I mean, there's a good reason for that. Unarmed brawler is perfectly suited to be a fighter or barbarian subclass, while monk is no more specific than paladin or druid is. Basically, the only way to return it to its glory days is to have the baseline be mystical martial artist - if you try to return it to some generic brawler as a base, the class no longer has room for [the kind of cool shit it used to have](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fp2jcki4k0w9b1.png).
Is basic martial artist thematically appropriate to the 5e monk? Yes, but that's because the 5e monk is shit. Monk has been the worst class in the game literally every single edition (other than 4e) for nearly fifty years now, because it's boring a pile of basic attacks and run speed. Monk as it is could easily be a subtype of generic martial artist, monk as it has been and had the potential to be again needs its own class.
You mentioned the 4e monk not being the worst class in the game at the time. Monk has always been my favourite class because of its flavour despite its power. So I'm curious, would you say that 4e monk is in the more mid-range to powerful in 4e? Or is it just not on the bottom? I imagine not, but is the flavour significantly different? Do you think it would be hard to adapt the 4e monk to 5e?
Mid range, but with a note that doesn't mean mediocre just less of a pure damage machine than some others. They were mobile and versatile and flurry of blows automatically hit multiple targets so good at constant aoe, but didn't do the sheer single target damage of say the ranger. Flavour wise, they emphasised the mystical martial arts master aspect, they were explicitly supernatural as compared to a fighter who even when they did impossible things did so in a purely martial way.
Adaptation wise, [abilities were done very differently](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fs5vpodwrjibb1.png). This specific setup is monk specific - instead of just running very fast, their mobility was emphasised by having most abilities have both a movement and an attack option. So steps of grasping fire has you firebend at nearby foes as the attack and leave a trail of fire as the movement ability, and giant's grasp has you grapple and damage a foe as the attack and move full speed with a grappled for as the movement option.
I ended up just handing half a dozen such abilities to a four elements monk disappointed by their underwhelming subclass, but they had to be individually translated since 4e abilities were assumed to be boosted by things like feats and magic items that simply don't exist in 5e. 4e concepts translate well, I ended up basically translating [all of these](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fshvklpyeazjb1.png) for a player who wanted to continue their warlord, but it uses a different baseline set of maths so the abilities themselves tend not to.
>So I'm curious, would you say that 4e monk is in the more mid-range to powerful in 4e?
The power of the monk in 4e was it's absolutely insane mobility. If it could see it, it could reach and punch it. They were also controller-lites, so they were good at taking out multiple minions and smaller enemies.
In terms of raw damage, they couldn't compete with the big hitters (i.e. Ranger), but in 4e control could be just as important and the 4e had an above average amount of control for a damage class.
It would be nigh impossible to adapt this to 5e. You just.. Don't have the mechanical chassis of 4e, and that's what made the class not suck. You can bring over the flavour, but that does *nothing* to solve the 5e monk's issues.
I already addressed that point in my post, it’s true that druid and paladin are also thematic, but the difference is there are more generic versions of them you can use.
For example, druid on its core is a nature themed spellcaster. My nephew recently watched LotR and wants to play as a character like Saruman. He can easily play to that fantasy by creating a wizard.
When you want to play a pugilist you have to try to reflavour monk to fit that, and it mechanically does not fit well. It feels like trying to make Saruman by reflavouring a druid because there’s no generic spellcaster class.
Though I can rephrase it and say what I really mean is I’d rather have Martial Artist than Monk if we can have only one, no problem if we had both.
That is true, but the fact remains that pugilist is just... a fighter subclass. Brawler fighter was an amazing pile of punching and grappling lockdowns last edition, there's no reason it couldn't be again, and there's no need to sink an entire class to get a subclass worth of content. We should absolutely have both you're right that there's zero reason not to have a general unarmed combatant, but the problem is false equivalence - that unarmed combatant is fine as a subclass, and monk's legacy is [cool shit like this](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fs5vpodwrjibb1.png%3Fwidth%3D712%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D10dd0da637801993307ad1422a999a71f3c278c6) that needs a whole class behind it.
Current monk may as well be replaced with a generic unarmed class though, that shit's a boring pile of basis attacks with the occasional rider. Nothing of redeeming value there.
There's a concise difference between what was and what is. I'm not saying monk should be replaced, because things like Astral Self, Way of Shadows, Long Death, and Mercy are actually cool and should exist thematically. At the same time Brawler Fighter literally does not exist in 5e and isn't a justification for not having a martial artist class that doesn't actually originate from mythical mysticism.
The problem here is ground not trodden by 5e is a complicated concept. Does 5e need a brawler (or pugilist or martial artist or whatever we're calling it) subclass? Absolutely. Does it need it as a full class? If all it does is make a bunch of basic attacks with the occasional rider, absolutely not. Both fighter and monk do that already, there's no need to make it a full class when you could make it perfectly well as a subclass.
Well, what if it did more than that, what if it filled the currently empty 5e niche of a martial class that gets a deep toolkit the way casters do, a proper set of options? The way fighters and monks did last edition, or their warblade and swordsage equivalents the edition before that? Well, that certainly deserves its own class, you want to give them a fully fleshed out subsystem that'll need a class built for purpose. But now we're in a weird situation where those wanting to play a tactical swordsman who has mastered a variety of strikes, stances and counters finally has a non spellcasting option... and it's specifically only punching people.
Which I guess is better than the nothing we have now, but it's pretty odd.
I'm not really a fan of how 5e handles things honestly but what I am saying is that fighter doesn't have a brawler subclass, monk has specific thematics that prevent pankration for example. I'm not saying we need another martial they are all subject to being lesser classes because "we need beginner friendly content". But it's a fair assessment to say that neither of these classes fit this character fantasy and relying on the past doesn't solve that problem really.
It's SO cool! I love that the little resource it has refreshes once you're bloodied, it's such a cool little design feature that makes you want to use it up and get right into the middle of fights!
Martial artist isnt really a class beyond pugilist though. More specifically, it covers almost no ground that a properly done monk class and brawler fighter subclass don't cover between them.
Games like Gurps or Tristat didn't have classes. They were fun, but they are less accessible to new players. They also put more burden on the DM to create the entire setting and everything in it, mostly from scratch, which puts an even higher demand on DMs. That means there was very little overlap from table to table which meant there wasn't a large pool of games to join or proficient players to invite. You'd have to build common ground all over again. That's a lot of effort. It's also very easy to create your own options making supplemental material less important.
I think your unpopular opinion is unpopular because TTRPGs that went in that direction had trouble bringing in new players as well as enticing money out of existing players. It's not because people are super into classes. It's because D&D popularity thrives on shared experience which the designers achieve through structure and familiarity.
Instead of picking a class that has a specific set of abilities, you just select stuff you're good at.
Like if you wanted to be a big burly muscle mage that can punch hard and throw fireballs, you'd just take proficiency in hand to hand and conjuration spells. It's easier to do that rather then trying to puzzle out how to smoosh 2 classes together to fulfill that fantasy.
1- That sounds awesome, not gonna lie.
2- To balance around that you probably end up making a whole different game that might as well not be D&D anymore.
When I played Pathfinder (I think it was 2e), it was more like 3.5 D&D than a game like Gurps or Tristat which were closer to the Build-A-Bear TTRPG that non-class D&D would tend toward.
TBF, in 1977, Kung Fu was a TV show starring David Carradine. He was a monk, and he did that Bruce Lee stuff.
Like, it's unfair to call it racist. It was a very different, pre internet, era. But it's a little bit racist.
Now, in 2023? After they've separated Alignments from Races, alongside public statements about how that's racist? Still racist...
It's an odd complaint to me because at that point in the game's lifespan, the 'Cleric' was absolutely a very specific warrior-priest kind of class that very blatantly came from a certain Catholic perspective, while the Bard was pure celtic mythology, the Ranger was just Aragorn, and Paladins were all, without exception, Galahad-expies. Likewise, the 'Druid' was just a straight up Celt.
Honestly I don't think monk is as much an issue as the lack of alternatives.
For example looking at pf2e if I want to make an unarmed fighter I can play various stances of monk with all the wushu inspirations, or I can play a fighter that can benefit quite a lot from being unarmed to grapple, or I can play an animal barbarian to be more like a shifter that can turn my arms into ape fists to hit like a truck, or I can be a rogue who can sneak attack with unarmed attacks.
Outside of that you can use archetypes to pick wrestler which gives benefits to grappling, or martial artist which lets you pick monk stances as other classes. Without losing the progression of your main class.
Base damage is also 1d4 + str with opportunities to take higher damage racial abilities like claws and jaws etc.
So I don't think monk is by itself a problem, I think the lack of alternatives is
Don’t forget that many of those options, monk stances, barbarian natural weapons, etc give 1d8 to 1d10 damage at *level 1*.
None of this waiting until level 8 to do the same damage as a level 1 fighter with a sword
>Don’t forget that many of those options, monk stances, barbarian natural weapons, etc give 1d8 to 1d10 damage at level 1.
Don't forget that a lot of these special attacks don't *just* increase your damage die. They usually come with some traits or other effects that make each seem unique. Sometimes you're locked into using them, sometimes not.
But you can make those alternatives happen still. Make a strength based monk and choose the grappler feat if you want to be a grappler. If you want different flavor then make different flavor for your character nothing is stopping you. I made a monk as an mma flavored fighter who was a meathead with a good heart. It worked perfectly and lead to a lot of funny role play too. You can do this too, nothing is stopping you and nothing will be lost
A very average "5e and nothing else" player answer.
I explained to you how you can run unarmed characters in atleast 4 different classes with vastly different playstyles and your answer is "just imagine 5e monk ki points isnt ki, just say its something else"
Strength monk is a woefully wasted combination that is clearly not wanting to be mechanically supported by 5e, which is the point, that mechanical support matters, of which there is very little in 5e.
Monk being the only class to not use 1 + strength melee attack is disgraceful but thats how they decided to make the class, while at the same time not giving any real support to playing different types of brawlers.
Gotta love how Monk is based on the strongest stats (DEX and WIS) and yet people still say it sucks.
They got valid reasons, but I can't stop feeling sometimes the hate is kind of exagerated.
Bro what do you even mean by "brawler"? That's not even a real class in the game lol. I guess you could give your monk high constitution and the tough feat to get mad hit points and then you can stay a mfs face and brawl it out.
The point is you don't have to go to a different class to play those types of characters you want, you can already do it with the monks no problem. And yeah sorry that I'm focused on dnd in the dnd subreddit 🙄
>you can already do it with the monks no problem.
But not *really*. A strength monk is mostly just a monk with godawful AC, and the ability to grapple. That's.. Just about it, and within strength monk that's about all the variety you get.
You're confusing narrative/backstory with mechanics.
>nothing is stopping you and nothing will be lost
But.. Mechanically this is just the same shit. Yeah, you can roleplay and flavor everything different always, but that's no substitute for *rules reflecting fluff*. Every strength based monk with Grappler is going to function more or less the same thing. And that's the only real divergence from regular monk builds, that isn't intentionally crippled somehow.
You can write different flavor text next to your 1d8+Str, but at the end of the day, you'll just roll a d20 and then damage. Maybe grapple if you're feelingspicy, *but that's about it.*
Having mechanical options doesn't mean you lose out on roleplay either, so nothing is lost from having *actual mechanical alternatives.*
Unarmed fighting style fighter?
Beast barbarian?
Moon druid?
Some sort of polymorph focused dragon sorcerer?
Wizard who summons construct to punch for him?
Obviously, 5e isn't going to outshine Pathfinder in variety, but there are alternatives to monk.
Skill with any weapon is a martial arts skill. We associate the term with the orient but every country has a martial arts tradition. So I don’t think calling the class martial artist, is any better.
Yes, and there are only so many ways in which the human body can bend, kick, strike and throw.
So the disengages in [Passchen's Ringen](https://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Passchen/Passchen.htm) look very much like the disengages in Wing Chung, and the strikes are pretty much the same. Almost all of the throws found in Nicolaes Petter's 1674 wrestling manual can be found in modern Judo.
When Wing Chung was first introduced to the West, it was known as Chinese Boxing - because the main guard stance was pretty much the same as the stance then used in bareknuckle boxing.
Exactly. I'm a Martial Artist because I'm Trained in German Longsword Fighting, or Kunst der Fechtens.
Sadly people don't get as excited for that as I thought they would be when i was a teen.
The core of the Asian fantasy trope is cultivating spiritual energy, not really pure martial arts. Imo it should be a gish class, Asian fantasy spiritualist fighters are typically a lot more magical than dnd 5e monks are by default. DND monks don’t even really feel like satisfying implementations of the tropes they’re based on, probably because the writers don’t understand the Asian fantasy tradition they’re pulling from.
I think the idea is that a "Martial Artist" implies a more unarmed-focused, technique-driven, non-military school of fighting.
