Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

[Deathtongue]

Don't get me wrong, there needs to be a 'martial artist' class in 5E D&D. It's one of the basic protagonist archetypes; not as basic as 'sneaky scoundrel with a plan' or 'brave and honorable warrior', it's very common and D&D needs to have it in the rules set.

The problem is that the current implementation of the monk only lets you be a very specific kind of martial artist: that of 70s-80s live action drifter-protagonists who get a mishmash of new age abilities like speaking any language and walking on water. Like Remo, David Carridine from Kung Fu, or Iron Fist. And here's where the roleplaying problems start:

1) The monk class is too mystical for martial artists who aren't supposed to get abilities like Empty Body. The Monk poorly serves characters like Batman, Michelangelo, the Bride, Storm Shadow/Snake Eyes, and Black Widow.

2) The monk class isn't tough enough for martial artists who are supposed to go toe-to-toe with raging giants and slavering dragons. As a lot of monk fans point out, you're not supposed to just rush into the enemy frontlines and start wailing on people; you're supposed to dart in and out and use your mobility to nail soft targets and keep yourself out of danger. Not just with boss monsters but also with any monster that's not CR<2 chaff. But a lot of martial artists characters are absolutely supposed to fight like raging barbarians. Can you imagine someone like Master Asia or Kenshiro regularly fighting enemies the way you're supposed to with a monk?

3) The monk class isn't mystical enough for martial artists who do incorporate magic into their close-range combat, like Shao Kahn or Tifa Lockhart or Naruto or M. Bison.

4) The monk doesn't get any abilities that help them out in noncombat until very late into advancement. A lot of martials are unfortunately like that, but it's just makes the monk class even more unsuitable for certain martial artists archetypes. If I want to be Batman, I'd be better off as a rogue or a Swords Bard or even a Knowledge Cleric, because monk definitely isn't going to help me crush investigations. Same for if I want to roleplay being Sokka -- Kensei doesn't help him realize his character in any way other than fighting.

[jaappleton]

I am sorry to say this, but you're outright wrong here.

It only lets you be the stereotypical martial artist of the old kung fu films? That's flat-out wrong.

You can call you Ki whatever you want. You can flavor things however you want to.

If I'm Open Hand, I can easily RP my character as being a boxer or MMA fighter. Patient Defense? I'm biding my time, playing defensively, dodging blows until my opponent leaves an opening for an uppercut.

Doesn't let you play Tifa Lockhart? HOW?! Give her Four Elements and she's got Materia equipped, and Ki is her MP.

All of these things you say can't be done are 1000000% possible. Your imagination is your limitation.

[RSP]

To add on to JA’s post, you also can (assuming using Multiclassing), get those very features you’re missing. Want a Raging Monk? Dip in Barb.

Want Batman? Well I wouldn’t say he’s strictly a monk anyway as, though he’s quite proficient in martial arts, his greatest asset is his mind and investigative ability. I’d say he’s got at least some levels of Inquisitive Rogue.

Likewise with Black Widow and some of the others you mentioned: they often aren’t the best or most powerful combatants, but rather survive and excel on their cleverness.

Either way, the Monk class is fine for what it is. Clearly, no class, Monk included, is going to capture everything everyone wants it to be or thinks it should cover. For instance, blaming the Tempest Cleric for not being everything needed to play as Thor isn’t a complaint that’s particularly relevant, so far as I’m concerned.

I’m not sure why it’s an assumption of yours to begin with: do you feel all the other classes cover all possible instances of what people think they should be, including capturing all fictional characters who could be thought to fall into a particular class; without going beyond what each of those characters would have?

I think you’re just unfairly targeting the Monk here; it works just as well as the other classes in this regard.

[Deathtongue]

I am sorry to say this, but you're outright wrong here.

It only lets you be the stereotypical martial artist of the old kung fu films? That's flat-out wrong.

You can call you Ki whatever you want. You can flavor things however you want to. Uh, no. Flavoring only gets you so far and the monk falls short. If I'm flavoring Batman as a monk, I can't flavor my way into having a good Investigation or Intimidation check. I need Expertise or Reliable Talent or even the Guidance cantrip -- which I can get from Rogue, but I can't from monk.

Or, let's say I'm playing one of those martial artists that are supposed to just smash through the enemy vanguard and break enemies' bones, like Mike Haggar or Scott Pilgrim. How am I supposed to flavor my character using my mobility and patient defense then? How am I supposed to flavor my eight 1d6+4 punches needed to take down an ogre as me being a skull shattering bruiser?


Doesn't let you play Tifa Lockhart? HOW?! Give her Four Elements and she's got Materia equipped, and Ki is her MP.1) Neither Monk or 4E Monk lets her do her more fantastical martial arts like casually kicking walls down or her limit breaks.

2) Tifa can spells that are outside what the 4E monk does. You know, like cure magic.Or barrier magic. Or time magic. And even if we just restrict it to stuff like blasts, 4E Monk hands out goodies like Fly and Wall of Stone way too late in the game. I have to get until level 11 before I can use a Fireball??? 99% of games are over by then, what's even the point?

[Deathtongue]

To add on to JA’s post, you also can (assuming using Multiclassing), get those very features you’re missing. Want a Raging Monk? Dip in Barb.Alternatively, we could get rid of the monk class and just make unarmed strikes auto-level up for martials. Frenzied Berserker gives me all of the tools, roleplaying wise, I need to play bonebreaker martial artists like Marv or Billy Lee EXCEPT for the unarmed strike. I don't even need to do weird multiclasses. Oath of Conquest lets me play Shao Kahn or M. Bison, again no multiclassing required, EXCEPT for the unarmed strike. Same for Rogue and Batman. Or Bladesinger class and Naruto.

[NaughtyTiger]

Uh, no. Flavoring only gets you so far and the monk falls short. If I'm flavoring Batman as a monk, I can't flavor my way into having a good Investigation or Intimidation check. I need Expertise or Reliable Talent or even the Guidance cantrip -- which I can get from Rogue, but I can't from monk.

Or, let's say I'm playing one of those martial artists that are supposed to just smash through the enemy vanguard and break enemies' bones, like Mike Haggar or Scott Pilgrim. How am I supposed to flavor my character using my mobility and patient defense then? How am I supposed to flavor my eight 1d6+4 punches needed to take down an ogre as me being a skull shattering bruiser?

1) Neither Monk or 4E Monk lets her do her more fantastical martial arts like casually kicking walls down or her limit breaks.

