D&D 5E Fighter should be called Knight and Monk Should be called Fighter, change my mind

[Not a Decepticon]

Here is how I see it:

Monk is an outdated term that is only kept around for the sake of nostalgia, it limits the class lore-wise (I had seen people who will reject any Monk backstory that doesn't tie them to a monastery of some sort) and harkens back to orientalist crap the class was once steeped in, that WotC now tries to step away from. Naming Monk Fighter would be a shortcut for Martial Arts Fighter, with subclasses named about different styles of fighting.

Fighter meanwhile should be named Knight. It's three strongest subclasses are already Echo Knight, Eldritch Knight and Rune Knight. Samurai, Cavalier are equivalent or form of a knight. Psi Warriro was originally named Psi Knight in Unearthed Arcana. Banneret is a generic name for class originally named Purple Dragon Knight. Champion and Battlemaster are only Fighter subclasses that aren't called Knights or similiar, and even that is debatable. Why not call it Kngiht at this point? We could even call the subclasses Orders.

Also, I disagree with the idea that Fighter should be go-to class for new players, that is simple to play. That's what Barbarian, literally first class in the book, is for.

 

[Minigiant]

My 2 favorite fighters that I've played was a Prince and a Peasant.

The Prince fighter Genius would not dare consider himself in the lower knightly class.

The Peasant fighter Wander used his lack of rights and responsibility to a boss to free up time to train with weapons.

Both would had being called a knight.

 

[J-H]

Knight is a social status even today. So was Samurai, and so was kshatriya.
"Martial artist" would work for monk, as martial arts almost exclusively refers to unarmed combat, but D&D's monk/martial artist is very wuxia in terms of slow falling, running up walls, deflecting arrows, etc.

 

[Horwath]

both should just be warriors.
monk as a subclass or pack of feats on the warrior base.

 

[Willie the Duck]

change my mind​

Not specific to you, but I do wish this memetic turn of phrase would end. Since no one is under any obligation to change the statement-maker's mind, it makes it seem like engaging in the topic is acquiescing to an unrealistically demanding individual. I wish we could move back to something like: -- "Proposal: Fighter should be called Knight and Monk Should be called Fighter (thoughts?)."

both should just be warriors.
monk as a subclass or pack of feats on the warrior base.

There's definitely meat to this argument. For the sake of the discussion, I will work from the premise that the two class mechanics are worth preserving separately.

Fighter meanwhile should be named Knight. It's three strongest subclasses are already Echo Knight, Eldritch Knight and Rune Knight. Samurai, Cavalier are equivalent or form of a knight. Psi Warriro was originally named Psi Knight in Unearthed Arcana. Banneret is a generic name for class originally named Purple Dragon Knight. Champion and Battlemaster are only Fighter subclasses that aren't called Knights or similiar, and even that is debatable. Why not call it Kngiht at this point? We could even call the subclasses Orders.

Outside of the Orientalism, this seems to have the same problem as Monks for the Monk class* -- it is affixing a social and cultural connotation onto something that may include, but is not bounded within that connotation. Plenty of iconic historical, fictional, and conceptual characters that likely would end up as Fighters in D&D would not fit as "knights." The first example that comes to mind would be Game of Thrones' Sandor "I'm no Sir" Clegane. as well as every historical soldier or fantasy castle guards/soldiers/sentries that explicitly weren't knights.
*see also: Druid

Also, I disagree with the idea that Fighter should be go-to class for new players, that is simple to play. That's what Barbarian, literally first class in the book, is for.

Barbarians* seem like the good fits for new players. However, I've run into newbies having significant hurdles in using them. Their formulation as 'low-AC, high-(effective) HP' class that benefits from recklessness is a careful tightrope to walk. Probably more importantly, they require you to attack or be attacked each round to keep your rage up. That seems to trip up more than a few people (newbies and otherwise), as even characters who contribute in fights mostly be attacking things often want to just double move on some round in the middle of combat.
*also rogues -- conceptually they work, but they require a lot of know-how both in terms of managing actions, bonus actions, reactions, and movement to be effective but still survive; as well as knowing when you can get away with stealthing out ahead of the party or picking a nobles pocket, etc.
**fortunately, if it matches the playtest material, this will go away with D&D2024, as you can use a bonus action to maintain the rage.

