D&D 5E The Monk - What is the monk to you and why?

[Salamandyr]

Personally, I think the monk is an attempt to mix the same archetype from two different power levels of fiction into the same story. To me, how someone learns to fight is irrelevant-it's what you can do. Someone who can kill dragons with his bare hands is obviously a superior warrior to someone who can kill dragons only with the aid of a sword, shield, and plate armor.

So to me, the monk is not an archetype, it's a high level version of an archetype we already have--the warrior.

 

[Remathilis]

Personally, I think the monk is an attempt to mix the same archetype from two different power levels of fiction into the same story. To me, how someone learns to fight is irrelevant-it's what you can do. Someone who can kill dragons with his bare hands is obviously a superior warrior to someone who can kill dragons only with the aid of a sword, shield, and plate armor.

So to me, the monk is not an archetype, it's a high level version of an archetype we already have--the warrior.

So monk should be a prestige class for 15th level fighters?

 

[Tovec]

This thread/idea came up months, probably over a year ago, and I think my answer then is probably the same one I'm going to give now - with a few minor considerations due to the recent class group discussions.

I like the monk. I really do. It is likely my favourite class in flavour and has many cool and unique abilities that round out the mechanics that I like too. I find it disappointing that so much of the perception of the monk is based in oriental roots. I think the jedi is a good example of a non-oriental influence that is immediately related to the monk.

In flavour, what it is meant to be, it is a cross between warrior and priest. It is a mystic warrior. A guy who has spent his time not talking to the gods, or training with weapons but instead honing his mind, body and spirit so that he is capable of doing things that no one else can do. However, even though he is a cross warrior-priest it doesn't really fit the structure of either. Its abilities scream trickster (rogue level powers and abilities). The jedi have lightsabers but the good ones don't use them, they use mind trick or persuasion or levitation (okay bad example). Those are all tricks. The 3e monks have faster speed, WIS to AC, dimension door and so on. Those are tricks.

But as far as the "magic" goes, No. They aren't using magic. They're using mysticism, a conversation I also had way back whenever that was. Their abilities are not arcane, divine or even psionic. They aren't magic or psudomagic, they aren't even spell-like. They're just good old fashioned supernatural.

I know I've been ramble-y and probably not providing too much support but monks are jedi, or the pandas from that most recent WoW expansion. They have tricks, but are honed warriors with a mystic-priest background. They're the perfect non-cardinal class and I hate to see it abandoned because it doesn't belong to one of the four, or worse yet stuffed into the warrior box by ignoring what makes it mystic and skillsy.

 

[Salamandyr]

So monk should be a prestige class for 15th level fighters?

Not even necessarily a prestige class, just high level (possibly even beyond 20th).

 

[Blackbrrd]

To me, the monk belongs to a oriental setting and doesn't fit into any campaign I have run so far.

 

[Celebrim]

I find it disappointing that so much of the perception of the monk is based in oriental roots. I think the jedi is a good example of a non-oriental influence that is immediately related to the monk.

Jedi is non-oriental influence? You do realize that the bearded one is Buddhist, right? And that he claims the whole story was inpired by watching Kirosawa movies?

In flavour, what it is meant to be, it is a cross between warrior and priest. It a mystic warrior.

So, 'mystic' as in 'divine' rather than 'arcane'?

A guy who has spent his time not talking to the gods, or training with weapons but instead honing his mind, body and spirit so that he is capable of doing things that no one else can do.

Ok, so more of a cross between a warrior and a wizard then. Which is it? Warrior priest or warrior mage?

However, even though he is a cross warrior-priest it doesn't really fit the structure of either.

Ok, yeah, I believe that. But what I don't understand is why you believe it's like a warrior priest when you also believe it's nothing like a warrior priest.

Its abilities scream trickster (rogue level powers and abilities).