2) Tifa can spells that are outside what the 4E monk does. You know, like cure magic.Or barrier magic. Or time magic. And even if we just restrict it to stuff like blasts, 4E Monk hands out goodies like Fly and Wall of Stone way too late in the game. I have to get until level 11 before I can use a Fireball??? 99% of games are over by then, what's even the point?

if you are only doing 1d6 per hit then you aren't a master yet. no reflavoring needed.
reflavor all of your successful attacks as a single hit + stunning strike...
multiclass.
batman isn't a monk. he is a 30th level fighter, artificer, monk, rogue prestige multiclass monstronsity.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Hard disagree. The Roleplaying aspects of the Monk are so good that they're (to me) worth playing a slightly weaker class for.

[MrStabby]

I think that the monk has a problem because its umberella is too large. Too many concepts are under one roof.

We have the armed and the unarmed. We have martial artists - but not those that have studied grappling. We have the scholastic wariror but no intelligence based abilities.

All of our martial artist experience and tropes being smooshed together? There was always going to be some issues. Then you throw in stuff like the 4 elements concept out of wherever they pulled that...


Now some work. Long Death is a cool addition, although as one who studies death I would say that they should be Int based - but whatever.


I think, as with a lot of things, alternative class features is the way to go. Imagine if every controversial point there was a mystical ability and a non mystical ability you could choose between? It would open up interpretations.

Also I wouldn't mind seeing be like the fighter where you chose your primary stat - one of dex and str, one of int or wisdom.



This lets your mechanics match up to the RP aspect that you want.

[RSP]

Alternatively, we could get rid of the monk class and just make unarmed strikes auto-level up for martials. Frenzied Berserker gives me all of the tools, roleplaying wise, I need to play bonebreaker martial artists like Marv or Billy Lee EXCEPT for the unarmed strike. I don't even need to do weird multiclasses. Oath of Conquest lets me play Shao Kahn or M. Bison, again no multiclassing required, EXCEPT for the unarmed strike. Same for Rogue and Batman. Or Bladesinger class and Naruto.

So then you are just picking on the Monk class for some reason as you could just as easily flip it and say barb doesn’t give you what you want to play Marv, or BS doesn’t give me everything you want to play Naruto.

It’s not the Monk class that’s the issue here: it’s your unreasonable expectation that the classes have to cover everything you want (and exclude everything you don’t).

I don’t know how else to say that, but you’re creating the issue you’re having with unrealistic expectations.

[Deathtongue]

if you are only doing 1d6 per hit then you aren't a master yet. no reflavoring needed.Monks have a 1d6 martial arts die until level 10. If you're not a master by the time 95-99% of 5E D&D games end, when are you going to be a master?

[firelistener]

if you are only doing 1d6 per hit then you aren't a master yet. no reflavoring needed.
reflavor all of your successful attacks as a single hit + stunning strike...
multiclass.
batman isn't a monk. he is a 30th level fighter, artificer, monk, rogue prestige multiclass monstronsity.

Agreed. I see comparisons like this all the time. Characters from other stories and such are nearly always fighting regular humans and are super over-powered, so it rarely translates well when talking about how strong someone should be.

[JackPhoenix]

The Monk poorly serves characters like Batman, Michelangelo, the Bride, Storm Shadow/Snake Eyes, and Black Widow.

See, that's the core of the problem. The D&D monk isn't supposed to be the Batman, Michelangello, the Bride, or whatever. It's supposed to be D&D monk. D&D rules exist to make D&D characters, not to attempt to re-create characters from different fiction. You can attempt to create something that feels somewhat similar, but if you want to create superheroes, you should play some sort of superhero RPG. D&D isn't, and doesn't try to be, a system for that kind of thing.

[Deathtongue]

So then you are just picking on the Monk class for some reason as you could just as easily flip it and say barb doesn’t give you what you want to play Marv, or BS doesn’t give me everything you want to play Naruto.The point I was trying to make is that unless I'm playing live-action New Age Kung Fu characters from the 70s-80s, if I was able to get a scaling martials art die somehow I'd realize my character faster and more easily as a Barbarian or a Fighter or a Bladesinger or a Hexblade or a Paladin or a Rogue or even a Ranger. 4E Monk is worse at letting me play Sub-Zero, both in terms of abilities and when I have access to them, than Hexblade with Tavern Brawler and a DM who lets me pick an unarmed strike as a Pact Weapon. Shadow Monk is worse at realizing my vision as a magic ninja like Ryu Hayabusa than Eldritch Knight. And that's for concepts monks could theoretically support. None of the monk classes or subclasses let you play someone like Kenshiro or Shao Kahn, because their intended role goes against how these famous martial artists fight. So on.

That to me is an indication that the Monk class is too narrow in theme and needs a complete rewrite.

[Necrosnoop110]

I think that the monk has a problem because its umberella is too large. Too many concepts are under one roof.
Kinda reminds me of the Warlock in that sense. They both give me the let's throw in "everything but the kitchen sink" build mentality. Surprisingly the 5E Bard doesn't give me that feeling though.

[Deathtongue]

See, that's the core of the problem. The D&D monk isn't supposed to be the Batman, Michelangello, the Bride, or whatever.But if I could play a Rogue that had access to a scaling martial arts die, I COULD play those characters. Same for a bunch of other martial artist archetypes. From a pure roleplaying standpoint, Oath of Conquest has everything in it I need to play Shao Kahn except for a scaling martial arts die. Frenzied Berserker gives me everything I need to play Mike Haggar except for a scaling martial arts die.

[RSP]

The point I was trying to make is that unless I'm playing live-action New Age Kung Fu characters from the 70s-80s, if I was able to get a scaling martials art die somehow I'd realize my character faster and more easily as a Barbarian or a Fighter or a Bladesinger or a Hexblade or a Paladin or a Rogue or even a Ranger. 4E Monk is worse at letting me play Sub-Zero, both in terms of abilities and when I have access to them, than Hexblade with Tavern Brawler and a DM who lets me pick an unarmed strike as a Pact Weapon. Shadow Monk is worse at realizing my vision as a magic ninja like Ryu Hayabusa than Eldritch Knight. And that's for concepts monks could theoretically support. None of the monk classes or subclasses let you play someone like Kenshiro or Shao Kahn, because their intended role goes against how these famous martial artists fight. So on.

That to me is an indication that the Monk class is too narrow in theme and needs a complete rewrite.

And, again, this is a very narrow view that is essentially saying “WotC messed up because I want the Monk to let me play Batman.”