Knight is a social status even today. So was Samurai, and so was kshatriya.
"Martial artist" would work for monk, as martial arts almost exclusively refers to unarmed combat, but D&D's monk/martial artist is very wuxia in terms of slow falling, running up walls, deflecting arrows, etc.

Hmm. I have to disagree. "Martial arts" includes fencing and kendo and HEMA and Arnis/Eskrima and of course the Okinawan martial arts that gave the ninja-turtles their signature weapons, and so on. Fortunately, the D&D Monk also isn't exclusively about unarmed combat.

 

[Remathilis]

both should just be warriors.
monk as a subclass or pack of feats on the warrior base.

Classes were a mistake.

 

[mellored]

Monk should be Pugilist. Which specifically is about unarmed combat.

Fighter is too generic for that.

 

[Horwath]

There's definitely meat to this argument. For the sake of the discussion, I will work from the premise that the two class mechanics are worth preserving separately.

monk ki pts and battlemasters maneuvers are 2 different takes on a same thing.
so both can really be tuned to work from the same class,

monk martial arts is just some combo of fighting style and tavern brawler feat.

 

[Horwath]

Classes were a mistake.

perhaps.

but classes are a good guidebook on how to make a character, but they should not be a straitjacket on how you MUST make a character.

if classes are needed, you can get away with 4 of them:

Warrior: d12 HD, no spellcasting, 5 extra attacks over 20 level
Gish(paladin/ranger/artificer): d10 HD, half caster, 3 extra attacks
adept: d8 HD, 2/3rd spellcaster, 2 extra attacks
spellcaster: d6 HD, full casting, 1 extra attack

and just add a bunch of feat slots over 20 levels

 

[jmartkdr2]

Not specific to you, but I do wish this memetic turn of phrase would end. Since no one is under any obligation to change the statement-maker's mind, it makes it seem like engaging in the topic is acquiescing to an unrealistically demanding individual. I wish we could move back to something like: -- "Proposal: Fighter should be called Knight and Monk Should be called Fighter (thoughts?)."

There's definitely meat to this argument. For the sake of the discussion, I will work from the premise that the two class mechanics are worth preserving separately.

Outside of the Orientalism, this seems to have the same problem as Monks for the Monk class* -- it is affixing a social and cultural connotation onto something that may include, but is not bounded within that connotation. Plenty of iconic historical, fictional, and conceptual characters that likely would end up as Fighters in D&D would not fit as "knights." The first example that comes to mind would be Game of Thrones' Sandor "I'm no Sir" Clegane. as well as every historical soldier or fantasy castle guards/soldiers/sentries that explicitly weren't knights.
*see also: Druid

See also cleric, bard, paladin, ranger. So "only" 6/13 classes are based on real-world historical social classes.

I think one more won't break the game.

Barbarians* seem like the good fits for new players. However, I've run into newbies having significant hurdles in using them. Their formulation as 'low-AC, high-(effective) HP' class that benefits from recklessness is a careful tightrope to walk. Probably more importantly, they require you to attack or be attacked each round to keep your rage up. That seems to trip up more than a few people (newbies and otherwise), as even characters who contribute in fights mostly be attacking things often want to just double move on some round in the middle of combat.
*also rogues -- conceptually they work, but they require a lot of know-how both in terms of managing actions, bonus actions, reactions, and movement to be effective but still survive; as well as knowing when you can get away with stealthing out ahead of the party or picking a nobles pocket, etc.
**fortunately, if it matches the playtest material, this will go away with D&D2024, as you can use a bonus action to maintain the rage.

Honestly the best fix for barbarian is to remove the "must attack" requirement - Most players aren't going to rage and then try to be diplomatic.