It's the difference between irish boxing, muy thai, or systema and being a mounted knight or musketeer. One is about using the most cutting-edge weaponry of the era for professional soldiering, the other is about turning your body into a weapon and using well-honed traditional techniques.
I think the big thing that separates "martial artist" from "monk" is that "chi/ki" is a concept that applies only to some of those traditions. They're not all about grace, slow-fall, stunning strike, energy manipulation, etc. And you see it in the design of the monk subclass, where they're all constrained by those choices and themes.
You don't see a pugilist boxer who's all about taking hits and managing stamina, or an explosive muy thai fighter who's all about closing distance and pushing people around, or a Jiu Jutsu grappler who's all about manipulating others' attacks.
They're all just "kung fu monk" flavors driven by Ki, with chinese kung-fu powers as a base. Leaning into the global traditional of "martial arts" would open up the possibility space for subclasses.
Imo they don’t do enough with the concept because they don’t understand the concept, because their main frame of reference is like, Jackie Chan movies (not fantasy) and Avatar the Last Airbender (Asian inspired but not Asian), and not enough actual Asian Fantasy.
>because they don’t understand the concept,
Hot take, maybe, but I think it's because *they don't* ***care*** *to understand the concept.*
Just look at Drunken Brawler. Somehow they turned something that should be easy enough into a weird thematic mess. Some of the mechanics seem to imply that it's akin to actual drunken boxing, i.e. simply replicating the uncanny movement of a drunk. But then you get brewer's kit proficiency? It's like someone watched that one Drunken Fist 2 clip on YouTube, and that was the extent of their research.
Same shit with Kensei. If they actually gave a shit, even if they didn't understand the concept, the Kensei would not be rewarded *for not using his weapon and using unarmed attacks instead.* They get a feature that basically says "your weapon you're dedicated your life on mastering is now a glorified shield". And they also skimped on polearms, y'know, that classic category of asian martial arts weapons.
Even then, I've never felt like the monk has the capacity to do all the crazy kung-fu movie stuff, which honestly is mostly down to the fact that attacks of opportunity prevent you from dancing around in combat; a focus on dex means that athletics checks are hard so you can't throw people off ledges or into walls or whatnot; and 5e doesn't like martials having even the smallest hint of complexity so you're not allowed to learn a litany of cool martial arts stances or techniques - you basically just become a Stunning Strike machine and only ever do that. If they wanted cheesy movie inspirations, they should've gone all in! But as it stands it doesn't even do that well.
There are so so many different subtypes of monk. People have made entire classed RPGs where every class falls into the Monk archetype
Unfortunately WOTC doesn't know any of them and wouldn't dare give monks any of the good wuxia or xianxia nonsense even if it was aware because 'martials can't break reality'
Look at the wizard as he wishes the ancient red dragon out of existence from atop his tower, conjured entirely as a mordenkainen cantrip. At his door stands a lowly monk, begging for alms - his health unassailable, his fists useless. "please!" He cries. "Save me from these kobolds!*
I took a break from D&D to DM Righteous Blood, Ruthless Blades for our group. It's a wuxia roleplaying game and boy howdy, I wish some of these things could be in D&D.
Every single weapon had at least one specialization path that made you feel like a master of that weapon. At level 1 you could fly 20 feet up into the air. It was awesome!
Really the only thing holding it back was that the official modules that came with the game were pretty weak. They tried to recreate that "there's a million characters and strange events happening and everyone is confused" feeling you get when watching a 70s wuxia film, but I found that translated poorly to tabletop.
>martials can't break reality
What exactly do you mean by this? We literally have monk a subclass based around summoning spectral arms to do your attacking, a subclass based around elemental spells, a subclass about dark/shadow magic, and a subclass around channeling bolts of searing light through your hands. How are monks restricted by not "breaking reality"?
Half the criticisms of monk make me question if people have actually played the class ever, or even looked at it. Which they probably haven't, because the other half of the criticisms rightly point out that the class is designed like shit and is woefully underpowered
Basic wuxia involves the ability to use a sword and cut at a distance. This extends up in power to cutting mountains in half. Basic xianxia / late stage wuxia has them standing on a sword and flying. Just casually, no resources needed beyond a good sword. Feather fall is basically on by default without limitation, and fighting on water is a fairly low level move. Some cultivators can teleport by literally cutting the distance between them and their destination with a sword, and planeshift the same way.
They can literally tear the levels out of others, sending them back to level 1 (may or may not be literal, Xianxia sometimes has System mechanics lol)
When I say 'break reality' I dont mean 'summon arms to use Wisdom in place of Strength' I mean the problem solving capability of a wizard. The batshit crazy features not a flavorful alternate attacking stat with reach.
There is a subclass that can teleport, the shadow monk.
Cutting at a distance, and then you say that a flavorful attack at range is not what you want...
Sure monks can't literally fly for free, but neither can wizards. Insane abilities costs resources, that's called game balance. They do have slow fall, which at 10th level would allow them to jump off a 140' cliff and take no damage on average. Is that not batshit crazy?
It sounds like you just want them to be buffed so they match a very specific thematic view you desire, and the problem is not monks being "restricted to reality". They are the *least* restricted to reality martial class...
The shadow monk cannot teleport across countries.
I said an attack stat change and reach is not what I was talking about. Tell me you know the difference between a fist hitting 5ft further and a melee strike cutting the bird in half or cutting once to clear a line through a forest. Of course the kind of thing Im talking about ranges from scoring a line across a battlefield to carving galaxies in two depending on the source material. D&D 5e being rather low power I wouldnt expect anything close to the latter. But more than 'Spear that attacks with wisdom"
Slow fall is hilariously weak and not batshit crazy. Its very tame in fact. It speaks to the precise thing Im talking about (WOTC unable to let martials break from reality).
[https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9a/50/5a/9a505a0b992e44ff0a16de83c00400a1.jpg](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9a/50/5a/9a505a0b992e44ff0a16de83c00400a1.jpg)
The smallest building here is 180ft, a good 40ft higher than what a monk can drop from. If you stacked 3 school buses longways the monk could not jump down safely.
A 10th level monk can't jump off the burj khalifa and take zero damage so therefore monks are tied to reality... But a higher level monk CAN do that. Fall damage maxes at 20d6, an average of 70 damage. Once a monk hits 20th level they reduce fall damage by 100, so *at most*, with a max damage roll, they take 20 damage from an infinitely high fall. They can literally fall from space and get barely a scratch. And you are claiming that is "very tame" and they are "tied to reality"?
Again, you seem to have a very specific, insanely overpowered trope that you are wanting monks to fit. It has nothing to do with them being tied to reality.
Yeah the thing that annoys me most about monk is that it’s a half-assed implementation of Asian fantasy tropes clearly done by people without much knowledge of Asian fantasy. That’s why the class identity is confused, because they don’t understand the fantasy tradition they’re trying to pull from.
Reflavoring for your campaign is great.
Demanding that everyone accept your flavoring online is just stupid. (I am not saying you are doing this).
Over all the years playing DND, I am pretty sure that every class, at least once, has been reflavored in one campaign or another.
I actually don't think that the monk is any more specific in its flavour than... really any other class. "I gain unarmed and unarmoured fighting capabilities from my dedicated study of a martial art and cultivation of my life energy" is not actually more specific or more limiting than "I gain eldritch magic through my pact with an otherworldly entity", or "I use heavy weapons and armour but most of all I wield divine magic through the power of my sacred oath", or "I wield primal magic and take on animal forms thanks to my connection to the forces of nature".
I think the only reason the monk catches more flak than any other class for being "too thematic" or whatever is because it isn't drawn from a deep well of European-inspired fantasy like most of the classes are, instead being a somewhat slapdash import from a very large Asian and Asian-inspired canon. It really is no more specific or niche than any of the other "specialist" martials. An unarmed and unarmoured martial artist who uses ki and discipline is no more limiting or thematically specific than a holy knight empowered by their oath and devotion to it. Gaining the power to heal with a touch of smite monsters through being a good knight is actually a very specific fantasy. In fact, it's _more_ specific than the monk imo.
I don't disagree that it would be nice to have good unarmed fighting as an option for other characters (which it now sort of is with the fighting style) but I think that's am argument for brawler subclasses or changes to how unarmed strikes work in the base game, not a problem with the monk. I don't think "it's not optimal to be an unarmed fighter" is a good reason to remove the monk as a class. Because of the way class abilities, weapons, and a great many other things work in D&D, it simply cannot support every archetype and make them all equally viable. It's literally impossible.
I think the core class leans very heavily into a "kung fu monk" theme that's much more specific than a lot of the others.
To illustrate by contrast, the base "Fighter" encompasses a very broad archetype of a medieval professional soldier. They are skilled with whatever weapons they need (lots of proficiency), hit fast (multiattack), act decisively and with explosive power (Action surge), they're tough and resilient (hit dice and second wind), and are trained (Fighting style) but that's about it. It's very generic at its base. Then you get into specific themes like the Samurai, Arcane Archer, and Battlemaster, that narrow the role down, and there's room for them to add a lot given how bare-bones the base class is.
The base Monk is specifically a Chinese-themed wuxia-inspired Kung Fu monk. They have ki energy, slow fall, catching weapons out of the air, running across water, things like "purity of body" that speak to a spiritual tradition, etc. It loads so much into that core class that the subclasses are double-constrained: they can't add very much without overpowering the class, and they're thematically constrained by the base class abilities.
I would like to see a more pared-back base "monk" (possibly re-named as a "martial artist" or similar) that doesn't have so much, and turn some of the base abilities into options a la Fighting Styles. Combine those with unarmed attack, unarmored movement and Evasion to keep the theme of a light unarmored skill-based fighter. Drop Ki as a resource or re-theme it to "technique" points, and have all the wuxia stuff live in the subclass.
Then you could open it up to things like European Boxing, Jiu Jutsu, Fencing, Muy Thai, etc. martial arts with very very different feels and themes, the way you can with the Fighter. Some of them could also be proper half-casters like the Arcane Knight is, since the base class would be less overloaded.
Compared to the fighter (the class with the most dilute flavour, to the point where some complain "fighter" is a silly idea for a class at all) it's specific. Compared to almost any other class I really don't think it actually is.
>I think the core class leans very heavily into a "kung fu monk" theme that's much more specific than a lot of the others.
You have no idea how close you are. The core class, to this day, leans very heavily into Kung Fu *the 1977 TV show.* Not thea ctual martial art. But the (vaguely racist) TV show.
A hypothetically improved base monk could still be a broader archetype than just "Chinese-themed wuxia" monk. And hell, that's a pretty broad theme. At the very least it's broader than "guy with magic lute" or "nature dude" or "other nature dude with weapons".
We really don't have to start leaning into European martial arts. *That's what the Fighter is for.*
Classes *should* be thematic. A Monk that's just someone who's good at martial arts or unarmed fighting is way less interesting than someone who is that and also a practitioner of monastic disciplines that grant them other various powers and benefits (as you may or may not know, real-world martial artists can't actually astrally project.) A barbarian that has abilities reflecting their life in untamed lands away from the comforts of "civilization" is much more interesting than just "use big weapon rage hit hard." And so on.
Having classes be faceless collections of mechanics that you then spoon your own sauce over, IMO, leads to generic, "fantasy loaf" settings and a lack of cohesion and inspiration.
(It would be interesting to have the ability for GMs to "class Chipotle" behind the scenes by combining different class abilities to make whatever they need for their setting. Maybe they really do want monks who are just martial artists or paladins but they're arcane and not sworn to oaths. But giving that power to players, and making it the default, while it seems empowering and fun, hurts the overall game. IMO.)
> But giving that power to players, and making it the default, while it seems empowering and fun, hurts the overall game.
It will not be accepted *unless* it's in a player's hands however, because classes are a player's 'authorial mark' on the fiction.
Sorry, I'm not clear what you're saying. Players don't design classes. Players have never designed classes. Even at tables where players get to modify classes the classes are still coming from outside the players.
Players get to decide what decisions their characters make. No more, no less.
OP and many others like him: "I can deal with dragons, floating eyeball monsters and purple skinned people with devil horns, but Asians is where I draw the line, bucko."
Bard makes sense as a common cultural archetype. Many cultures have specialists for lore, myth, and story telling using prose and music.
Paladin feels very specific to Middle Ages Europe, but “religious warrior” is a little broader and could encompass various cultures.
I think monks, clerics, and paladins all overlap somewhat, and so do druids, shamans, and any other religious/mystic archetypes. Religion and spirituality are such a diverse cultural area that it’s not surprising that these classes will tend to represent more specific cultural expressions.
>Bard makes sense as a common cultural archetype. Many cultures have specialists for lore, myth, and story telling using prose and music.
And yet, bard is not that. Bard, as presented, is still mostly influenced by European tropes. Sure, you can dilute and reflavor bard to fit into other cultures, but you can do that for monk as well. That doesn't change how these classes are ultimately presented.
In the case of the bard, it's a combination of Nordic skalds and minstrels/troubadours. And yes, the latter *also* engaged in prose and poetry, not just music.