As JackP stated above, that’s not what D&D, or specifically the Monk, is meant to do. Yes, you can mimic some famous characters from various genres of fiction with some (multi)classes, but that’s not the point of the classes or the game. 5e doesn’t even do a great job of mimicking the famous FR Ranger Drizzt D’urdan.

The issue isn’t what the Monk class provides, it’s what you expect the game to do.

I could make the same style argument you are by saying “the Sorcerer class needs to be rewritten because it doesn’t let me play Rand Al Thor: I need meta magic, all spells in the game on the Sorc spell list, 9th level spells, 3 Extra Attacks when taking the Attack Action (for a total of 4 attacks) and maneuvers; because that’s what he can do in the books and D&D needs to have that be an option. It’s ridiculous that WotC put this trash class out that doesn’t do what I want.”

[Deathtongue]

And, again, this is a very narrow view that is essentially saying “WotC messed up because I want the Monk to let me play Batman.”

As JackP stated above, that’s not what D&D, or specifically the Monk, is meant to do. Yes, you can mimic some famous characters from various genres of fiction with some (multi)classes, but that’s not the point of the classes or the game. 5e doesn’t even do a great job of mimicking the famous FR Ranger Drizzt D’urdan.

The issue isn’t what the Monk class provides, it’s what you expect the game to do.Sorry, but this strikes me as an ad hoc excuse. By this logic, there's no reason to make Rogue the 'sneaky scoundrel with a plan' class because D&D is supposed to be its own thing, not a way to realize fantasy archetypes like Aladdin and Grey Mouser. 6E D&D could release a rogue class that didn't have any good skills or sneak attack but got shapeshifting and barrier creation -- and this would be okay by your reasoning.

While D&D has created from scratch its own archetypes that get accepted into broader fiction, D&D largely reflects existing fantasy archetypes at large. That's the way it's been since the 70s.


I could make the same style argument you are by saying “the Sorcerer class needs to be rewritten because it doesn’t let me play Rand Al Thor: I need meta magic, all spells in the game on the Sorc spell list, 9th level spells, 3 Extra Attacks when taking the Attack Action (for a total of 4 attacks) and maneuvers; because that’s what he can do in the books and D&D needs to have that be an option. It’s ridiculous that WotC put this trash class out that doesn’t do what I want.”Please spare me this powergamer strawman. I'm not asking to play Goku, I'm asking to play Black Widow and Daredevil.

[MrStabby]

Kinda reminds me of the Warlock in that sense. They both give me the let's throw in "everything but the kitchen sink" build mentality. Surprisingly the 5E Bard doesn't give me that feeling though.

I think Bard avoids this by having a broad...ish spell list but known spells. The class has everything thrown in, but the resulting character doesn't. Also the subclasses are pretty wildly different so what you build seems a lot more specific than the set of things you could build.

Monk on the other hand is the basin of attraction for a LOT of concepts but with very few things you can actually adjust to tailor it to meet that concept. I mean, in playstyle you are basically going for: be fast to get to vulnerable enemies then hit them to stop them doing stuff and try and stay away from people. Pretty much for every monk ever. A fighter can be using a bow or a battleaxe. Even a paladin will play quite differently if you are going for out and out damage with the biggest weapon you can find vs going for a controlling, tanking cleric.

How robust a class is to having to represent a broad range of characters and tropes is dependent on its ability to be tailored to that. Spell selection is easy. Being able to get full value out of a choice of feats is another.

You mention the warlock - and maybe this is something that might work. Imagine if monk's Ki abilities were like invocations? You pick them up every few levels and pick them from a list to match your concept. The breadth this could bring would mean that the core of the class wouldn't be overburdend as much.

[Bosh]

A lot of D&D classes were originally hella narrow. The oldest version of the paladin class is specifically set up to emulate one specific character in Three Hearts and Three Lions. Same thing for cĺerics, D&D clerics have a weird grab bag of stuff that's a bizarre mix of Van Helsing, Medieval Saints and pagan priests with little representation in fantasy literature.

The thing is D&D has been so popular for so long that that doesn't really matter. At this point the snake has eaten it's tail so many times that the main thing D&D classes are supposed to emulate is D&D classes and that's basically fine.

[Luccan]

A lot of D&D classes were originally hella narrow. The oldest version of the paladin class is specifically set up to emulate one specific character in Three Hearts and Three Lions. Same thing for cĺerics, D&D clerics have a weird grab bag of stuff that's a bizarre mix of Van Helsing, Medieval Saints and pagan priests with little representation in fantasy literature.

The thing is D&D has been so popular for so long that that doesn't really matter. At this point the snake has eaten it's tail so many times that the main thing D&D classes are supposed to emulate is D&D classes and that's basically fine.

Emphasis mine. People make the mistake of assuming anything in D&D is supposed to represent a broad range of fiction, when what it does is borrow from a broad range of fiction and make it its own. While you can play based on fictional characters and other settings, and in many cases it really only requires refluffing rather than new mechanics, D&D is not a generic game like GURPS or Fate.

[MrStabby]

Emphasis mine. People make the mistake of assuming anything in D&D is supposed to represent a broad range of fiction. While you can do that and in many cases it really only requires refluffing rather than new mechanics, D&D is not a generic game like GURPS or Fate.

Whilst this is true, I think it runs the risk of being circular.

If the point being made is that the OP wants a monk character to represent a broader range of characters - be they from D&D or fiction or whatever, suggesting that D&D doesn't do that because that isn't what D&D does is a bit of a sticking point. I am not rying to suggest that you are saying that exactly, you made an observation - thats all, but just that there is a risk it could devolve into something circular.

[Deathtongue]

You mention the warlock - and maybe this is something that might work. Imagine if monk's Ki abilities were like invocations? You pick them up every few levels and pick them from a list to match your concept. The breadth this could bring would mean that the core of the class wouldn't be overburdend as much.That would be a huge improvement. Instead of forcing every monk to pick up New Age mysticism like walking on water or speaking with all creatures or astral projection, monks could just pick abilities that fit their concept. If I wanted to play a monk that could go toe-to-toe with a bruiser monster of my CR like a Barlgura or a Hill Giant, I could do that. If I wanted to play a purely martial monk that focused on joint locks, 'dirty' tricks like eye gouges and groin attacks, and frightening my enemies with my brutality I could also do that. No weird multiclassing silliness required.


A lot of D&D classes were originally hella narrow. The oldest version of the paladin class is specifically set up to emulate one specific character in Three Hearts and Three Lions. Same thing for cĺerics, D&D clerics have a weird grab bag of stuff that's a bizarre mix of Van Helsing, Medieval Saints and pagan priests with little representation in fantasy literature.The Monk has been around almost for as long as the Paladin and Cleric: as in, literally over four decades old. Why hasn't the 5E D&D monk blossomed to cover more fantasy martial artist concepts like the paladin blossomed to cover more driven crusader archetypes?