Ok, so it's more of a rogue, warrior, priest, mage... you know I'm beginning to get the idea it's a bit of a Marty Sue. That's going to be a problem, because if it is any good it will be able to outshine everything and continually pull spotlight, and if it isn't any good, then it probably isn't going to make the people that like it happy because it's not monkish enough with its cool combination rogue, warrior, priest, wizard powers. You know, kinda like when you have Jedi in an RPG and its really hard to make them balanced with the non-Jedi because part of the whole point is that the Jedi aren't balanced with the non-Jedi...

But as far as the "magic" goes, No. They aren't using magic. They're using mysticism...

A rose is a rose is a rose.... The problem here is that while mysticism isn't magic, if you can use mysticism to effect your external world or break the laws of physics then there is some sort of magic involved somewhere. Might be divine; might be arcane, but it's magic.

They aren't magic or psudomagic, they aren't even spell-like. They're just good old fashioned supernatural.

Ok, but how is that different than magic? I mean, it is supernatural it seems to me it ought to be at least a little bit like magic. If it isn't magic, what is it? How is it 'super' and not magical at the same time? If it wasn't magic, wouldn't it be just good old fashioned natural?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The Monk - What is the monk to you and why?

He is Caine. He will help you.

 

[Derren]

The monk has the problem that it has too much oriental influence in his description.
Imo WotC should take a few steps back and look at what monks, or rather the shaolin monks they are based on are. They are religious monks who train their bodies to purify their spirit (yes, thats very simplified).
When using this flavor monks become much more compatible. Religious fanatics who use the divine gifts (and normal training) to harden their bodies. They can be shaolin monks but also flagellants or some overly pierced and tattooed tribal shaman/champion etc.

 

[Manbearcat]

Mastery over body married to mastery over mind, which eventually transcends the mastery over body, turning him into something supernatural. That is the 1st order, the thesis, of what it means to be a Monk. Everything else is derivative. He is an ascetic warrior who follows the the teachings and martial techniques of a monastic tradition which perpetuates this physical and spiritual realization. Unsurprisingly, I feel the 4e Monk captured this archetype thematically and I feel that because of its thesis (mastery over mind transcending the physical body/world), psionic as power source for its mystical aspect is fitting. Further, I felt that the 4e rendering provided it with a gameplay focus and functionality that it lacked in prior editions.

What does this guy do?

4e PHB 3, page 62

"You typically eschew weapons in favor of unarmed attacks, and you avoid armor in favor of maneuverability and agility. Few can match your speed and poise on the battlefield. Your powers are more than simple attacks; they are complex forms that allow you to strike and move with unmatched grace."
​

That looks right to me. How does he manifest in 4e? Solid (or quite high) AC and Reflex with no slouch at Fort and Reflex (he gets a + 1 all defenses). High single target damage, the ability to flurry on multiple foes at once, and unmatched mobility (see below for an example). This is how he resolves the conflicts of combat. Here is a good example of what this would look like in play:

[h=1]Lion's Den [Attack Technique]
[/h]You jab, step to the side, then assume an offensive posture from which you can sting any foe that draws near.
At-Will

Full Discipline, Implement, Psionic
Standard Action Melee touch
Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. Reflex
Hit: 1d6 + Dexterity modifier damage. Until the start of your next turn, once per turn as a free action, you can deal damage equal to your Constitution modifier to any enemy that enters a square adjacent to you.
Level 21: 2d6 + Dexterity modifier damage.


[h=1]Lion's Den [Movement Technique]
[/h]At-Will

Full Discipline, Psionic
Move Action Personal
Effect: You shift 1 square and gain a +1 power bonus to all defenses until the start of your next turn.

Follow that up with an At-Will Flurry of Blows inherent to your tradition (automatic damage, possibly of an elemental subtype, to 1, 2, or all creatures around you, accompanied with a damage bonus or a control rider - eg slide 1, - 2 hit, no OAs till next turn, etc).

Esoteric techniques underwritten by observation of natural creatures/systems? Check. Unearthly speed, agility, and mobility? Check. Anyone who engages you pays for it? Check.

Ok, that is the easy part. How does this guy contribute out of combat? This has long been the difficult part for the Monk (same as Fighter although he has historically been worse off, less proficient and less focused, than the Monk).