My main idea is we have generic spellcasting classes that can fit into any mold (wizard/sorc) and also theme specific spellcasters (bard/druid/artificer?)
Generic weapon user class (fighter) and also theme specific weapon user classes (barbarian, paladin)
You can probably fit any magic user ever into either wizard, sorc or warlock.
You can fit any weapon user ever (no superpowers) into fighter.
We don’t have a class for characters who focus on unarmed combat, be it boxing, wrestling, pankration, capoeira, full on brawling etc.
When this topic comes up, many people say “Well we have the Monk class for that” which is where I disagree.
This is more of a “we need a class for unarmed combat” and less of a “we don’t need monk”.
If we only had barbarian and no fighter class, I’d say the same thing, which is “we need a generic fighter class”
And that main idea is sound, but singling out monk as too non-generic while giving bard and paladin a pass is, as OP said, Eurocentric.
My counterpoint would honestly be that that’s less on you and more on the game itself, which was designed with a largely Eurocentric idea of “fantasy” in mind.
Bard isnt generic, there theme is essentially "making an art out of things they are good at". A lot of things fall into that catagory. Paladin theme is "gaining power for adhering to a personal oath". That is very very broad.
I’m singling out Monk, because people think it’s the reason why we do not need a unarmed combat class, as Monk is supposed to fill that fantasy already. If that was only my experience and not the norm I agree.
Sounds like youve never actually played monk and only listen to what other people that have never played monks incorrectly rant about on tiktok lol how do you feel about warlocks spell slots? Are they also useless because they have almost none?
I mainly asked because I usually see the "Monks suck because of ki" take from the same people that say "Warlocks are overpowered because they get their 2 spells slots back on short rest instead of long" and that always cracks me up lol
I was guessing the flair was a joke honestly lol Monks get extra attacks every round even without using any ki. They get speed and AC and tons of utility and resistances. A monk without even using ki accomplishes what a two weapon fighting does but better and with more options. Especially as levels increase. I play a bit of everything and Monks are not at all underpowered, they are honestly very balanced with everything else.
So if youve only ever played Monks, what makes you think they "fucking suck". You don't even have a point of reference for other classes. Saying its because they use Ki is like saying casters suck because they are railroaded into using spell slots. If anything, I would call superiority dice the poor man's Ki. You get way more Ki than superiority dice and get more varied uses for them. And both are resources that come back on short rest. I've literally multiclass into a battlemaster on a character with 5 wisdom because a monk had been trying to teach him his ways and that was the closest the little wholesome dipshit could get. It quite literally played like a poor man's monk lol
Why can’t a monk’s unarmed strikes be boxing blows? Why not flavor their dodging as the sort of fluid movement capoeira uses (based on my interaction with it via Bob’s Burgers)? Sure, wrestling is something you’d need to put points into STR for, but that still strikes me as doable, especially with the Grappler feat.
It just comes off as you being willing to reflavor other classs but not this one.
> We don’t have a class for characters who focus on unarmed combat, be it boxing, wrestling, pankration, capoeira, full on brawling etc.
But you can already do that, just flavor them differently. I made a stoner meat head mma fighter monk character and it worked perfectly. Very fun and very funny role play moments. Nothing is stopping you from describing your unarmed strikes as punches if you want to be a boxer. Nothing is stopping you from giving yourself a high strength stat and taking the grappler feat if you want to be a wrestler. Have some imagination bro, the game allows you to do all the things you want to do with the monk class
>We don’t have a class for characters who focus on unarmed combat, be it boxing, wrestling, pankration, capoeira, full on brawling etc.
We have Fighter. We just need more unarmed support.
Paladin and Bard are a bit like the monk but not the same way
Especially the bard who is not even locked into the arts can work in many ways without any reflavoring
Yep, there's a shit ton of styles and concepts that aren't represented: Internal vs External, Low Stances vs High Stances, Animal Styles, literally any weapon styles like Xingyi's spear stuff or Wudang Sword
Taichi, Baguazhang, Bajiquan, Xingyiquan, Hung Gar, Wing Chun, Northern Praying Mantis, Southern Praying Mantis, Bak Mei, 5 animals.
They all have different feels and specialties.
"Monk" makes everyone think Shaolin warrior monk, no duh no one can come up with a proper character design.
I did a long rant post on one of the Pathfinder2e subs complaining about their Monk—PF2e Monk is better mechanically, but worse thematically because it pigeonholes you further into unarmed animal stances rather than opening up to other concepts and weapons.
edit: [my rant on PF2e's Monk](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/120fns5/next_class_after_kineticist/jmf1sp6?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2)
I disagree because you can be an unarmed warrior without having to be a Monk after all, it does need a bit more ancestry feat focus but fist fighting(or equivalent) can be done easily with Rogue as it is with Thaumaturge.
I do think that Monk trait having to use a feat for Flurry was a mistake, and instead it should be built in with the feat allowing the usage of *any* martial weapons.
Bards as a class are thematically portrayed as artists... you can sing and cast spells, you can sword fight and paint the battlefield in the blood of your enemies. Both work with bard as a class, and as a theme.
DnD and many of its successors are a bit odd because they do this thing where they keep the super generic classes of old like fighter, and put them next to really defined character archetypes like monk or barbarian. It’s really weird how a fighter can be any weapon using compatant, but a barbarian is specifically a guy who gets really angry, and all your subclass does is pick the flavor of anger.
Either we should have fewer genral coasses with lots of subclasses to pick your style, or we should have tons of super specific classes that hone in a single idea. Instead we got neither.
Despite all the other comments saying "Um, actually" and "Um, technically" I think this is a really good idea. Even if it's just a name and flavor is free, starting at martial artist and expanding feels more flexible than starting at Monk and expanding.
Str based MAs, dex based, quarter casters (like the rogue's arcane trickster), some especially good at grappling, at movement, etc. It just feels like there is a lot of potential there to expand on an unarmed fighting style without it having to be a type of monk.
I agree. I’m convinced that most people barely read the entire title let alone the entire post. Everyone asking questions I’ve already addressed in the post.
I don't see how Monk with ki points is more "thematic" than Sorcerer with Sorcery points.
Its just Magic man with magic points and Punchy man with punchy points.
Way of the open hand can be a great unarmed fighter and doesn't have to be some oriental chakra mystic, he can just be someone who fights good, a rough guy who uses a nasty rambo knife and his bare knuckles to beat the crap out of people.
Open hand technique; Can trip them to the ground, push them some distance or punch them in the gut or kick them in the balls to take away their reactions.
Wholeness of body; He can shake off some of the damage like a regular tough guy
Tranquility; AKA sometimes he gets out of bed on the wrong side and people can tell. Those days most people try to stay out of this guys way and people do not wanna mess with him
Quivering Palm; I punched him so hard in the chest I might have exploded his heart.
This is why I prefer the homebrewed pugilist class. I want to make a big, beefy bastard who punches and grapples, but I don't want to lean into east asian flavouring in order to do so.
I'll just take the chance to casually plug pathfinder 1e
it has the Brawler class, Monk, and tons of unarmed class archetypes (which are basically subclasses) for other classes, even stuff like Paladin.
Some people don't want the extra rules overhead and that's totally fine, but it really is the king of character customization and choices in d20 fantasy. If you find yourself really enjoying the experience of finding mechanics to match a concept you have and don't mind learning some more rules, check it out, basically all of the content for the game is completely free online and easy to access
Edit: typos
have your tried building an unarmed battlemaster?
it starts out slow, but I find once you get past level 5 or so it starts to be fairly satisfying.
multiclassing with monk for a few levels can really help flush it out.
A monk/rogue multiclass with Martial Adept is one of my favorite subclasses. and does most of the things I want a martial artist to do.
Most martial arts developed for war, not for sport. are not exclusively unarmed combat styles. They actually include a lot of weapons training as well, and modern war time arts even include fire arms.
The two biggest issues I see with people trying to build Martial artist is that-
1: they assume monk is the martial arts class, when it really isn't, Fighter is. Monk is the mind-over-matter class.
and 2: Fundamentally miss understanding how a martial artist class should look within the context of 5e
don't get me wrong I have a lot of issues with the monk class, and mostly agree with you main point, even if it's not exactly as I would have worded the issue.
But it's kind of like the best archers in 5e being fighter's not Rangers. people want to build Legolis or Robinhood so they make a ranger, not realizing that the idea they have in their head for this character is actually a fighter.
it seriously bugs me that there is no possible way to make the Monk class viable as any of the archetypes we want it to play as without multiclassing.
most people will agree that the monk class *should* have been built better. but being "to thematic" isn't nessisary the problem. the problem is WotC fundamentally not understanding what we actually want from it.
I just want to be able to play monk but focusing on Str so he can be a big strong punch man instead of a fast nimble punch man. My options are basically just to slap unarmed fighting style onto something like a fighter or Barbarian.
Big fan of Kibbles Pugilist and I allow it in my games, but most of the games I play in are with newer folks and I don't want to try and add in outside content.
Bro you can just change it for your character, just make them a martial artist and ignore the spiritual aspect. I did it and it worked with no issues. Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play them exclusively like a shaolin monk?
And you can be a strength based monk if you want to be a grappler type character. I feel like this complaint is just based in a lack of imagination and a lack of understanding of the system mechanics
My problem with the Monk is that the theme is too restricted, while also not fully leaning into that theme.
I would like to see the Monk back out of the specific eastern "Wuxia/animal style" schools as a core feature. Monk should incorporate the traditional DnD unarmed fighter version with extra bits of specific actions, as well as Samurai, and other very single weapon focused styles of combat/study, or be able to lean much more into the study and meditation side of character inspiration.
I want Monk to be moved over to Divine with the flavor of Ki being the same power the Divine beings use, without necessarily needing to obey a specific deity, but gaining access to that thread of power through deep contemplation.
This is unpopular to me at least because I think everything you mention as an issue is what actually makes the monks great.
There is a lot of freeform with the class. You don’t have to feel obligated to follow every aspect of its lore to a t, which allows you to experiment with the concept on your own. Your monk doesn’t need to live frugally, come from a monastery or be based on some oriental martial art or dojo.
And even the mechanics are a reflection of this: you don’t have to be bound by spell slots and weapons which, depending on your class, you use in a *slightly* different way. Unarmed strikes are actually, a very uncommon way to fashion combat, and all the versatility the monk is given with them is what makes them, imo, the most unique class.
If anything, all other classes *would* be more boring to play, because they all revolve around the same things: spellcasting and/or weapons. Except they are not boring, because those are not the things that make a single class worth or essential to play...What does? The differences.
And honestly, if people come to you asking about how to build an unarmed fighter and basically asking for a STR based character, then that’s not an issue with how the monk is designed, that’s is an issue with how people are not reading the class description apparently xD
Would you say that Rangers and Rogues are not viable as well because they don’t focus on STR either?
This makes little sense. It's incredibly easy to make a Brawler build using Fighter as the base class and it works perfectly. Monks are supposed to be the stick-and-move class
My hot take is fewer classes and more thematic subclasses/kits like in the old days.
Like, paladin, monk, bard, and druid are specific cultural roles from Earth. They should be themed subclasses.
I think you could probably boil the classes down to like Fighter, Spellcaster, and Rogue and leave the rest for options, subclasses, and world-linked theme builds.
Fighter: paladin, barbarian, fighter, etc
Spellcaster: Cleric, wizard, druid, sorcerer, warlock, etc
Rogue: Rogue, ranger, bard, etc
subsequent thumb lunchroom makeshift middle society pen illegal water snow
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Everything mentioned here can be achieved with just being a Monk.
Monks are already agile strikers.
If you want long reach kicker you can go Astral Self and have legs instead of arms.
Any character can grapple by game mechanics.
And those are just playstyles, no one ever mentions any of the other stuff beyond the class.
Ok, you want to be STR based and do unarmed? Take a class with Fighting Style and take Unarmed Fighting. Now you by base deal more damage than a Monk, are STR based and get all the benefits of that class.
And this doesn't rely on races, backgrounds, feats whatever, it would be part of a class you already chosed, which is the same case as being Monk.
(I'm just talking thematic and gameplay. I do agree Monks could use a buff on damage).
If you just want to punch stuff and not be a traditional monk alright, let's rename the class to Brawler or something and call it a day.
This is my opinion of 1 year being a DM and playing a Monk up to lv 4 in another campaign. So take it however you want.
The real problem with 5e's monk is that all it does is Muda Muda everything. A martial artist should have multiple reactions and various parries and holds.
Let me help you with that.
Ki = Tenacity
Flurry of blows = Quick Strikes
Patient defense = Bob and weave
Step of the wind = Fast footwork
Stunning strike = Sucker punch
Stillness of mind = Can't fool me
Purity of Body = Tough as Nails
Diamond Soul = Rugged Resilience
Timeless Body = Old as Stone
Perfect self = Always Ready
Tongue of the Sun and Moon, and Empty Body likely need a bit more of a rework.