[Morty]

Don't get me wrong, there needs to be a 'martial artist' class in 5E D&D. It's one of the basic protagonist archetypes; not as basic as 'sneaky scoundrel with a plan' or 'brave and honorable warrior', it's very common and D&D needs to have it in the rules set.

Does there, really? The concept of mystical or supernatural martial arts is certainly an important one, and at some point arguably necessary for some characters. But I'm unconvinced there needs to be a whole class dedicated to it. One with a lot of weird baggage, at that. Unless we're talking about unarmed combat. I'm not sure if this merits a whole class, but it probably deserves one more than mystical martial arts.

Monks are ultimately pretty superfluous and only hanging on because that's how it's done, like barbarians. Or... most classes, really.

[jaappleton]

"I can't perfectly replicate Character X from this form of media, so the class is the problem."

That's what you're saying here.

You will never, ever, under any circumstance, be able to take a character not from D&D and replicate all their powers and abilities perfectly within a tabletop system. Why?

Because it wasn't designed to replicate that character perfectly. Its purposely designed to be a broad system of character creations and abilities, when it gets too precise it becomes too niche.

You can get pretty darn close. You can get the feel of that character. But you can't replicate it 100%. And to expect to be able to is simply asinine.

You want Batman? He's a Monk / Rogue MC, with a nice little homebrew twist of being able to use Unarmed Strikes as Finesse Weapons.

You want Tifa? Sorry she can't break down a wall (Show me where she did that in FFVII again? Where exactly did that happen? When chasing Corneo did she smash her way through a wall instead of opening a door, and I missed that?) in D&D, but show me what class can? What class exactly does replicate her perfectly then, if your opinion? Which one?

Right... because it doesn't exist.

So you go on ahead, and fine a class that encompasses everything Tifa Lockhart is capable of.

Lets go down the list, ok?

She can use the Knights of the Round Materia, right? Ok so that's 13 individual attacks with one turn.
She can use Limit Breaks, so lets give her something that deals roughly 4x her original attack damage.
Due to Materia she can heal, deal elemental damage AoEs, summon, cast Haste, cast Slow, polymorph, cast Time Stop....

So lets go ahead and find that-

Oh, its impossible? Its too much? Yeah I kinda figured that.

[Deathtongue]

People make the mistake of assuming anything in D&D is supposed to represent a broad range of fiction, when what it does is borrow from a broad range of fiction and make it its own.Let's take Exalted for example, which was definitely trying to create a new kind of supernatural martial artist you wouldn't see in fiction like Mortal Kombat or Yu Yu Hakusho or even something as bizarre as Ranma 1/2. I can't find any analog in fiction to what typical Sidereal Martial Artists do, even when martial artists are powerful enough to destroy planets like in Dragonball or Saint Seiya. What exactly was the inspiration for these styles?

And that's why I find this argument disingenuous. The 5E D&D Monk isn't like a Dreaming Pearl Courtesean or Citrine Poxes of Creation Exalted character where there is nothing in fiction like their martial artists. The D&D monk, ever since it was released in the 70s, clearly represents a fictional archetype -- and that's a New Age mystic Occidental martial artist that came out during the heyday of martial arts movies.

[Deathtongue]

Does there, really? The concept of mystical or supernatural martial arts is certainly an important one, and at some point arguably necessary for some characters. But I'm unconvinced there needs to be a whole class dedicated to it. One with a lot of weird baggage, at that.I mean, if there was a way to slap martial arts die onto the other classes I wouldn't even miss the monk. Even if I wanted to play a character that fits the monk class perfectly like Iron Fist. It doesn't do anything that unique either in game mechanics or fluff. If we are going to keep the monk, it needs to be changed so that it covers more concepts than 'New Age Mystic Kung Fu Protagonist from the 70s-80s'.

[Deathtongue]

"I can't perfectly replicate Character X from this form of media, so the class is the problem."

That's what you're saying here.Assuming I gave free scaling martial arts die, what martial artist can I replicate with the monk better than I can with another class?

Batman? Swashbucker Rogue.
Naruto? Bladesinger Wizard.
Mike Haggar? Frenzied Berserker Barbarian.
Black Widow? Assassin Rogue.
Daredevil? The blindsight is problematic, but if I just wanted to keep the 'notices things people with normal vision can't' part, I could be a Scout Rogue with Expertise in Perception and Investigation.
Shao Kahn? Oath of Conquest Paladin.
Ryu Hayabusa? Eldritch Knight Fighter.

So on and so forth. The only exceptions I can think of is Iron Fist and characters like him. Even characters that you think SHOULD be a narratively good fit for the monk class, like Zuko and 4E monk, you get your vision faster by doing something else. Waiting until level 11 before Zuko throws a room-clearing fireball is unacceptable, but if you go Hexblade Warlock you don't have to wait that long.

[Ignimortis]

Assuming I gave free scaling martial arts die, what martial artist can I replicate with the monk better than I can with another class?

Batman? Swashbucker Rogue.
Naruto? Bladesinger Wizard.
Mike Haggar? Frenzied Berserker Barbarian.
Black Widow? Assassin Rogue.
Daredevil? The blindsight is problematic, but if I just wanted to keep the 'notices things people with normal vision can't' part, I could be a Scout Rogue with Expertise in Perception and Investigation.
Shao Kahn? Oath of Conquest Paladin.
Ryu Hayabusa? Eldritch Knight Fighter.

So on and so forth. The only exceptions I can think of is Iron Fist and characters like him. Even characters that you think SHOULD be a narratively good fit for the monk class, like Zuko and 4E monk, you get your vision faster by doing something else. Waiting until level 11 before Zuko throws a room-clearing fireball is unacceptable, but if you go Hexblade Warlock you don't have to wait that long.

I played an animesque gunblade master with Kensei Monk. I needed DEX longsword-adjacent fighting, fast movement (and movement across walls too) and unarmored AC for things to work. I would be able to play it with a different class in 3.5, I suppose, but 5e really didn't have much choice for that.

Edit: I also had 32 passive perception by the end of the campaign, and started out (at level 8) with 23. Wasn't exactly part of the initial concept, but the WIS synergy worked great in that case.

[Unavenger]

I mean, if there was a way to slap martial arts die onto the other classes I wouldn't even miss the monk.