His primary attributes (Dexterity, Wisdom, Strength, Constitution) make him naturally effective at what you would expect him to be effective at; Athletics, Acrobatics, Endurance, Insight, Perception, Stealth, Thievery. These are all class skills. He also has the thematically fitting Heal, Religion on his menu. Curiously, he also has Diplomacy? I'm not sure how that one comes about as I don't particularly associate it with the archetype. Perhaps the wisened sage aspect, saying little but what is said is profoundly impactful? I could buy that. The rest of it? Spot on.

Utility Powers, he can (At-Will) reduce fall damage, climb sheer walls and flat ceilings (like a spider), and when he becomes truly powerful, limited, wire-work Kung Fu flight. With limited ability he can step through worlds (teleport), move with the speed of a cheetah, manifest skin like rock and become unmovable, and take the form of a flitting ghost (insubstantial). The Long Distance Runner Martial Practice (basically run forever) is basically Monk 101 as well.

So. How can he facilitate successful non-combat conflict resolution? For exploration, as a a sneak-thief, a scout/reconnoiter, and as someone capable of making physical impediments/challenges obsolete and thus easing the burden/finding a way for the rest of the band. For social, the right word/nugget, a bit of sagely advice on mystic lore when called upon, and the ability to read people instinctively. Looks like he can contribute reasonably well in varying situations.

Finally, the "thief" part of sneak-thief is a game-changer for the monk. Without it (even with Perception and Stealth) he can't be at least a reasonable stand-in for the Rogue in an infiltration/dungeon-crawl scenario (which is the niche he would be filling with respect to non-combat). As a diluted Fighter, Rogue, Mystic, he becomes 3 parts that don't add up to 1 whole. That is where he has fallen down in editions past. He needs more punch and more function in each aspect. The 4e version of the Monk tightened him up in all 3 aspects, played to thematic archetype and game him focus and high functionality in and out of combat.

 

[Tovec]

Jedi is non-oriental influence? You do realize that the bearded one is Buddhist, right? And that he claims the whole story was inpired by watching Kirosawa movies?

First, regardless what it is inspired by, the Jedi as presented in the original trilogy (which later spurred the whole expanded universe) were warriors first. They were ascetic ones but non the less they were warriors. However, in that they were warriors they did not use warrior tricks. Obi Wan pulled out his saber once to cut off a dude's arm and then another time when fighting another (former) jedi. Everything else he did made him non-warrior, using mind tricks and force persuasion to get his way.

Second, have you ever seen TV tropes? I know they can be maddening but they are quite useful in other ways - often opening up insights that a single person may otherwise miss on their own analysis. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WarriorMonk is the relevant link, and looking at the movies you can see that the Jedi blend the difference between a holy warrior and oriental mysticism, saying, "Jedi Knights from Star Wars combine Western chivalry and swordsmanship with Eastern mysticism and acrobatics." So, in this way I think that jedi are non-oriental. They are also a great example of how to do something that may otherwise be oriental in origin, in a non-oriental space.

So, yes there is oriental influences there, I don't dispute that; but there is equally non-oriental ones.

So, 'mystic' as in 'divine' rather than 'arcane'?

Yes? I mean in reality I would say no, but in background it fits much better in divine than in arcane so I have to say yes I guess. I mostly mean mysticism as in NOT magic, neither arcane nor divine. I'm not sold on psionic either - but I'm sure with the best writers they could get me there.

A guy who has spent his time not talking to the gods, or training with weapons but instead honing his mind, body and spirit so that he is capable of doing things that no one else can do.

Ok, so more of a cross between a warrior and a wizard then. Which is it? Warrior priest or warrior mage?

Still no. Not warrior wizard.

Warrior priest, one term two words. Not warrior-priest. But that is really semantics.

[tangent]I think your problem is my saying "not talking to the gods"? And because of that him not being divine, but instead being arcane? Druids don't talk to the gods, they commune with nature. So too do jedi (commune with nature) but in a very different way).[/tangent]

But no once again I don't think he is really divine at all. His flavour is vaguely priest, he is called Monk after all.