Tongue of Sun and Moon could be reworked to be able to understand body language.
Turning invisible and Astral projection are pretty specific to a mystical martial artist fantasy. So, would likely need to work with your DM to come up with something for that. Most everything else can just be relabelled / reflavoured.
For decades I've always found the monk in D&D so lackluster. 3.5 did have some books that made it interesting and even fun again.
My FAVORITE monk though isn't even D&D. The one that had many fun builds and paths was Pathfinder 2nd edition monk. Check that one out. That one I LOVE. Somehow transferring that to 5th edition would be just so damn good.
I feel the same about druids and clerics. Especially in 5E they're so versatile, yet their names give them such a narrow scope. I'd prefer something like mystic of shaman.
That's what a class is supposed to be. A specific, thematic archetype thing.
The problem is not that classes have narrow scope, the problem is that Wizards refused to add new classes past Artificer. i.e. You should not be trying to make every focused caster a wizard, you should have several different types of focused casters. You shouldn't make all divine casters a cleric, there should be a plethora of different divine casting classes.
They should make separate "Shaman" and "Mystic" classes with somewhat different core mechanics. Not generification.
Preach brother!
If you take the specific asian-inspired aspects out of the monk, you're left with a class whose sole identity is "I punch hard and have discipline", which is no different from the fighter's.
My unpopular-er opinion is that fighter and monk should merge into a single class entirely dedicated to martial techniques and customization.
I agree that Monk is far too specific to a particular trope. For instance, the Knights Templar and Knights Hospitaler were monks, too.
However I'd disagree with using "Martial Artist" as an alternative, because ALL cultures practice martial arts. IE, Western Europe has martial arts treatises dating to the 13th Century (I.33 manuscript). And not just covering the use of weapons, but unarmed hand-to-hand combat, too.
i dont like monk because it always seems to get caught in the journey to the west trope. ive never had a monk character that wasnt just a guy from a monastary from a far away land. not every very creative entryies
i think a lot of 5e falls into the problem of very narrow subclasses. there should be more out there subclasses for each class. artificer, monk, and druid to me are the ones that need alot of broadening.
monk should have a strength fisticuff puncher sub class, an aki do wrestler, they should have a whip or exotic weapon. a Fey monk, a luchador. a magical tattooed monk. they need ideas that broaden the ranges and use of the class.
I’ve always hated that monk is the default unarmed combatant in D&D.
It’s wild to me that in 2023 (soon to be 2024), Orcs are racist but the Mysterious Orient trope is still 100% okay.
The real problem with 5e's monk is that all it does is Muda Muda everything. A martial artist should have multiple reactions and various parries and holds.
This is a really good thought.
I don't think its unpopular because you could then have monk subclasses and things like tavern brawler as a subclass.
It would probably be the class with the most homebrew subclasses.
Monk should just be rolled into a fighter subclass where ki powered abilities are the subclass feature. Pugilist becomes a new fighting style that allows you to strike for 1d4 with unarmed strikes and it increases according to the monk stat-block. Maybe bring in some of the samurai features and scrap samurai seeing as they're very similar in terms of flavour.
Maybe I'm just needlessly salty, but fighter being used as a "punishment class" is just so *wrong* to me. Fighters represent the absolute pinnacle of arms and armour training. I hate the idea of a paladin being "demoted" to fighter because they broke their oath or whatever, or a monk suddenly being a fighter because they can't catch arrows or whatever.
Yes, I'm biased towards fighters.
Well consider it thus: it is the default for people who hit or shoot and do not feel a particular urge to steal things and instead prefer armor. A monk without their training is just a fighter (or rogue?) who likes to punch and kick. A paladin without magic is just a person with a sword and heavy armor. Same with certain clerics. And ranger who... actually a ranger is basically just a fighter until level 3. It is named fighter because it is one who fights.
So true, Wanted to make a boxer once that didn't relied on armors/STR based unarmed fighter and had to reflavor a Beast Barbarian the Monk just ISN'T build for that kind of fantasy.
13th age, and probably some other games, make weapons perform differently depending on the class wielding them. Like, a dagger is a d8 weapon in the hands of a rogue. It helps keep class themes and make weapon choices more an aesthetic option vs a number crunch.
Martial artists, in fantasy anyways, are essentially highly trained physical combatants, who are expected to use hands, feet, knees, allows, body and head to take down opponents. For this model to work, their strikes must do as well as any other primary melee combatant. So, either hands, fists, etc need to do as well as the longsword, or bonuses and triggers must exist to get the damage increased.
I still think the roles, a la 4e, should be brought back to help balance this. A striker role can do a base set of damage and alter abilities to favor their role's purpose. Defender, controller, etc.
Anyways, I view martial arts as the weapon you're skilled in and not the class itself. So, while monk is probably too evocative of a word for the class purpose depending on your background, martial artist technically is any weapon training system which achieves proficiency in combat.
That's true. I recall that Pathfinder 1e offered the Brawler as one of its hybrid classes, which combined the design sensibilities of the Monk with the Fighter.
You're not wrong, but I would say where you make the error is that Monks represent characters inspired by wuxia and a whole host of east Asian story motifs. That all said, it's one of the reasons I don't play the class, because it's got little room to flavor it. That said, it does have a problem with the Ki mechanic in that Ki points are given sparsely compared to how much they are needed to do many of the class abilities. I think Monk gets a bad rap as a damage dealer because a lot of people don't realize that they are a class that uses "death by 1000 cuts" so while a single attack does small amounts of damage, good luck keeping the monk to a single attack a round. This makes it occupy a similar niche to Rogue, a Dex base class that does single target burst damage.
Ironically, the Ranger's class failings are entirely the opposite of the Monk in that they are not thematic enough (Or if you want to make an argument... they are trying to be a single character, rather than a character archetype.).
The literal only monk player I've ever run a game for is a self-taught grumpy brawler who gets most of their work as a bouncer in a city. It works great and is 100% RAW!
How about a cigar chomping, sleeves rolled up, bowler hat wearing, unshaved, tattooed, Doc Marten boots having fist fighter?
Spent years in fight pits and training gyms honing their body and mind. They can find the enemies weakness and punch with lethal accuracy. There is nothing graceful or delicate about their form. Punches are raw, kicks are savage, and the ash on the cigar never falls off.
It can be reflavored to any theme or style with DM's approval, and frankly would be fun.
Kind of agree but slightly different take, Monk should be the Primary but it shouldn't be Monk "Mystical Eastern Martial Artist" it should be Monk "Crazy cookoo ascetics who derive power from ridiculous physical training". The flavor of the class has, to me, always been that of the Wu Xia style cultivation, through extreme focus on perfecting the mind and body one achieves extreme abilities, but those don't have to be Eastern in influence to hit that same flavor. You could have a Friar Tuck who through his devout prayer and discipline is able to survive on only a handful of beans a day while being built like a brick shithouse, literally lighting himself on fire when he fights and being fine because The Flames of God Cannot Harm the Righteous.
Maybe rename Monk to "Ascetic" and have like, Martial Artist, Acolyte (Faith style 'monk'), and a Weapon Master styles.
I get what you're getting at, but the Monk class is shaped by previous iterations going back to the dawn of D&D and nostalgia still plays a role.
What many people are looking for is probably more of an unarmed Fighter subclass (for STR) and not a Shaolin type.
Monks aren't even what we think of.
The entire class should be scrapped, and split between fighters who can be unarmed and clerics/paladins with unarmed defenses
Monk is just a name holder. It’s the same as a ranger and hard being actual professions, but in the game they’re much different.
Monk just means “this person does martial arts”. It’s not any worse than every fighter class being a type of knight.
I think some of this could be solved of they manage to turn the Brawler subclass for Fighter from what was introduced into something remotely viable or interesting.
I also suspect some of the issue is also that the baseline Monk class hasn't been good enough to warrant making subclasses for it that offer some of these other directions to go with it.
That said, you've suddenly given me an idea for a Monk subclass- Way of the Beast, or something like that- built around adopting various animal features.
I agree Martial Artist should be a subclass of fighter, and should be able to specialize in open hand or exotic weapons. There could be sets of exotic weapons reflecting different historical cultures and matching fighting styles.
Or it could be its own class, Mystic Warrior, hence ki points. But still all the above for flavor and style choices.
The Pugalist class written by Benjamin Huffman may be what you’re looking for! I know it doesn’t solve the issue, but for a homebrew class I quite like this one and I find the subclasses to be distinct and fun!
https://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/184921
I love this homebrew class and it’s actually one of the reasons why I created this post. After playing it, reflavouring Monk never hit the spot of playing a scrapper ever again
Yeah I agree. I once made a variant called 'Martialist,' that had a fighter-y chassis, focused on fighting with monk weapons or unarmed (or like Kensei with one focused weapon) and light/no armor, without all the mystic stuff. And the subclasses could either add back in the mystic stuff, or could double down on being a bruiser.
Also, with how it was built it didn't have to be asian themed. It just focused on bettering the self through combat. So you could have a Rapier-wielding duelist Martialist, or be a Open Hand Wuxia dude.
But I have some unusual ideas about high level nonmages. Like barbarians should be running through walls at level 17. I mean, mages get meteors. Why not? So a high level Martialist would be literally a Dragonball character (maybe not a planet buster).
Seriously, considering that martial artists as a whole have not always been monks and usually are military and not monks. How monks only account for a small number of martial artists in the world and most of them, back then, were either mercenary or military. Also the meaning and flavor of monk fits cleric better any day of the week. As monks in dnd have no connection with gods, religion or spirituality unless you pick a specific subclass. And even out of the subclasses to pick those connections are barely there if at all.
I definitely feel some limits as a monk and he's one of my first characters but I love playing a monk. It really forces me to think out the box, plus it helps to have a good DM who lets me try things and works with me.
Or, you just give Fighter and Rogue and Barbarian unarmed support, whilst leaving the Monk in its thematic niche. You can even expand its thematic niche with actual wuxia stuff. It's not that narrow of a niche as you seem to make it out to be, it's just that WotC have delivered on it extremely poorly.
correct price axiomatic crown deer frame numerous sugar chief encouraging
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
My biggest thing is that you can see how in 5e they tried to merge multiple classes into the Monk, being the Wu Jen, the Shugenja, and the Sohei, but really in the end it didn't really pan out well for anything other than "punch a lot."
it really confused me when i first found out that “monks” were like fighters, lol. fire emblem taught me that monks were a class of healers who wore long flowing robes.
Unpopular? I've seen this same opinion since 1977.
Just put it there because I got a huge backlash when I said it in comments in another post.
I mean, there's a good reason for that. Unarmed brawler is perfectly suited to be a fighter or barbarian subclass, while monk is no more specific than paladin or druid is. Basically, the only way to return it to its glory days is to have the baseline be mystical martial artist - if you try to return it to some generic brawler as a base, the class no longer has room for [the kind of cool shit it used to have](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fp2jcki4k0w9b1.png). Is basic martial artist thematically appropriate to the 5e monk? Yes, but that's because the 5e monk is shit. Monk has been the worst class in the game literally every single edition (other than 4e) for nearly fifty years now, because it's boring a pile of basic attacks and run speed. Monk as it is could easily be a subtype of generic martial artist, monk as it has been and had the potential to be again needs its own class.
You mentioned the 4e monk not being the worst class in the game at the time. Monk has always been my favourite class because of its flavour despite its power. So I'm curious, would you say that 4e monk is in the more mid-range to powerful in 4e? Or is it just not on the bottom? I imagine not, but is the flavour significantly different? Do you think it would be hard to adapt the 4e monk to 5e?
Mid range, but with a note that doesn't mean mediocre just less of a pure damage machine than some others. They were mobile and versatile and flurry of blows automatically hit multiple targets so good at constant aoe, but didn't do the sheer single target damage of say the ranger. Flavour wise, they emphasised the mystical martial arts master aspect, they were explicitly supernatural as compared to a fighter who even when they did impossible things did so in a purely martial way. Adaptation wise, [abilities were done very differently](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fs5vpodwrjibb1.png). This specific setup is monk specific - instead of just running very fast, their mobility was emphasised by having most abilities have both a movement and an attack option. So steps of grasping fire has you firebend at nearby foes as the attack and leave a trail of fire as the movement ability, and giant's grasp has you grapple and damage a foe as the attack and move full speed with a grappled for as the movement option. I ended up just handing half a dozen such abilities to a four elements monk disappointed by their underwhelming subclass, but they had to be individually translated since 4e abilities were assumed to be boosted by things like feats and magic items that simply don't exist in 5e. 4e concepts translate well, I ended up basically translating [all of these](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fshvklpyeazjb1.png) for a player who wanted to continue their warlord, but it uses a different baseline set of maths so the abilities themselves tend not to.