If you're into homebrew, I did make a subclass (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23643159&postcount=5) that staples bits of the monk class, including a worse martial arts die, onto your main class, though I'm not really sure it's what you want either. It does at least let you play full caster monk.

[JackPhoenix]

The Monk has been around almost for as long as the Paladin and Cleric: as in, literally over four decades old. Why hasn't the 5E D&D monk blossomed to cover more fantasy martial artist concepts like the paladin blossomed to cover more driven crusader archetypes?

It did. It just didn't attempted to cover the archetypes YOU want it to cover.

4e monk is a very different character archetype from shadow monk, and both are different from kensei or open hand monk.

[Deathtongue]

It did. It just didn't attempted to cover the archetypes YOU want it to cover.
4e monk is a very different character archetype from shadow monk, and both are different from kensei or open hand monk.Who cares how different it is? How about how much better it covers archetypes than other classes?

The 4E monk covers the concept of elemental martial artists like Sub-Zero or Zuko better than Shadow Monk. But it still does it worse than Hexblade. That's because 4E Monk, due to its base class, gives out abilities that are inappropriate/not useful for realizing the concept of elemental martial artists. What's more, 4E Monk gives out certain elemental abilities way too late to be useful and doesn't give certain ones at all. Elemental warriors should be able to, at the bare minimum of genre emulation, punch someone so that the enemy gets hit with their fist/weapon and the element at the same time. The 4E Monk does not give this ability. But the Hexblade does!

[RSP]

Sorry, but this strikes me as an ad hoc excuse. By this logic, there's no reason to make Rogue the 'sneaky scoundrel with a plan' class because D&D is supposed to be its own thing, not a way to realize fantasy archetypes like Aladdin and Grey Mouser. 6E D&D could release a rogue class that didn't have any good skills or sneak attack but got shapeshifting and barrier creation -- and this would be okay by your reasoning.

While D&D has created from scratch its own archetypes that get accepted into broader fiction, D&D largely reflects existing fantasy archetypes at large. That's the way it's been since the 70s.

That’s right, you can make a “sneaky scoundrel with a plan” without touching the Rogue class. Probably a number of ways you could do it in fact. This statement by you is just more evidence that your perception of the game is the issue here. Nothing says “if you want to play a sneaky (or even roguish character) you have to play the Rogue class.”

Play a fighter and play it as a sneaky scoundrel. Pick up Prodigy if you want to be exceptional at Stealth or Slight of Hands.

Play a Bard that fits that RP theme.

Or play a Rogue, if those are the abilities you want your character to have.

Your perception that the classes have to RP a certain way is just flat out wrong.



Please spare me this powergamer strawman. I'm not asking to play Goku, I'm asking to play Black Widow and Daredevil.

Oddly enough, there’s a decent Monk subclass if you want to play Goku.

What you keep missing in this back and forth is it’s your narrow take on the classes that prevents you from “playing those tropes.”

There’s also a lot of different ways to play Black Widow, though it seems you don’t really want to RP some one like the character of Natasha, but rather you’re hung up on her character only being a female that does martial arts. Really, to RP Black Widow/Natasha you need to RP a very clever person who is amazingly resourceful, is confident in what she can get accomplished whether solo or in a team, etc; none of that has anything to do with any of the 5e classes. But even going with your take of her just being a martial artist, you can play that as a Fighter, a Rogue, a Monk, etc.

Just because the Monk has an ability called “Martial Arts”, doesn’t mean other characters can’t be trained in martial arts.

Depending on what you want out of “playing Daredevil”, there are lots of ways you can accomplish that as well. Again, though, I’m not seeing in your posts a desire to RP a character that acts or thinks like Daredevil, but rather a character that has super power abilities like Daredevil. It’s doable, though, either way.

The point continues to be that your perception of what the classes are, and apparently how you think they need to be role played, is what’s wrong here. It’s not on WotC to change the game so you can play Daredevil.

As another poster pointed out, you’re probably better off going for a Super Hero themed RPG. But even in 5e you can get very close to what you’re looking for, though it’ll involve choices of what abilities you want and what you can live without. If you’re requiring those choices come from specific classes because you think each character needs to be RP’d a certain way, well, yeah, that’ll be a lot more difficult because that’s not anything the game was designed for.

Also, just like all characters, they aren’t going to be super heroes starting at level 1, so you’ll need to plan around what you want earlier and what can wait until later.

Otherwise, though, you sound like the previous “But I want to play Rand Al Thor so there should be a class that gives me all of his abilities” example above.

[MaxWilson]

But if I could play a Rogue that had access to a scaling martial arts die, I COULD play those characters.

Naw, you'd still need the monk's Slow Fall, Extra Attack, and Unarmored + Patient Defense abilities to model Batman, plus a bunch of Artificer levels.

[Deathtongue]

Your perception that the classes have to RP a certain way is just flat out wrong.Classes absolutely have to RP playing a certain way. Doubly so if you want to do something fantastic like shooting fire out of your hands or reading peoples' minds. There's nothing that says your monk ever has to deflect an arrow even given the chance, but you can't just roleplay your character being a tough-as-nails meat mountain who can shrug off hits from a Fire Giant if you're a 10th-level single-classed monk with 14 CON and no magic items.

There's certainly a lot of wiggle room in how to roleplay characters within a class, but at a certain point if it's not on your sheet it's not on your sheet. If you're not a 4E Monk of 17th level or higher, you can't create blocks of stone from nothing to trap your enemies and block attacks. And if your Earth Elemental concept called for launching enemies into the air with pillars that erupted from the ground like Toph, that's just tough cookies.

To me, the big reason that's the case is that the monk locks people into a specific kind of monk. When you play a 4E Monk and pick all of the Air powers, you're not Aang, you're 'Iron Fist with air manipulation powers'. If the 4E (or Shadow Monk, or Open Palm, or whatever) monk gave out abilities key to making the feel of the build realized earlier... it'd make the monk overpowered, because they'd get stuff like shadow magic and Wall of Stone on TOP of stuff like Stillness of Mind and Purity of Body. But then again, most martial artists who aren't Remo or Iron Fist need PoB/SoM. So they're better off picking other classes that give them the abilities that they actually want to use at a reasonable level.

[RSP]

Naw, you'd still need the monk's Slow Fall, Extra Attack, and Unarmored + Patient Defense abilities to model Batman, plus a bunch of Artificer levels.

Isn’t Batman supposed to be the peak of human ability, both physically and as a combatant? Also, “the Worlds Greatest Detective”?