Ok, yeah, I believe that. But what I don't understand is why you believe it's like a warrior priest when you also believe it's nothing like a warrior priest.

Warrior Priest, one term two words. Not Warrior/Priest. I don't think he has the skills of a warrior nor a priest. I don't think he could be made by either a warrior or a priest (or a mage or a trickster). I think he has elements of warrior and priest, namely he fights (sometimes) and is a holy man. Skills-wise he is closest to trickster because he has a lot of tricks. If I had a different term (other than monk or jedi) then I could say he is that. Perhaps (which came up last time too) he is best represented as a paladin, but not as a paladin. A monk may be to a paladin as a druid is to a cleric. Mystic powers and a honed body as opposed to holy powers and a patron god. But that is the closets I can give you.

And yes, a paladin is also a warrior priest, but is neither.

Ok, so it's more of a rogue, warrior, priest, mage... you know I'm beginning to get the idea it's a bit of a Marty Sue. That's going to be a problem, because if it is any good it will be able to outshine everything and continually pull spotlight, and if it isn't any good, then it probably isn't going to make the people that like it happy because it's not monkish enough with its cool combination rogue, warrior, priest, wizard powers. You know, kinda like when you have Jedi in an RPG and its really hard to make them balanced with the non-Jedi because part of the whole point is that the Jedi aren't balanced with the non-Jedi...

1. I never said mage. You did, but I didn't.
2. I don't know what marty sue is or what its relationship is to your argument. Please clarify, or else I'll have to ignore it.
3. It doesn't have to outshine everything, there is literally no reason it has to. In fact in 3e it is considered one of the weakest classes because it does many things, second best. I think in this regard it fits in the same place as a bard; music-magic, fighting ability, healing - but not squarely in any group.
4. "then it probably isn't going to make the people that like it happy because it's not monkish enough with its cool combination rogue, warrior, priest, wizard powers." It shouldn't have any of those thing's powers. That is my point really. It has its own suit and should have its own suit that makes it cool and unique. I don't see a paladin, bard, druid, etc. having to justify its placement as a class to the degree a monk does.
5. I don't have a lot of experience with Jedi in RPGs, I've listened to a few saga games but that's about it. In those games I've listened to the jedi don't disrupt the game but I suppose there is always room for abuse. The same as how I've only rarely had wizards/casters disrupt the game, it can happen I'm sure but it is not the norm.

But as far as the "magic" goes, No. They aren't using magic. They're using mysticism...

A rose is a rose is a rose.... The problem here is that while mysticism isn't magic, if you can use mysticism to effect your external world or break the laws of physics then there is some sort of magic involved somewhere. Might be divine; might be arcane, but it's magic.

They aren't magic or psudomagic, they aren't even spell-like. They're just good old fashioned supernatural.

Ok, but how is that different than magic? I mean, it is supernatural it seems to me it ought to be at least a little bit like magic. If it isn't magic, what is it? How is it 'super' and not magical at the same time? If it wasn't magic, wouldn't it be just good old fashioned natural?

I'm going to be honest. I wrote that because I was trying to be clear enough that monk isn't just lumped in with psionics (but again, I'm open to be being convinced of this).

But no, it isn't magic. It isn't even spell-like, as I said. I said supernatural and meant it. Supernatural in the ways already described - able to do things close to human ability. A wizard casts a spell and conjures a fireball from the tip of their finger that explodes at a designated location. They could also cast a spell that allows them to float to the ground as if a feather. The cleric can cast a spell and revive a fallen comrade. A paladin can even cast a spell and ask their god for some kind of boon to kill the enemy. The monk.. falls and doesn't hurt himself. He jumps really high, without the spell but through training. Do you see the difference? It is like I read in another thread, "The druid uses magic to part the undergrowth while he passes, the ranger moves through it as if it weren't there." (If someone directs me to the actual quote and who says it I'll edit this post.)

He is Caine. He will help you.

Who/What Caine? Michael Caine?