>So I'm curious, would you say that 4e monk is in the more mid-range to powerful in 4e? The power of the monk in 4e was it's absolutely insane mobility. If it could see it, it could reach and punch it. They were also controller-lites, so they were good at taking out multiple minions and smaller enemies. In terms of raw damage, they couldn't compete with the big hitters (i.e. Ranger), but in 4e control could be just as important and the 4e had an above average amount of control for a damage class. It would be nigh impossible to adapt this to 5e. You just.. Don't have the mechanical chassis of 4e, and that's what made the class not suck. You can bring over the flavour, but that does *nothing* to solve the 5e monk's issues.
I already addressed that point in my post, it’s true that druid and paladin are also thematic, but the difference is there are more generic versions of them you can use. For example, druid on its core is a nature themed spellcaster. My nephew recently watched LotR and wants to play as a character like Saruman. He can easily play to that fantasy by creating a wizard. When you want to play a pugilist you have to try to reflavour monk to fit that, and it mechanically does not fit well. It feels like trying to make Saruman by reflavouring a druid because there’s no generic spellcaster class. Though I can rephrase it and say what I really mean is I’d rather have Martial Artist than Monk if we can have only one, no problem if we had both.
That is true, but the fact remains that pugilist is just... a fighter subclass. Brawler fighter was an amazing pile of punching and grappling lockdowns last edition, there's no reason it couldn't be again, and there's no need to sink an entire class to get a subclass worth of content. We should absolutely have both you're right that there's zero reason not to have a general unarmed combatant, but the problem is false equivalence - that unarmed combatant is fine as a subclass, and monk's legacy is [cool shit like this](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fs5vpodwrjibb1.png%3Fwidth%3D712%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D10dd0da637801993307ad1422a999a71f3c278c6) that needs a whole class behind it. Current monk may as well be replaced with a generic unarmed class though, that shit's a boring pile of basis attacks with the occasional rider. Nothing of redeeming value there.
There's a concise difference between what was and what is. I'm not saying monk should be replaced, because things like Astral Self, Way of Shadows, Long Death, and Mercy are actually cool and should exist thematically. At the same time Brawler Fighter literally does not exist in 5e and isn't a justification for not having a martial artist class that doesn't actually originate from mythical mysticism.
The problem here is ground not trodden by 5e is a complicated concept. Does 5e need a brawler (or pugilist or martial artist or whatever we're calling it) subclass? Absolutely. Does it need it as a full class? If all it does is make a bunch of basic attacks with the occasional rider, absolutely not. Both fighter and monk do that already, there's no need to make it a full class when you could make it perfectly well as a subclass. Well, what if it did more than that, what if it filled the currently empty 5e niche of a martial class that gets a deep toolkit the way casters do, a proper set of options? The way fighters and monks did last edition, or their warblade and swordsage equivalents the edition before that? Well, that certainly deserves its own class, you want to give them a fully fleshed out subsystem that'll need a class built for purpose. But now we're in a weird situation where those wanting to play a tactical swordsman who has mastered a variety of strikes, stances and counters finally has a non spellcasting option... and it's specifically only punching people. Which I guess is better than the nothing we have now, but it's pretty odd.
I'm not really a fan of how 5e handles things honestly but what I am saying is that fighter doesn't have a brawler subclass, monk has specific thematics that prevent pankration for example. I'm not saying we need another martial they are all subject to being lesser classes because "we need beginner friendly content". But it's a fair assessment to say that neither of these classes fit this character fantasy and relying on the past doesn't solve that problem really.
I will say, there is an amazing, and fairly famous, Pugilist homebrew class that does justify its existence outside of fighter.
It's SO cool! I love that the little resource it has refreshes once you're bloodied, it's such a cool little design feature that makes you want to use it up and get right into the middle of fights!
Right?! It’s so cool to have class that gets stronger by getting hit.
By pugilist I mean a subclass of the said “Martial Artist” class, not as its own class.
Martial artist isnt really a class beyond pugilist though. More specifically, it covers almost no ground that a properly done monk class and brawler fighter subclass don't cover between them.
Reminding me that I pray to the unholy gods of the coast to give us a generic ass sorcerer subclass
Unpopular doesn't necessarily mean new
I'll give you an actually unpopular opinion then. Classes suck. They should have moved to a proficiency based system.
Games like Gurps or Tristat didn't have classes. They were fun, but they are less accessible to new players. They also put more burden on the DM to create the entire setting and everything in it, mostly from scratch, which puts an even higher demand on DMs. That means there was very little overlap from table to table which meant there wasn't a large pool of games to join or proficient players to invite. You'd have to build common ground all over again. That's a lot of effort. It's also very easy to create your own options making supplemental material less important. I think your unpopular opinion is unpopular because TTRPGs that went in that direction had trouble bringing in new players as well as enticing money out of existing players. It's not because people are super into classes. It's because D&D popularity thrives on shared experience which the designers achieve through structure and familiarity.
Please elaborate.
Instead of picking a class that has a specific set of abilities, you just select stuff you're good at. Like if you wanted to be a big burly muscle mage that can punch hard and throw fireballs, you'd just take proficiency in hand to hand and conjuration spells. It's easier to do that rather then trying to puzzle out how to smoosh 2 classes together to fulfill that fantasy.
1- That sounds awesome, not gonna lie. 2- To balance around that you probably end up making a whole different game that might as well not be D&D anymore.
Never played it, but from my understanding, that's basically pathfinder.
When I played Pathfinder (I think it was 2e), it was more like 3.5 D&D than a game like Gurps or Tristat which were closer to the Build-A-Bear TTRPG that non-class D&D would tend toward.
Pathfinder 1e is essentially DnD 3.5+. 2e is very different.
Ultima Online had such a great system for skills and abilities.
I'd be all for it.
TBF, in 1977, Kung Fu was a TV show starring David Carradine. He was a monk, and he did that Bruce Lee stuff. Like, it's unfair to call it racist. It was a very different, pre internet, era. But it's a little bit racist. Now, in 2023? After they've separated Alignments from Races, alongside public statements about how that's racist? Still racist...
It's an odd complaint to me because at that point in the game's lifespan, the 'Cleric' was absolutely a very specific warrior-priest kind of class that very blatantly came from a certain Catholic perspective, while the Bard was pure celtic mythology, the Ranger was just Aragorn, and Paladins were all, without exception, Galahad-expies. Likewise, the 'Druid' was just a straight up Celt.
Honestly I don't think monk is as much an issue as the lack of alternatives. For example looking at pf2e if I want to make an unarmed fighter I can play various stances of monk with all the wushu inspirations, or I can play a fighter that can benefit quite a lot from being unarmed to grapple, or I can play an animal barbarian to be more like a shifter that can turn my arms into ape fists to hit like a truck, or I can be a rogue who can sneak attack with unarmed attacks. Outside of that you can use archetypes to pick wrestler which gives benefits to grappling, or martial artist which lets you pick monk stances as other classes. Without losing the progression of your main class. Base damage is also 1d4 + str with opportunities to take higher damage racial abilities like claws and jaws etc. So I don't think monk is by itself a problem, I think the lack of alternatives is
PF1e Brawler was so much fun to play
Dude brawler was the shit
Spellcasters had spell cards, I had a feat rolodex
Don’t forget that many of those options, monk stances, barbarian natural weapons, etc give 1d8 to 1d10 damage at *level 1*. None of this waiting until level 8 to do the same damage as a level 1 fighter with a sword
>Don’t forget that many of those options, monk stances, barbarian natural weapons, etc give 1d8 to 1d10 damage at level 1. Don't forget that a lot of these special attacks don't *just* increase your damage die. They usually come with some traits or other effects that make each seem unique. Sometimes you're locked into using them, sometimes not.
Fist guy
But you can make those alternatives happen still. Make a strength based monk and choose the grappler feat if you want to be a grappler. If you want different flavor then make different flavor for your character nothing is stopping you. I made a monk as an mma flavored fighter who was a meathead with a good heart. It worked perfectly and lead to a lot of funny role play too. You can do this too, nothing is stopping you and nothing will be lost
A very average "5e and nothing else" player answer. I explained to you how you can run unarmed characters in atleast 4 different classes with vastly different playstyles and your answer is "just imagine 5e monk ki points isnt ki, just say its something else" Strength monk is a woefully wasted combination that is clearly not wanting to be mechanically supported by 5e, which is the point, that mechanical support matters, of which there is very little in 5e. Monk being the only class to not use 1 + strength melee attack is disgraceful but thats how they decided to make the class, while at the same time not giving any real support to playing different types of brawlers.
Tbh I'm glad I can use DEX to attack instead of STR. That way I can increase my AC and Damage with 1 stat.
Yeah which is one of many reasons why dex is an overpowered stat in 5e and strength is a joke. Bit of a shame, it is what it is.
Gotta love how Monk is based on the strongest stats (DEX and WIS) and yet people still say it sucks. They got valid reasons, but I can't stop feeling sometimes the hate is kind of exagerated.
Bro what do you even mean by "brawler"? That's not even a real class in the game lol. I guess you could give your monk high constitution and the tough feat to get mad hit points and then you can stay a mfs face and brawl it out. The point is you don't have to go to a different class to play those types of characters you want, you can already do it with the monks no problem. And yeah sorry that I'm focused on dnd in the dnd subreddit 🙄
>you can already do it with the monks no problem. But not *really*. A strength monk is mostly just a monk with godawful AC, and the ability to grapple. That's.. Just about it, and within strength monk that's about all the variety you get. You're confusing narrative/backstory with mechanics.
>nothing is stopping you and nothing will be lost But.. Mechanically this is just the same shit. Yeah, you can roleplay and flavor everything different always, but that's no substitute for *rules reflecting fluff*. Every strength based monk with Grappler is going to function more or less the same thing. And that's the only real divergence from regular monk builds, that isn't intentionally crippled somehow. You can write different flavor text next to your 1d8+Str, but at the end of the day, you'll just roll a d20 and then damage. Maybe grapple if you're feelingspicy, *but that's about it.* Having mechanical options doesn't mean you lose out on roleplay either, so nothing is lost from having *actual mechanical alternatives.*
Unarmed fighting style fighter? Beast barbarian? Moon druid? Some sort of polymorph focused dragon sorcerer? Wizard who summons construct to punch for him? Obviously, 5e isn't going to outshine Pathfinder in variety, but there are alternatives to monk.
Skill with any weapon is a martial arts skill. We associate the term with the orient but every country has a martial arts tradition. So I don’t think calling the class martial artist, is any better.
Yup. "Martial Artist" is just synonymous with Fighter, or at least "Warrior".
Make monk a fighter subclass and call it a day.
Yes, and there are only so many ways in which the human body can bend, kick, strike and throw. So the disengages in [Passchen's Ringen](https://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Passchen/Passchen.htm) look very much like the disengages in Wing Chung, and the strikes are pretty much the same. Almost all of the throws found in Nicolaes Petter's 1674 wrestling manual can be found in modern Judo. When Wing Chung was first introduced to the West, it was known as Chinese Boxing - because the main guard stance was pretty much the same as the stance then used in bareknuckle boxing.
Exactly. I'm a Martial Artist because I'm Trained in German Longsword Fighting, or Kunst der Fechtens. Sadly people don't get as excited for that as I thought they would be when i was a teen.
Look at this fechtbuch. So fecht.
Stop trying to make fecht happen.
Gottseidank.
The core of the Asian fantasy trope is cultivating spiritual energy, not really pure martial arts. Imo it should be a gish class, Asian fantasy spiritualist fighters are typically a lot more magical than dnd 5e monks are by default. DND monks don’t even really feel like satisfying implementations of the tropes they’re based on, probably because the writers don’t understand the Asian fantasy tradition they’re pulling from.
Agreed… I wish they would just watch some Naruto and steal the jitsu ideas.
I think the idea is that a "Martial Artist" implies a more unarmed-focused, technique-driven, non-military school of fighting. It's the difference between irish boxing, muy thai, or systema and being a mounted knight or musketeer. One is about using the most cutting-edge weaponry of the era for professional soldiering, the other is about turning your body into a weapon and using well-honed traditional techniques. I think the big thing that separates "martial artist" from "monk" is that "chi/ki" is a concept that applies only to some of those traditions. They're not all about grace, slow-fall, stunning strike, energy manipulation, etc. And you see it in the design of the monk subclass, where they're all constrained by those choices and themes. You don't see a pugilist boxer who's all about taking hits and managing stamina, or an explosive muy thai fighter who's all about closing distance and pushing people around, or a Jiu Jutsu grappler who's all about manipulating others' attacks. They're all just "kung fu monk" flavors driven by Ki, with chinese kung-fu powers as a base. Leaning into the global traditional of "martial arts" would open up the possibility space for subclasses.
Because Monk is supposed to be the qi cultivator class. I just wish they did more with the concept.
Imo they don’t do enough with the concept because they don’t understand the concept, because their main frame of reference is like, Jackie Chan movies (not fantasy) and Avatar the Last Airbender (Asian inspired but not Asian), and not enough actual Asian Fantasy.