So that’ll mean Fighter for the Extra Attacks and extra ASIs so the character can get their physical ability scores as high as possible. You’ll need high Wisdom, Intelligence and Cha too, so hope you rolled really well. Actually, you probably need max Int as well as Expertise in Investigation, or there will be better detectives in the world.

The character would need Wis, Dex and Con Save proficiency, at a minimum.

Yeah, shame on WotC for not having a class that gets all that.

[Man_Over_Game]

Assuming I gave free scaling martial arts die, what martial artist can I replicate with the monk better than I can with another class?

Batman? Swashbucker Rogue.
Naruto? Bladesinger Wizard.
Mike Haggar? Frenzied Berserker Barbarian.
Black Widow? Assassin Rogue.
Daredevil? The blindsight is problematic, but if I just wanted to keep the 'notices things people with normal vision can't' part, I could be a Scout Rogue with Expertise in Perception and Investigation.
Shao Kahn? Oath of Conquest Paladin.
Ryu Hayabusa? Eldritch Knight Fighter.

So on and so forth. The only exceptions I can think of is Iron Fist and characters like him. Even characters that you think SHOULD be a narratively good fit for the monk class, like Zuko and 4E monk, you get your vision faster by doing something else. Waiting until level 11 before Zuko throws a room-clearing fireball is unacceptable, but if you go Hexblade Warlock you don't have to wait that long.

I think most of these issues stem from how difficult the Monk is to multiclass. Nobody really expects you to be able to turn the Paladin into some kind of mage-knight, yet you can do exactly that with a dip into Sorcerer. You can make a werewolf shaman with a hybrid of Moon Druid + Barbarian. Or make an illusion-based warrior by mixing Coast Druid 3 with Ranger.

But the Monk doesn't use spellcasting, regularly uses his Bonus Action (so most spells that augment a melee combatant are conflicting), is MAD (so you want more Monk levels for more stats), and it scales heavily with level (so you want fewer levels out of Monk). Not to mention that most classes you'd invest in provide useless armor and weapon proficiencies for their low level benefits (Cleric, Fighter), or are difficult to build around (Barbarian). Even Rogue has some issues considering monk weapons/unarmed strikes don't inherently gain Finesse for Sneak Attack.

There are no multiclassing options that don't have an issue with action economy, splitting your resources, or having some kind of major stat deficiency.

But at the same time, we wouldn't want a monk class that used spell slots. I think a good compromise would have been to just have a conversion rate between Ki and spell slots, similar to how Sorcery Points are used. Or at least, provide something like that as a subclass.

[RSP]

And if your Earth Elemental concept called for launching enemies into the air with pillars that erupted from the ground like Toph, that's just tough cookies.

Damn those Wizards of the Coast for not making a class that can do this very specific thing! Clearly they ruined the Monk!!

[NaughtyTiger]

Classes absolutely have to RP playing a certain way.

Absolutely not.
Classes are stat modifiers and features.
Races are stat modifiers and features.
Background are character traits and features.
The character is you, roleplaying the character you want to roleplay.



unrelated, but 4e monk is a freaking great platform for Kratos from GoW...

[Deathtongue]

Naw, you'd still need the monk's Slow Fall, Extra Attack, and Unarmored + Patient Defense abilities to model Batman, plus a bunch of Artificer levels.

1) Outside of high-level JLA adventures, Batman doesn't need the fantastical gadgets that Artificer gives. He needs things like Grappling Hook Pistols, sleeping pellets, caltrops, and smoke grenades. Which in any other edition would be available to any kind of class by now, but 5E D&D is really stingy with creating new weapons or gear. That Batman in August of 2020 would need Artificer levels to have those things is a quirk of 5E D&D's project management, not of the base class.

2) Batman is honestly hurt much more in the conceptual department by not having rogue staples like Expertise, Reliable Talent, and Cunning Talent than he is by not having Slow Fall/Unarmored + Patient Defense/Extra Attack. If he lacks the latter, he loses some of his ability to fight hordes of goons in open combat, which is not good but not fatal for the concept. If he lacks the former, he's no longer the World's Greatest Detective.

Like, I would not be completely happy if I wanted to play Batman and had to play a single-classed Swashbuckler Rogue. It's still way too frail for the Batman feel even if you do things to patch it up. But being a monk is a non-starter. I get nothing that helps me be a detective from that class, my dream is doomed from the start.

[Deathtongue]

Damn those Wizards of the Coast for not making a class that can do this very specific thing! Clearly they ruined the Monk!!Don't worry, not all hope is lost. If I instead play, say, a Bladesinger or Swords Bard I could realize my character concept at level 9/10 instead of level 17. Is it ideal? Hell no. Bladesinger/Swords Bard comes with a bunch of other baggage that is not really appropriate for the Toph character.

But it's the difference between getting to play the character with some admittedly major compromises and not getting to play the character at all.

[Deathtongue]

Absolutely not.
unrelated, but 4e monk is a freaking great platform for Kratos from GoW...He's not, though. Kratos is a supernaturally strong berserker who tears into foes with a variety of weapons. Monk fails to provide the supernaturally strong part, the berserker part, and (even with Kensei) the variety of weapons part.

This is why I'm puzzled by you saying 'absolutely not' when I say that your roleplay is restricted by your class. No amount of roleplay will allow your monk to spear a Hydra through their head and impale them with a broken mast. And, yeah, that kind of thing is dicey even with a Frenzied Berserker, but that imagery CONCEPTUALLY fits the class even if the numbers aren't there. That imagery DOES NOT fit the monk, unless you're just ignoring the rules.

[NaughtyTiger]

He's not, though. Kratos is a supernaturally strong berserker who tears into foes with a variety of weapons. Monk fails to provide the supernaturally strong part, the berserker part, and (even with Kensei) the variety of weapons part.

This is why I'm puzzled by you saying 'absolutely not' when I say that your roleplay is restricted by your class. No amount of roleplay will allow your monk to spear a Hydra through their head and impale them with a broken mast. And, yeah, that kind of thing is dicey even with a Frenzied Berserker, but that imagery CONCEPTUALLY fits the class even if the numbers aren't there. That imagery DOES NOT fit the monk, unless you're just ignoring the rules.

No class makes you supernaturally strong. even barbarian fails the supernatural. but a commoner can carry 150lb all day like it's nothing, and a halfling wizard can carry 1.5 tons all day
kratos uses 3 weapons, all of which can modeled with reflavoring 4e abilites.
not sure how you define berserker, but knocking out 4 opponents in 1 round fits the bill for me.

if you are unable to imagine a powerful world rending monk, that's on you. if you need an official WotC writer to create that imagery FOR you, that's on you.

