. Just because that is how it has been, is not a good enough reason to keep things as they are in my opinion. Just like you can play a shirtless Barbarian or the armored Barbarian, you should be able to play the shirtless Martial Artist or the armored Martial Artist.
Welcome to history- when D&D was starting ( mid to late ‘70s) all most folks knew about martial arts was Bruce Lee And the TV show Kung Fu. Both the hero was an unarmored martial artist with a monkish background. In the TV show it was specifically the Shaolin temple, in the Bruce Lee movies at least one also had Bruce coming from a Shaolin background. So it’s not surprising that when a martial artist was added to the game it had a distinctly Shaolin flavor to it. Keep in mind that none of the D&D character classes are historically accurate but rather represent tropes common in the Midwest in the middle 70s not historically accurate anything’s. Another way to think of it is that each class represents sort of an end member or axis line in the multidimensional space of what a character can be. Monk and barbarian represent 2 (typically) unarmored axis. While since then “common knowledge” has broadened what we know about oriental and other monks to rewrite monks would mean reworking every class into a very different balance. I agree, monks need some adjustment and maybe a shohei like subclass that gets (selected) armor and more martial weapons but for that we will have to see what the revisions bring.
If there is a D&D mechanical trope I'd be willing to give up, it's Classes. I'd like to see a D&D with an a la carte gestalt system where you build block by block, power by power, feat by feat, any kind of PC you can imagine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As the title says.
Partly legacy from earlier editions. Partly game balance.
I mean, Barbarians aren't actually super restricted. They can still use up to Medium armor with shield while Raging. Their Unarmored Defense is just for people who want to full-on "shirtless berserker" for their build. For Monks it's more a matter of aesthetic, yeah, plus a trade-off for some of the other stuff they can do.
Freedom of movement especially for the Monk. 100%
Monks are martial artists at the core. You don't see martial artists wearing armor.
Barbarians were originally designed in large part based on Conan.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
Those warrior monks were more Samurai than Monk or think of them more as a multi class Monk-Fighter. They had the title of monk, but fought with all sorts of Samurai weapons.
They were Buddhist Monks that practiced martial arts and wore armor in battle. They used the same weapons and armor that were common for the era, just like Shinobi ("ninjas") did. I really wish people would stop ignoring cultural and historical realities just to play out their narrow fantasies of East Asian culture. I know the Shaolin Monk is a favorite Western stereotype for martial arts and D&D Monks, but that is only one example of East Asian martial arts culture and history. I think that is why I kind of wish Monk as a class would just go away completely.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
Same reason Druids "don't" use metal armor: aesthetics and play direction.
Aesthetics - Arnold Schwarzenegger with a shirt is Terminator. Without a shirt he's Conan.
Play direction - You're going to find magic armor someday. The devs want you to give it to the Fighter instead of squabbling.
I do believe they plan to make it more culturally neutral in 1D&D to recognize there are many cultures that developed a style of unarmed fighting. And they plan to rename ki as spirit points or something.
I mean, it’s pretty rare to find a warrior monk in anime or similar material who wears armor and uses conventional weapons over one wearing some variant of traditional monastic garb and fighting bare-handed or with a staff, so it’s hardly a uniquely Western image. Also, it’s not like you can’t incorporate a monastic aesthetic into a Fighter if you wish to emulate such a warrior monk style. The purpose of the Monk class is specifically to draw on the barehanded and unarmored warrior of great inner discipline tropes; obviously it will no more perfectly encapsulate all real world martial monastic orders than the Barbarian class will perfectly emulate factions of warriors across various cultures who went into battle heavy on weapons and light on armor. But both archetypes are fairly universal by this point, so it seems inaccurate to label this as Western stereotyping.
I wasn't saying that it was a stereotype created by Westerners, I am saying it seems to be a popular stereotype with Westerners. Buddhist Monks across the world have a similar aesthetic so it isn't surprising that they generally look the same when they appear in popular media. Martial Artists on the other hand are incredibly diverse in their representation across all forms of media and include but are not limited to semi naked with fans, armored with big heavy weapons, and bullet proof suits with guns.
The spiritual Monk concept could be absorbed into Cleric while the Martial Arts concept could be absorbed by the Fighter or they could broaden the concept of the Monk class into a more diverse Martial Artist class that allows a more varied playstyle than "Shaolin Monk".
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
The combination is the point, though. It’s about spiritual discipline of the self to improve the body, not connecting to an outside force like a Cleric does or simple martial discipline of a Fighter.
That might be the point for you.
If you ask people where they draw their inspiration from for their Monk character and they will point to any number of characters, very very few of which are Monks but are instead just martial artists they think are cool.
For me, Martial Arts and Buddhism are a part of my heritage but they are not interconnected. My mother raised me as Buddhist, but when my father insisted that I learn self defense I chose Judo and Karate because I wanted to explore that part of my Japanese heritage.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
It’s not about what it means to me; it’s demonstrably what the class is meant to be.
You're coming at this from the wrong direction. Classes are descriptive, not prescriptive. Monk isn't a catch-all for any Eastern or Buddhist warrior, it is a platform for an agile martial artist who also values wisdom. Shaolin monks fit that pretty well but they aren't the only thing that does, and plenty of Eastern archetypes don't fit it well at all.
People run into the same issue when they try to make a brawny, strength-based, bare-knuckle brawler and try to shoehorn that into monk because they're the unarmed specialists. That's just not what monks are, for better and for worse.
Monk and barbarian have the unarmored feature because its part of the core identity of the class, not due to what the class may or may not represent to you. That's why class features exist - to distinguish how the class plays from other classes. If you want to play a real-world archetype, it's up to you to decide which class mechanics would best fit what you want to do.
Now if you feel that the art and presentation around monks are geared too hard towards Eastern cultures, that's a different and IMO legitimate issue. But that's not the fault of the class, it's a fault of how it is marketed. Ultimately monk exists to fill the trope of someone who fights quick and smart, a skirmisher that remains deadly even after you take away all their gear. That is a popular niche no matter how you want to flavor it.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I know what WotC meant for it to be in the 2014 PHB. I am saying what I think it should become in the future (2024) and why. Just because that is how it has been, is not a good enough reason to keep things as they are in my opinion. Just like you can play a shirtless Barbarian or the armored Barbarian, you should be able to play the shirtless Martial Artist or the armored Martial Artist.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
I do indeed feel this way, but I don't want to go down that road on these forums.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
That would be the Unarmed Fighting Fighter
Welcome to history- when D&D was starting ( mid to late ‘70s) all most folks knew about martial arts was Bruce Lee And the TV show Kung Fu. Both the hero was an unarmored martial artist with a monkish background. In the TV show it was specifically the Shaolin temple, in the Bruce Lee movies at least one also had Bruce coming from a Shaolin background. So it’s not surprising that when a martial artist was added to the game it had a distinctly Shaolin flavor to it. Keep in mind that none of the D&D character classes are historically accurate but rather represent tropes common in the Midwest in the middle 70s not historically accurate anything’s. Another way to think of it is that each class represents sort of an end member or axis line in the multidimensional space of what a character can be. Monk and barbarian represent 2 (typically) unarmored axis. While since then “common knowledge” has broadened what we know about oriental and other monks to rewrite monks would mean reworking every class into a very different balance. I agree, monks need some adjustment and maybe a shohei like subclass that gets (selected) armor and more martial weapons but for that we will have to see what the revisions bring.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
If there is a D&D mechanical trope I'd be willing to give up, it's Classes. I'd like to see a D&D with an a la carte gestalt system where you build block by block, power by power, feat by feat, any kind of PC you can imagine.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?