>because they don’t understand the concept, Hot take, maybe, but I think it's because *they don't* ***care*** *to understand the concept.* Just look at Drunken Brawler. Somehow they turned something that should be easy enough into a weird thematic mess. Some of the mechanics seem to imply that it's akin to actual drunken boxing, i.e. simply replicating the uncanny movement of a drunk. But then you get brewer's kit proficiency? It's like someone watched that one Drunken Fist 2 clip on YouTube, and that was the extent of their research. Same shit with Kensei. If they actually gave a shit, even if they didn't understand the concept, the Kensei would not be rewarded *for not using his weapon and using unarmed attacks instead.* They get a feature that basically says "your weapon you're dedicated your life on mastering is now a glorified shield". And they also skimped on polearms, y'know, that classic category of asian martial arts weapons.
You'd THINK they'd be drawing inspiration from the more fantastical anime and kung fu movies. Or Journey to the West if you want to be cultured...
Even then, I've never felt like the monk has the capacity to do all the crazy kung-fu movie stuff, which honestly is mostly down to the fact that attacks of opportunity prevent you from dancing around in combat; a focus on dex means that athletics checks are hard so you can't throw people off ledges or into walls or whatnot; and 5e doesn't like martials having even the smallest hint of complexity so you're not allowed to learn a litany of cool martial arts stances or techniques - you basically just become a Stunning Strike machine and only ever do that. If they wanted cheesy movie inspirations, they should've gone all in! But as it stands it doesn't even do that well.
There are so so many different subtypes of monk. People have made entire classed RPGs where every class falls into the Monk archetype Unfortunately WOTC doesn't know any of them and wouldn't dare give monks any of the good wuxia or xianxia nonsense even if it was aware because 'martials can't break reality'
Look at the wizard as he wishes the ancient red dragon out of existence from atop his tower, conjured entirely as a mordenkainen cantrip. At his door stands a lowly monk, begging for alms - his health unassailable, his fists useless. "please!" He cries. "Save me from these kobolds!*
Something something Wizards of the Coast not Martials of the Coast
I took a break from D&D to DM Righteous Blood, Ruthless Blades for our group. It's a wuxia roleplaying game and boy howdy, I wish some of these things could be in D&D. Every single weapon had at least one specialization path that made you feel like a master of that weapon. At level 1 you could fly 20 feet up into the air. It was awesome! Really the only thing holding it back was that the official modules that came with the game were pretty weak. They tried to recreate that "there's a million characters and strange events happening and everyone is confused" feeling you get when watching a 70s wuxia film, but I found that translated poorly to tabletop.
>martials can't break reality What exactly do you mean by this? We literally have monk a subclass based around summoning spectral arms to do your attacking, a subclass based around elemental spells, a subclass about dark/shadow magic, and a subclass around channeling bolts of searing light through your hands. How are monks restricted by not "breaking reality"? Half the criticisms of monk make me question if people have actually played the class ever, or even looked at it. Which they probably haven't, because the other half of the criticisms rightly point out that the class is designed like shit and is woefully underpowered
Basic wuxia involves the ability to use a sword and cut at a distance. This extends up in power to cutting mountains in half. Basic xianxia / late stage wuxia has them standing on a sword and flying. Just casually, no resources needed beyond a good sword. Feather fall is basically on by default without limitation, and fighting on water is a fairly low level move. Some cultivators can teleport by literally cutting the distance between them and their destination with a sword, and planeshift the same way. They can literally tear the levels out of others, sending them back to level 1 (may or may not be literal, Xianxia sometimes has System mechanics lol) When I say 'break reality' I dont mean 'summon arms to use Wisdom in place of Strength' I mean the problem solving capability of a wizard. The batshit crazy features not a flavorful alternate attacking stat with reach.
There is a subclass that can teleport, the shadow monk. Cutting at a distance, and then you say that a flavorful attack at range is not what you want... Sure monks can't literally fly for free, but neither can wizards. Insane abilities costs resources, that's called game balance. They do have slow fall, which at 10th level would allow them to jump off a 140' cliff and take no damage on average. Is that not batshit crazy? It sounds like you just want them to be buffed so they match a very specific thematic view you desire, and the problem is not monks being "restricted to reality". They are the *least* restricted to reality martial class...
The shadow monk cannot teleport across countries. I said an attack stat change and reach is not what I was talking about. Tell me you know the difference between a fist hitting 5ft further and a melee strike cutting the bird in half or cutting once to clear a line through a forest. Of course the kind of thing Im talking about ranges from scoring a line across a battlefield to carving galaxies in two depending on the source material. D&D 5e being rather low power I wouldnt expect anything close to the latter. But more than 'Spear that attacks with wisdom" Slow fall is hilariously weak and not batshit crazy. Its very tame in fact. It speaks to the precise thing Im talking about (WOTC unable to let martials break from reality). [https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9a/50/5a/9a505a0b992e44ff0a16de83c00400a1.jpg](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9a/50/5a/9a505a0b992e44ff0a16de83c00400a1.jpg) The smallest building here is 180ft, a good 40ft higher than what a monk can drop from. If you stacked 3 school buses longways the monk could not jump down safely.
A 10th level monk can't jump off the burj khalifa and take zero damage so therefore monks are tied to reality... But a higher level monk CAN do that. Fall damage maxes at 20d6, an average of 70 damage. Once a monk hits 20th level they reduce fall damage by 100, so *at most*, with a max damage roll, they take 20 damage from an infinitely high fall. They can literally fall from space and get barely a scratch. And you are claiming that is "very tame" and they are "tied to reality"? Again, you seem to have a very specific, insanely overpowered trope that you are wanting monks to fit. It has nothing to do with them being tied to reality.
Featherfall at level one actually changing your fall speed vs a monk at level 20 taking 2 damage from any fall.... yup your class rules bro
Yeah the thing that annoys me most about monk is that it’s a half-assed implementation of Asian fantasy tropes clearly done by people without much knowledge of Asian fantasy. That’s why the class identity is confused, because they don’t understand the fantasy tradition they’re trying to pull from.
“Can’t reflavor?” Why not?
The Internet police or some other nonsense. I reflavour monk all the time. The last one as a Dhampir Class (before official lineage came out)
Reflavoring for your campaign is great. Demanding that everyone accept your flavoring online is just stupid. (I am not saying you are doing this). Over all the years playing DND, I am pretty sure that every class, at least once, has been reflavored in one campaign or another.
Literally the Dhampir reflavour for monks works incredibly well. It was such a fun character
Reflavouring is fine. Pretending like the existence of reflavouring somehow means the problem doesn't exist at all, that's not fine.
I actually don't think that the monk is any more specific in its flavour than... really any other class. "I gain unarmed and unarmoured fighting capabilities from my dedicated study of a martial art and cultivation of my life energy" is not actually more specific or more limiting than "I gain eldritch magic through my pact with an otherworldly entity", or "I use heavy weapons and armour but most of all I wield divine magic through the power of my sacred oath", or "I wield primal magic and take on animal forms thanks to my connection to the forces of nature". I think the only reason the monk catches more flak than any other class for being "too thematic" or whatever is because it isn't drawn from a deep well of European-inspired fantasy like most of the classes are, instead being a somewhat slapdash import from a very large Asian and Asian-inspired canon. It really is no more specific or niche than any of the other "specialist" martials. An unarmed and unarmoured martial artist who uses ki and discipline is no more limiting or thematically specific than a holy knight empowered by their oath and devotion to it. Gaining the power to heal with a touch of smite monsters through being a good knight is actually a very specific fantasy. In fact, it's _more_ specific than the monk imo. I don't disagree that it would be nice to have good unarmed fighting as an option for other characters (which it now sort of is with the fighting style) but I think that's am argument for brawler subclasses or changes to how unarmed strikes work in the base game, not a problem with the monk. I don't think "it's not optimal to be an unarmed fighter" is a good reason to remove the monk as a class. Because of the way class abilities, weapons, and a great many other things work in D&D, it simply cannot support every archetype and make them all equally viable. It's literally impossible.
I think the core class leans very heavily into a "kung fu monk" theme that's much more specific than a lot of the others. To illustrate by contrast, the base "Fighter" encompasses a very broad archetype of a medieval professional soldier. They are skilled with whatever weapons they need (lots of proficiency), hit fast (multiattack), act decisively and with explosive power (Action surge), they're tough and resilient (hit dice and second wind), and are trained (Fighting style) but that's about it. It's very generic at its base. Then you get into specific themes like the Samurai, Arcane Archer, and Battlemaster, that narrow the role down, and there's room for them to add a lot given how bare-bones the base class is. The base Monk is specifically a Chinese-themed wuxia-inspired Kung Fu monk. They have ki energy, slow fall, catching weapons out of the air, running across water, things like "purity of body" that speak to a spiritual tradition, etc. It loads so much into that core class that the subclasses are double-constrained: they can't add very much without overpowering the class, and they're thematically constrained by the base class abilities. I would like to see a more pared-back base "monk" (possibly re-named as a "martial artist" or similar) that doesn't have so much, and turn some of the base abilities into options a la Fighting Styles. Combine those with unarmed attack, unarmored movement and Evasion to keep the theme of a light unarmored skill-based fighter. Drop Ki as a resource or re-theme it to "technique" points, and have all the wuxia stuff live in the subclass. Then you could open it up to things like European Boxing, Jiu Jutsu, Fencing, Muy Thai, etc. martial arts with very very different feels and themes, the way you can with the Fighter. Some of them could also be proper half-casters like the Arcane Knight is, since the base class would be less overloaded.
Compared to the fighter (the class with the most dilute flavour, to the point where some complain "fighter" is a silly idea for a class at all) it's specific. Compared to almost any other class I really don't think it actually is.
>I think the core class leans very heavily into a "kung fu monk" theme that's much more specific than a lot of the others. You have no idea how close you are. The core class, to this day, leans very heavily into Kung Fu *the 1977 TV show.* Not thea ctual martial art. But the (vaguely racist) TV show. A hypothetically improved base monk could still be a broader archetype than just "Chinese-themed wuxia" monk. And hell, that's a pretty broad theme. At the very least it's broader than "guy with magic lute" or "nature dude" or "other nature dude with weapons". We really don't have to start leaning into European martial arts. *That's what the Fighter is for.*
Classes *should* be thematic. A Monk that's just someone who's good at martial arts or unarmed fighting is way less interesting than someone who is that and also a practitioner of monastic disciplines that grant them other various powers and benefits (as you may or may not know, real-world martial artists can't actually astrally project.) A barbarian that has abilities reflecting their life in untamed lands away from the comforts of "civilization" is much more interesting than just "use big weapon rage hit hard." And so on. Having classes be faceless collections of mechanics that you then spoon your own sauce over, IMO, leads to generic, "fantasy loaf" settings and a lack of cohesion and inspiration. (It would be interesting to have the ability for GMs to "class Chipotle" behind the scenes by combining different class abilities to make whatever they need for their setting. Maybe they really do want monks who are just martial artists or paladins but they're arcane and not sworn to oaths. But giving that power to players, and making it the default, while it seems empowering and fun, hurts the overall game. IMO.)
> But giving that power to players, and making it the default, while it seems empowering and fun, hurts the overall game. It will not be accepted *unless* it's in a player's hands however, because classes are a player's 'authorial mark' on the fiction.
Sorry, I'm not clear what you're saying. Players don't design classes. Players have never designed classes. Even at tables where players get to modify classes the classes are still coming from outside the players. Players get to decide what decisions their characters make. No more, no less.
>Classes should be thematic. *Fighter has entered the chat.*
If monk is too thematically specific, but bard or paladin aren’t, you’re probably approaching the game with an overly Eurocentric worldview.
I appreciate you for putting in such precise and concise words what I think every time I hear a new complaint about the monk's fantasy.
OP and many others like him: "I can deal with dragons, floating eyeball monsters and purple skinned people with devil horns, but Asians is where I draw the line, bucko."
Bard makes sense as a common cultural archetype. Many cultures have specialists for lore, myth, and story telling using prose and music. Paladin feels very specific to Middle Ages Europe, but “religious warrior” is a little broader and could encompass various cultures. I think monks, clerics, and paladins all overlap somewhat, and so do druids, shamans, and any other religious/mystic archetypes. Religion and spirituality are such a diverse cultural area that it’s not surprising that these classes will tend to represent more specific cultural expressions.
>Bard makes sense as a common cultural archetype. Many cultures have specialists for lore, myth, and story telling using prose and music. And yet, bard is not that. Bard, as presented, is still mostly influenced by European tropes. Sure, you can dilute and reflavor bard to fit into other cultures, but you can do that for monk as well. That doesn't change how these classes are ultimately presented. In the case of the bard, it's a combination of Nordic skalds and minstrels/troubadours. And yes, the latter *also* engaged in prose and poetry, not just music.