[Unoriginal]

D&D 5e is D&D 5e, not anything else.

No Rogue will ever be the Grey Mouser, or Jack Sparrow, or Batman.

No Wizard will ever be Doctor Strange, or Rhialto the Marvellous, or Harry Potter.

No Bard will ever be Orpheus, or Väinämöinen, or Edward Chris von Muir.

And no Monk will be Black Widow, or Ip Man, or Aang.


Saying "Naruto would be a Bladesinger Wizard with scaling unarmed damage dice" is ignoring all the other things a Bladesinger Wizard can do that Naruto can't, and the reverse.


Inspiration is neither translation nor adaptation, and certainly not representation. D&D took characters as inspirations, and made it its own archetypes, and then more than 30 years of changes and reflections were applied to said archetypes. It's not because the D&D 5e Monk's capacities are close to the ones of a 70's Kung Fu movie's hero than the ones of the Sidereal Exalted that the Monk is supposed to be a 70's Kung Fu movie's hero.

Saying "the D&D 5e Monk is problematic because it doesn't represent any character except [X]" is just as disingenuous as saying "the D&D 5e Barbarian is problematic because it doesn't represent the Hulk", or "the D&D 5e spellcasters are problematic because none of them can replicate Lord Voldemort's capacities"

[Man_Over_Game]

unrelated, but 4e monk is a freaking great platform for Kratos from GoW...


He's not, though. Kratos is a supernaturally strong berserker who tears into foes with a variety of weapons. Monk fails to provide the supernaturally strong part, the berserker part, and (even with Kensei) the variety of weapons part.

Small correction on that:

Tiger Claw Master is a Monk Path (think subclass) that uses Strength to rip your enemies apart with your bare hands (bear hands?). On top of that, the Monk in 4e is inherently an extremely mobile combatant that is unique in that he fights as well using almost any weapon type (which was a big deal in 4e).

So I agree with NaughtyTiger on this: 4e Monk would have made an excellent Kratos.

[Zalabim]

Looks like I still need to spread the message that the masked vigilante with a belt full of utilities that tracks down criminals to protect a particular city for the more or less grateful masses translates most closely to D&D's ranger. Favored enemy: humanoids. Favored terrain: Jungle (urban). The spell component pouch is clearly a utility belt.



There's certainly a lot of wiggle room in how to roleplay characters within a class, but at a certain point if it's not on your sheet it's not on your sheet. If you're not a 4E Monk of 17th level or higher, you can't create blocks of stone from nothing to trap your enemies and block attacks. And if your Earth Elemental concept called for launching enemies into the air with pillars that erupted from the ground like Toph, that's just tough cookies.
You can't create blocks of stone (like for platforms and cover), but you can trap your enemies (stunning strike/hold Person) and block attacks (patient defense/deflect missiles/unarmored defense). You can't make pillars of stone to clutter the battlefiled, but if you did launch enemies into the air they would fall back down and take damage, meaning they land prone. That's Fist of Unbroken Air. Four elements can certainly be done better, but there are some problems that are just failures of imagination.

[NaughtyTiger]

Small correction on that:

Tiger Claw Master is a Monk Path (think subclass) that uses Strength to rip your enemies apart with your bare hands (bear hands?). On top of that, the Monk in 4e is inherently an extremely mobile combatant that is unique in that he fights as well using almost any weapon type (which was a big deal in 4e).

So I agree with NaughtyTiger on this: 4e Monk would have made an excellent Kratos.


oops, i meant 4 elements monk. fangs of the fire snake

[Deathtongue]

Looks like I still need to spread the message that the masked vigilante with a belt full of utilities that tracks down criminals to protect a particular city for the more or less grateful masses translates most closely to D&D's ranger. Favored enemy: humanoids. Favored terrain: Jungle (urban). The spell component pouch is clearly a utility belt.Fair enough. I think not having Expertise or Reliable Talent really hurts the World's Greatest Detective at his title, but if you can get that some other way I could live with it.


You can't create blocks of stone (like for platforms and cover),I'm sorry to cut you off here, but there was no point in going through the rest of your refluffing exercise. Creating blocks of earth, either from thin air or from existing earth, is THE fundamental thing in an earth elementalist's toolset. Tremor, Terra, Toph, Kwame, and sorta-Earth Elementalist characters like Edward Elrich do this. If you CAN'T do this then your character concept can't be realized. It's like having a fire manipulator who can do everything but throw fireballs. It's like having an Iron Fist who can do everything (ki manipulation, super speed and toughness, disrupt people's chakra, fire energy blasts) but punch and kick someone. Your concept is doomed from the start, try something else.

[Deathtongue]

No class makes you supernaturally strong. even barbarian fails the supernatural. but a commoner can carry 150lb all day like it's nothing, and a halfling wizard can carry 1.5 tons all dayLook, if someone was playing a 10th-level Frenzied Berserker at a table and asked if they could do some of Kratos' amazing feats of strength like impale a hydra through a ship's mast or kick over a stone statue or throw a minotaur three stories upwards, I'd let them do it even if the numbers didn't quite match up. It fits the concept, it's more of a problem with the rules than anything.

But if you're a 10th-level 10-STR Monk asking if you can pick up and throw a minotaur like a baseball at a titan's eye, I'd first ask if you had some sort of ability or magic item that would let you do that. If you had something like that (perhaps you're a Goliath Monk with a Belt of Fire Giant strength?) I'd make it happen. But if you didn't have it, I wouldn't let you do it.

I don't think I have a minority opinion, which is why I'm puzzled why you think 4E Monk makes a good Kratos. Yeah, you get Blades of Chaos with your water whips, but... I'd rather have the super-strength and super-athletics and try to find a way to get a weapon like Blades of Chaos. Or even just settle for using the Blade of Olympus.

[NaughtyTiger]

Looks like I still need to spread the message that the masked vigilante with a belt full of utilities that tracks down criminals to protect a particular city for the more or less grateful masses translates most closely to D&D's ranger. Favored enemy: humanoids. Favored terrain: Jungle (urban). The spell component pouch is clearly a utility belt.


You can't create blocks of stone (like for platforms and cover), but you can trap your enemies (stunning strike/hold Person) and block attacks (patient defense/deflect missiles/unarmored defense). You can't make pillars of stone to clutter the battlefiled, but if you did launch enemies into the air they would fall back down and take damage, meaning they land prone. That's Fist of Unbroken Air. Four elements can certainly be done better, but there are some problems that are just failures of imagination.

1... ranger.. good call

2... you can easily create blocks of stone by reflavoring clench of the north wind. this is encouraged by the PHB. hell this is perfectly legal in Adventurers League.