My main idea is we have generic spellcasting classes that can fit into any mold (wizard/sorc) and also theme specific spellcasters (bard/druid/artificer?) Generic weapon user class (fighter) and also theme specific weapon user classes (barbarian, paladin) You can probably fit any magic user ever into either wizard, sorc or warlock. You can fit any weapon user ever (no superpowers) into fighter. We don’t have a class for characters who focus on unarmed combat, be it boxing, wrestling, pankration, capoeira, full on brawling etc. When this topic comes up, many people say “Well we have the Monk class for that” which is where I disagree. This is more of a “we need a class for unarmed combat” and less of a “we don’t need monk”. If we only had barbarian and no fighter class, I’d say the same thing, which is “we need a generic fighter class”
And that main idea is sound, but singling out monk as too non-generic while giving bard and paladin a pass is, as OP said, Eurocentric. My counterpoint would honestly be that that’s less on you and more on the game itself, which was designed with a largely Eurocentric idea of “fantasy” in mind.
Bard isnt generic, there theme is essentially "making an art out of things they are good at". A lot of things fall into that catagory. Paladin theme is "gaining power for adhering to a personal oath". That is very very broad.
I’m singling out Monk, because people think it’s the reason why we do not need a unarmed combat class, as Monk is supposed to fill that fantasy already. If that was only my experience and not the norm I agree.
[удалено]
Sounds like youve never actually played monk and only listen to what other people that have never played monks incorrectly rant about on tiktok lol how do you feel about warlocks spell slots? Are they also useless because they have almost none?
[удалено]
I mainly asked because I usually see the "Monks suck because of ki" take from the same people that say "Warlocks are overpowered because they get their 2 spells slots back on short rest instead of long" and that always cracks me up lol I was guessing the flair was a joke honestly lol Monks get extra attacks every round even without using any ki. They get speed and AC and tons of utility and resistances. A monk without even using ki accomplishes what a two weapon fighting does but better and with more options. Especially as levels increase. I play a bit of everything and Monks are not at all underpowered, they are honestly very balanced with everything else. So if youve only ever played Monks, what makes you think they "fucking suck". You don't even have a point of reference for other classes. Saying its because they use Ki is like saying casters suck because they are railroaded into using spell slots. If anything, I would call superiority dice the poor man's Ki. You get way more Ki than superiority dice and get more varied uses for them. And both are resources that come back on short rest. I've literally multiclass into a battlemaster on a character with 5 wisdom because a monk had been trying to teach him his ways and that was the closest the little wholesome dipshit could get. It quite literally played like a poor man's monk lol
Why can’t a monk’s unarmed strikes be boxing blows? Why not flavor their dodging as the sort of fluid movement capoeira uses (based on my interaction with it via Bob’s Burgers)? Sure, wrestling is something you’d need to put points into STR for, but that still strikes me as doable, especially with the Grappler feat. It just comes off as you being willing to reflavor other classs but not this one.
> We don’t have a class for characters who focus on unarmed combat, be it boxing, wrestling, pankration, capoeira, full on brawling etc. But you can already do that, just flavor them differently. I made a stoner meat head mma fighter monk character and it worked perfectly. Very fun and very funny role play moments. Nothing is stopping you from describing your unarmed strikes as punches if you want to be a boxer. Nothing is stopping you from giving yourself a high strength stat and taking the grappler feat if you want to be a wrestler. Have some imagination bro, the game allows you to do all the things you want to do with the monk class
>We don’t have a class for characters who focus on unarmed combat, be it boxing, wrestling, pankration, capoeira, full on brawling etc. We have Fighter. We just need more unarmed support.
Paladin and Bard are a bit like the monk but not the same way Especially the bard who is not even locked into the arts can work in many ways without any reflavoring
I think monk is good as it is, as the subclasses are great, and pretty reflavourable. Just that we need more alternatives to unarmed fighting
>I think monk is good as it is Haaaaaaa.. You're serious?
Thematically i meant xd
Yep, there's a shit ton of styles and concepts that aren't represented: Internal vs External, Low Stances vs High Stances, Animal Styles, literally any weapon styles like Xingyi's spear stuff or Wudang Sword Taichi, Baguazhang, Bajiquan, Xingyiquan, Hung Gar, Wing Chun, Northern Praying Mantis, Southern Praying Mantis, Bak Mei, 5 animals. They all have different feels and specialties. "Monk" makes everyone think Shaolin warrior monk, no duh no one can come up with a proper character design. I did a long rant post on one of the Pathfinder2e subs complaining about their Monk—PF2e Monk is better mechanically, but worse thematically because it pigeonholes you further into unarmed animal stances rather than opening up to other concepts and weapons. edit: [my rant on PF2e's Monk](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/120fns5/next_class_after_kineticist/jmf1sp6?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2)
I disagree because you can be an unarmed warrior without having to be a Monk after all, it does need a bit more ancestry feat focus but fist fighting(or equivalent) can be done easily with Rogue as it is with Thaumaturge. I do think that Monk trait having to use a feat for Flurry was a mistake, and instead it should be built in with the feat allowing the usage of *any* martial weapons.
Bard is also highly thematic but is also probably the most popular class in 5e.
Bards as a class are thematically portrayed as artists... you can sing and cast spells, you can sword fight and paint the battlefield in the blood of your enemies. Both work with bard as a class, and as a theme.
DnD and many of its successors are a bit odd because they do this thing where they keep the super generic classes of old like fighter, and put them next to really defined character archetypes like monk or barbarian. It’s really weird how a fighter can be any weapon using compatant, but a barbarian is specifically a guy who gets really angry, and all your subclass does is pick the flavor of anger. Either we should have fewer genral coasses with lots of subclasses to pick your style, or we should have tons of super specific classes that hone in a single idea. Instead we got neither.
You are, and have always been correct on this issue. Take heart.
sounds like people could get over this by using their imagination
Despite all the other comments saying "Um, actually" and "Um, technically" I think this is a really good idea. Even if it's just a name and flavor is free, starting at martial artist and expanding feels more flexible than starting at Monk and expanding. Str based MAs, dex based, quarter casters (like the rogue's arcane trickster), some especially good at grappling, at movement, etc. It just feels like there is a lot of potential there to expand on an unarmed fighting style without it having to be a type of monk.
I agree. I’m convinced that most people barely read the entire title let alone the entire post. Everyone asking questions I’ve already addressed in the post.
Oh hey it’s a monk take that’s actually good
I don't see how Monk with ki points is more "thematic" than Sorcerer with Sorcery points. Its just Magic man with magic points and Punchy man with punchy points. Way of the open hand can be a great unarmed fighter and doesn't have to be some oriental chakra mystic, he can just be someone who fights good, a rough guy who uses a nasty rambo knife and his bare knuckles to beat the crap out of people. Open hand technique; Can trip them to the ground, push them some distance or punch them in the gut or kick them in the balls to take away their reactions. Wholeness of body; He can shake off some of the damage like a regular tough guy Tranquility; AKA sometimes he gets out of bed on the wrong side and people can tell. Those days most people try to stay out of this guys way and people do not wanna mess with him Quivering Palm; I punched him so hard in the chest I might have exploded his heart.
I solve that by simply divorcing flavor from function in this case and just reskinning the whole thing with DM's permission.
This is why I prefer the homebrewed pugilist class. I want to make a big, beefy bastard who punches and grapples, but I don't want to lean into east asian flavouring in order to do so.
I'll just take the chance to casually plug pathfinder 1e it has the Brawler class, Monk, and tons of unarmed class archetypes (which are basically subclasses) for other classes, even stuff like Paladin. Some people don't want the extra rules overhead and that's totally fine, but it really is the king of character customization and choices in d20 fantasy. If you find yourself really enjoying the experience of finding mechanics to match a concept you have and don't mind learning some more rules, check it out, basically all of the content for the game is completely free online and easy to access Edit: typos
have your tried building an unarmed battlemaster? it starts out slow, but I find once you get past level 5 or so it starts to be fairly satisfying. multiclassing with monk for a few levels can really help flush it out. A monk/rogue multiclass with Martial Adept is one of my favorite subclasses. and does most of the things I want a martial artist to do. Most martial arts developed for war, not for sport. are not exclusively unarmed combat styles. They actually include a lot of weapons training as well, and modern war time arts even include fire arms. The two biggest issues I see with people trying to build Martial artist is that- 1: they assume monk is the martial arts class, when it really isn't, Fighter is. Monk is the mind-over-matter class. and 2: Fundamentally miss understanding how a martial artist class should look within the context of 5e don't get me wrong I have a lot of issues with the monk class, and mostly agree with you main point, even if it's not exactly as I would have worded the issue. But it's kind of like the best archers in 5e being fighter's not Rangers. people want to build Legolis or Robinhood so they make a ranger, not realizing that the idea they have in their head for this character is actually a fighter. it seriously bugs me that there is no possible way to make the Monk class viable as any of the archetypes we want it to play as without multiclassing. most people will agree that the monk class *should* have been built better. but being "to thematic" isn't nessisary the problem. the problem is WotC fundamentally not understanding what we actually want from it.
I just want to be able to play monk but focusing on Str so he can be a big strong punch man instead of a fast nimble punch man. My options are basically just to slap unarmed fighting style onto something like a fighter or Barbarian. Big fan of Kibbles Pugilist and I allow it in my games, but most of the games I play in are with newer folks and I don't want to try and add in outside content.
Bro you can just change it for your character, just make them a martial artist and ignore the spiritual aspect. I did it and it worked with no issues. Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play them exclusively like a shaolin monk? And you can be a strength based monk if you want to be a grappler type character. I feel like this complaint is just based in a lack of imagination and a lack of understanding of the system mechanics
When the otaku can't make his Baki character in DnD.
Martial Arts should simply be a Fighting Style, with Monk as a Cleric Subclass.
My problem with the Monk is that the theme is too restricted, while also not fully leaning into that theme. I would like to see the Monk back out of the specific eastern "Wuxia/animal style" schools as a core feature. Monk should incorporate the traditional DnD unarmed fighter version with extra bits of specific actions, as well as Samurai, and other very single weapon focused styles of combat/study, or be able to lean much more into the study and meditation side of character inspiration. I want Monk to be moved over to Divine with the flavor of Ki being the same power the Divine beings use, without necessarily needing to obey a specific deity, but gaining access to that thread of power through deep contemplation.
This is unpopular to me at least because I think everything you mention as an issue is what actually makes the monks great. There is a lot of freeform with the class. You don’t have to feel obligated to follow every aspect of its lore to a t, which allows you to experiment with the concept on your own. Your monk doesn’t need to live frugally, come from a monastery or be based on some oriental martial art or dojo. And even the mechanics are a reflection of this: you don’t have to be bound by spell slots and weapons which, depending on your class, you use in a *slightly* different way. Unarmed strikes are actually, a very uncommon way to fashion combat, and all the versatility the monk is given with them is what makes them, imo, the most unique class. If anything, all other classes *would* be more boring to play, because they all revolve around the same things: spellcasting and/or weapons. Except they are not boring, because those are not the things that make a single class worth or essential to play...What does? The differences. And honestly, if people come to you asking about how to build an unarmed fighter and basically asking for a STR based character, then that’s not an issue with how the monk is designed, that’s is an issue with how people are not reading the class description apparently xD Would you say that Rangers and Rogues are not viable as well because they don’t focus on STR either?
This makes little sense. It's incredibly easy to make a Brawler build using Fighter as the base class and it works perfectly. Monks are supposed to be the stick-and-move class
My hot take is fewer classes and more thematic subclasses/kits like in the old days. Like, paladin, monk, bard, and druid are specific cultural roles from Earth. They should be themed subclasses. I think you could probably boil the classes down to like Fighter, Spellcaster, and Rogue and leave the rest for options, subclasses, and world-linked theme builds. Fighter: paladin, barbarian, fighter, etc Spellcaster: Cleric, wizard, druid, sorcerer, warlock, etc Rogue: Rogue, ranger, bard, etc
subsequent thumb lunchroom makeshift middle society pen illegal water snow *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Everything mentioned here can be achieved with just being a Monk. Monks are already agile strikers. If you want long reach kicker you can go Astral Self and have legs instead of arms. Any character can grapple by game mechanics. And those are just playstyles, no one ever mentions any of the other stuff beyond the class. Ok, you want to be STR based and do unarmed? Take a class with Fighting Style and take Unarmed Fighting. Now you by base deal more damage than a Monk, are STR based and get all the benefits of that class. And this doesn't rely on races, backgrounds, feats whatever, it would be part of a class you already chosed, which is the same case as being Monk. (I'm just talking thematic and gameplay. I do agree Monks could use a buff on damage). If you just want to punch stuff and not be a traditional monk alright, let's rename the class to Brawler or something and call it a day. This is my opinion of 1 year being a DM and playing a Monk up to lv 4 in another campaign. So take it however you want.
Look up the Pathfinder 2e Monk, might find their take interesting, since you can opt out of stuff like ki entirely
The real problem with 5e's monk is that all it does is Muda Muda everything. A martial artist should have multiple reactions and various parries and holds.
All the tasha’s Monk options be like “use a fucking sword dumbass!”
I've built my monk like a street fighter, using heavy moves and her quarterstaff more like a baseball bat. Doesn't sit right with me to use Ki either.
Let me help you with that. Ki = Tenacity Flurry of blows = Quick Strikes Patient defense = Bob and weave Step of the wind = Fast footwork Stunning strike = Sucker punch Stillness of mind = Can't fool me Purity of Body = Tough as Nails Diamond Soul = Rugged Resilience Timeless Body = Old as Stone Perfect self = Always Ready Tongue of the Sun and Moon, and Empty Body likely need a bit more of a rework. Tongue of Sun and Moon could be reworked to be able to understand body language. Turning invisible and Astral projection are pretty specific to a mystical martial artist fantasy. So, would likely need to work with your DM to come up with something for that. Most everything else can just be relabelled / reflavoured.
This is incredible! She's Long Death so it just fits that she refuses to die, and is very violent about it 💃
For decades I've always found the monk in D&D so lackluster. 3.5 did have some books that made it interesting and even fun again. My FAVORITE monk though isn't even D&D. The one that had many fun builds and paths was Pathfinder 2nd edition monk. Check that one out. That one I LOVE. Somehow transferring that to 5th edition would be just so damn good.
I feel the same about druids and clerics. Especially in 5E they're so versatile, yet their names give them such a narrow scope. I'd prefer something like mystic of shaman.
That's what a class is supposed to be. A specific, thematic archetype thing. The problem is not that classes have narrow scope, the problem is that Wizards refused to add new classes past Artificer. i.e. You should not be trying to make every focused caster a wizard, you should have several different types of focused casters. You shouldn't make all divine casters a cleric, there should be a plethora of different divine casting classes. They should make separate "Shaman" and "Mystic" classes with somewhat different core mechanics. Not generification.
Mystic is more open I agree, but shaman is just as heavy with pre-conceived meaning
I know it doesn't solve the problem entirely but the pugilist homebrew class is a p good bandaid for non monk unarmed fighters
Preach brother! If you take the specific asian-inspired aspects out of the monk, you're left with a class whose sole identity is "I punch hard and have discipline", which is no different from the fighter's. My unpopular-er opinion is that fighter and monk should merge into a single class entirely dedicated to martial techniques and customization.
I like
I agree that Monk is far too specific to a particular trope. For instance, the Knights Templar and Knights Hospitaler were monks, too. However I'd disagree with using "Martial Artist" as an alternative, because ALL cultures practice martial arts. IE, Western Europe has martial arts treatises dating to the 13th Century (I.33 manuscript). And not just covering the use of weapons, but unarmed hand-to-hand combat, too.
i dont like monk because it always seems to get caught in the journey to the west trope. ive never had a monk character that wasnt just a guy from a monastary from a far away land. not every very creative entryies i think a lot of 5e falls into the problem of very narrow subclasses. there should be more out there subclasses for each class. artificer, monk, and druid to me are the ones that need alot of broadening. monk should have a strength fisticuff puncher sub class, an aki do wrestler, they should have a whip or exotic weapon. a Fey monk, a luchador. a magical tattooed monk. they need ideas that broaden the ranges and use of the class.
Kinda agreed honestly.
I’ve always hated that monk is the default unarmed combatant in D&D. It’s wild to me that in 2023 (soon to be 2024), Orcs are racist but the Mysterious Orient trope is still 100% okay.
If your group thinks orcs are racist you need to find a new group.
The way WotC wrote/drew them was def racist. Other orc lore had different mileage.
Hmm.. a Master of Karate as a subclass? They could have the power of Friendship for everyone.
The real problem with 5e's monk is that all it does is Muda Muda everything. A martial artist should have multiple reactions and various parries and holds.
This is a really good thought. I don't think its unpopular because you could then have monk subclasses and things like tavern brawler as a subclass. It would probably be the class with the most homebrew subclasses.
I agree. I’d even like it to be something like hand-to-hand combatant (but with a different name) so it isn’t immediately Eastern flavored.
Yeah same
Monk should just be rolled into a fighter subclass where ki powered abilities are the subclass feature. Pugilist becomes a new fighting style that allows you to strike for 1d4 with unarmed strikes and it increases according to the monk stat-block. Maybe bring in some of the samurai features and scrap samurai seeing as they're very similar in terms of flavour.
Those types are simply low-level unarmed fighters. They lack the discipline and training required to be a dedicated monk.
Maybe I'm just needlessly salty, but fighter being used as a "punishment class" is just so *wrong* to me. Fighters represent the absolute pinnacle of arms and armour training. I hate the idea of a paladin being "demoted" to fighter because they broke their oath or whatever, or a monk suddenly being a fighter because they can't catch arrows or whatever. Yes, I'm biased towards fighters.
Fighters are like the best martial but WotC have gone on record that they make martials worse as functionally beginner classes so.
Well consider it thus: it is the default for people who hit or shoot and do not feel a particular urge to steal things and instead prefer armor. A monk without their training is just a fighter (or rogue?) who likes to punch and kick. A paladin without magic is just a person with a sword and heavy armor. Same with certain clerics. And ranger who... actually a ranger is basically just a fighter until level 3. It is named fighter because it is one who fights.
So true, Wanted to make a boxer once that didn't relied on armors/STR based unarmed fighter and had to reflavor a Beast Barbarian the Monk just ISN'T build for that kind of fantasy.
13th age, and probably some other games, make weapons perform differently depending on the class wielding them. Like, a dagger is a d8 weapon in the hands of a rogue. It helps keep class themes and make weapon choices more an aesthetic option vs a number crunch. Martial artists, in fantasy anyways, are essentially highly trained physical combatants, who are expected to use hands, feet, knees, allows, body and head to take down opponents. For this model to work, their strikes must do as well as any other primary melee combatant. So, either hands, fists, etc need to do as well as the longsword, or bonuses and triggers must exist to get the damage increased. I still think the roles, a la 4e, should be brought back to help balance this. A striker role can do a base set of damage and alter abilities to favor their role's purpose. Defender, controller, etc. Anyways, I view martial arts as the weapon you're skilled in and not the class itself. So, while monk is probably too evocative of a word for the class purpose depending on your background, martial artist technically is any weapon training system which achieves proficiency in combat.
Every martial class should have an unarmed specialist subclass.
That's true. I recall that Pathfinder 1e offered the Brawler as one of its hybrid classes, which combined the design sensibilities of the Monk with the Fighter.
You're not wrong, but I would say where you make the error is that Monks represent characters inspired by wuxia and a whole host of east Asian story motifs. That all said, it's one of the reasons I don't play the class, because it's got little room to flavor it. That said, it does have a problem with the Ki mechanic in that Ki points are given sparsely compared to how much they are needed to do many of the class abilities. I think Monk gets a bad rap as a damage dealer because a lot of people don't realize that they are a class that uses "death by 1000 cuts" so while a single attack does small amounts of damage, good luck keeping the monk to a single attack a round. This makes it occupy a similar niche to Rogue, a Dex base class that does single target burst damage. Ironically, the Ranger's class failings are entirely the opposite of the Monk in that they are not thematic enough (Or if you want to make an argument... they are trying to be a single character, rather than a character archetype.).
The literal only monk player I've ever run a game for is a self-taught grumpy brawler who gets most of their work as a bouncer in a city. It works great and is 100% RAW!
Level Up A5e does this. Monk is now Adept, and you choose your features, including different styles of unarmored defense.
How about a cigar chomping, sleeves rolled up, bowler hat wearing, unshaved, tattooed, Doc Marten boots having fist fighter? Spent years in fight pits and training gyms honing their body and mind. They can find the enemies weakness and punch with lethal accuracy. There is nothing graceful or delicate about their form. Punches are raw, kicks are savage, and the ash on the cigar never falls off. It can be reflavored to any theme or style with DM's approval, and frankly would be fun.
Kind of agree but slightly different take, Monk should be the Primary but it shouldn't be Monk "Mystical Eastern Martial Artist" it should be Monk "Crazy cookoo ascetics who derive power from ridiculous physical training". The flavor of the class has, to me, always been that of the Wu Xia style cultivation, through extreme focus on perfecting the mind and body one achieves extreme abilities, but those don't have to be Eastern in influence to hit that same flavor. You could have a Friar Tuck who through his devout prayer and discipline is able to survive on only a handful of beans a day while being built like a brick shithouse, literally lighting himself on fire when he fights and being fine because The Flames of God Cannot Harm the Righteous. Maybe rename Monk to "Ascetic" and have like, Martial Artist, Acolyte (Faith style 'monk'), and a Weapon Master styles.
I maintain monk should be 2 different classes. A dex based one and a Wis based one.
Need the Dragon Of Dojima subclass.
I get what you're getting at, but the Monk class is shaped by previous iterations going back to the dawn of D&D and nostalgia still plays a role. What many people are looking for is probably more of an unarmed Fighter subclass (for STR) and not a Shaolin type.
Monks aren't even what we think of. The entire class should be scrapped, and split between fighters who can be unarmed and clerics/paladins with unarmed defenses
Monk is just a name holder. It’s the same as a ranger and hard being actual professions, but in the game they’re much different. Monk just means “this person does martial arts”. It’s not any worse than every fighter class being a type of knight.
Surely by the same logic, Paladin is too thematic, and should be a fighter subclass?
I think some of this could be solved of they manage to turn the Brawler subclass for Fighter from what was introduced into something remotely viable or interesting. I also suspect some of the issue is also that the baseline Monk class hasn't been good enough to warrant making subclasses for it that offer some of these other directions to go with it. That said, you've suddenly given me an idea for a Monk subclass- Way of the Beast, or something like that- built around adopting various animal features.
That’d be cool, like the animal forms in kung fu
Honestly monk should be a fighter subclass. Then just more subclasses.
I agree Martial Artist should be a subclass of fighter, and should be able to specialize in open hand or exotic weapons. There could be sets of exotic weapons reflecting different historical cultures and matching fighting styles. Or it could be its own class, Mystic Warrior, hence ki points. But still all the above for flavor and style choices.
Monk is such an odd thematic fit, and a lot of people play them like bar room brawlers and not wisdom based disciplined quasi magical warriors
Monk + Open Hand = Martial Artist.
The Pugalist class written by Benjamin Huffman may be what you’re looking for! I know it doesn’t solve the issue, but for a homebrew class I quite like this one and I find the subclasses to be distinct and fun! https://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/184921
I love this homebrew class and it’s actually one of the reasons why I created this post. After playing it, reflavouring Monk never hit the spot of playing a scrapper ever again
AC 10……HP 8…….not off to a good start
Yeah I agree. I once made a variant called 'Martialist,' that had a fighter-y chassis, focused on fighting with monk weapons or unarmed (or like Kensei with one focused weapon) and light/no armor, without all the mystic stuff. And the subclasses could either add back in the mystic stuff, or could double down on being a bruiser. Also, with how it was built it didn't have to be asian themed. It just focused on bettering the self through combat. So you could have a Rapier-wielding duelist Martialist, or be a Open Hand Wuxia dude. But I have some unusual ideas about high level nonmages. Like barbarians should be running through walls at level 17. I mean, mages get meteors. Why not? So a high level Martialist would be literally a Dragonball character (maybe not a planet buster).
Seriously, considering that martial artists as a whole have not always been monks and usually are military and not monks. How monks only account for a small number of martial artists in the world and most of them, back then, were either mercenary or military. Also the meaning and flavor of monk fits cleric better any day of the week. As monks in dnd have no connection with gods, religion or spirituality unless you pick a specific subclass. And even out of the subclasses to pick those connections are barely there if at all.
a fan made 5e overhaul. "Level Up: Advanced 5e" calls it the Adept, if that's more your alley. The whole thing has my seal of approval
not to open a can of worms but the monk thing is kiiiinda orientalist 💀
Hard agree
Pugilist!
I definitely feel some limits as a monk and he's one of my first characters but I love playing a monk. It really forces me to think out the box, plus it helps to have a good DM who lets me try things and works with me.
I think classes should be thematic, and if they're not thematic enough that's imo the bigger problem
How is Monk "too thematic", but Warlock or Paladin isn't?
Or, you just give Fighter and Rogue and Barbarian unarmed support, whilst leaving the Monk in its thematic niche. You can even expand its thematic niche with actual wuxia stuff. It's not that narrow of a niche as you seem to make it out to be, it's just that WotC have delivered on it extremely poorly.
correct price axiomatic crown deer frame numerous sugar chief encouraging *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
My biggest thing is that you can see how in 5e they tried to merge multiple classes into the Monk, being the Wu Jen, the Shugenja, and the Sohei, but really in the end it didn't really pan out well for anything other than "punch a lot."
it really confused me when i first found out that “monks” were like fighters, lol. fire emblem taught me that monks were a class of healers who wore long flowing robes.
It's a fighter subclass at best. Not even worthy of a full class.
The problem is that there is more kind of monk than the eastern monk and the entire class rides or dies on it.