[Willie the Duck]

I think that the monk has a problem because its umberella is too large. Too many concepts are under one roof.
We have the armed and the unarmed. We have martial artists - but not those that have studied grappling. We have the scholastic wariror but no intelligence based abilities.
All of our martial artist experience and tropes being smooshed together? There was always going to be some issues.

This is definitely the place where the OP has a point. The D&D monk was designed by someone (Brian Blume) who got the idea from the Kung Fu TV show, The Destroyer series of novels, and whatever Saturday afternoon Kung Fu theater movies his local TV station showed. It hits that concept best, and other concepts have only very slowly trickled in (The Last Airbender-style martial artists only showing up with 4 elements monks, for example). Is that a problem? Well, I'd certainly say that, were the monk not to be able to fill a role (nearly) everyone agrees belongs under the monk's purview more than any other class, than certainly the monk should be opened up to capture that*.
*At the same level of fidelity as (ex.) D&D wizards capture playing a fantasy wizard, or fighters capture playing a knight, etc.

Now, as others have pointed out, that doesn't mean that a D&D monk should be able to (very well) do anything anyone would expect of a monk. As you point out, that catchment is simply too vast. Plus there is massive overlap with all the other classes (who are themselves gamist constructs that only partially capture a specific thing within non-D&D fantasy conception).


The thing is D&D has been so popular for so long that that doesn't really matter. At this point the snake has eaten it's tail so many times that the main thing D&D classes are supposed to emulate is D&D classes and that's basically fine.

I don't know if I agree. Paladins, clerics, and rangers (and all the rest of the D&D collector series) at least always had a well-understood place within D&D. Monks (/mystics, if we include the BECMI interpretation) have been fighting for a place in the game since they were conceived. I think the issue the OP has is that the boundaries of the D&D monk are not necessarily that well defined. I can understand why ninja-alikes like Black Widow would come to mind for the OP.

[NaughtyTiger]

Look, if someone was playing a 18-STR 10th-level Frenzied Berserker at a table and asked if they could do some of Kratos' amazing feats of strength like impale a hydra through a ship's mast or kick over a stone statue or throw a minotaur three stories upwards, I'd let them do it even if the numbers didn't quite match up.

But if you're a 10th-level 18-STR Monk asking if you can pick up and throw a minotaur like a baseball at a titan's eye,

fixed it for you.

clearly you wouldn't let a 10-str barb do it either... but for some reason YOU assume monks are weak. bruce lee was muscle. goku, batman, black widow are depicted with muscle and abs...

if YOU decide that an 18-str barb can do something that an 18-str wizard can't then YOU aren't roleplaying, you are houseruling against a player that IS roleplaying.

[Deathtongue]

fixed it for you.

clearly you wouldn't let a 10-str barb do it either... but for some reason YOU assume monks are weak. bruce lee was muscle. goku, batman, black widow are depicted with muscle and abs...If someone had a 10th-level monk with 20 or even 18 STR I'd definitely at least allow them to TRY throwing a minotaur three stories up throw a window even if the rules say 'no way'. I've never seen such a monk that wasn't using a Belt of Giant Strength though.

Do note that most DMs wouldn't even let you make the attempt, even with a 25 STR Frenzied Berserker. Something to think about if you think I'm being too strict.

[Deathtongue]

2... you can easily create blocks of stone by reflavoring clench of the north wind. this is encouraged by the PHB. hell this is perfectly legal in Adventurers League.This is an instance of refluffing going too far. Say you allowed Clench of the North Wind as entrapping people in stone. Okay then:

1) If I wanted to use the person as a stepping stone, would you let me? What if this wasn't a human, but an elk? I don't care about the Hold Person, I just want the block of rock to step on. Would you let me? Would it draw an OA?

2) What if what I wanted to do was block the hallway with a giant block of stone? Would you say that other orcs coming through the hallway had to squeeze past their stone-covered comrade to get through?

3) If I killed someone while they were paralyzed by Clench of the North Wind, would you let me say that the stone covering persisted and I could turn them to a statue? Or I could use the leftover soil in some other way?

So on and so forth. I'm pretty liberal with allowing refluffing and rules breaking as a DM, see my 'throw a Minotaur like a baseball example', but fluffing your Hold Person as creating actual blocks of stone is going way too far.

[Zalabim]

I'm sorry to cut you off here, but there was no point in going through the rest of your refluffing exercise. Creating blocks of earth, either from thin air or from existing earth, is THE fundamental thing in an earth elementalist's toolset.
That's what Elemental Attunement is for. It can't create blocks, just move them, and they're just handhold and "earthen bump" sized, instead of something that can be used as a barrier or a ledge, because it's a cantrip.

[RSP]

I don't think I have a minority opinion...

You do. It’s why everyone else is posting and telling you as such.


Don't worry, not all hope is lost. If I instead play, say, a Bladesinger or Swords Bard I could realize my character concept at level 9/10 instead of level 17.

Just curious, how is a level 9 Bladesinger creating pillars of earth to launch enemies into the air?

[Unoriginal]

*At the same level of fidelity as (ex.) D&D wizards capture playing a fantasy wizard, or fighters capture playing a knight, etc.

D&D 5e Wizards do not capture playing a "fantasy wizard", they capture playing a D&D 5e Wizards. And the D&D 5e Fighter does not capture any specific knight in any specific work or generic concepts aside from the D&D 5e Fighter.

Most knights in modern fiction (including past D&D editions' books), historical accounts or old legends don't have the capacity to act very fast once between each rests or the one to survive touching lava at high level.

[Deathtongue]

That's what Elemental Attunement is for. It can't create blocks, just move them, and they're just handhold and "earthen bump" sized, instead of something that can be used as a barrier or a ledge, because it's a cantrip.??? The blocks you make from Elemental Attunement are 1-foot cubes. Do you know how small that is? That's not even enough for a footstool. Now, Mold Earth? Now we're talking. It's not super-useful in combat, but you at least get it as early as level 1.


Just curious, how is a level 9 Bladesinger creating pillars of earth to launch enemies into the air?Sorry, I misread Wall of Stone, you're not allowed to move people vertically when forming the wall. But that's what I was thinking of.


You do. It’s why everyone else is posting and telling you as such.Please don't take my words out of context. The context for what you were quoting was 'if you want to do something fantastical, you either need to point to a rule or exception that lets you do that or you need to give me a good in-genre reason'. And that's not a minority opinion. Most DMs are not going to let you throw capital-F Fireballs as a level 7 4E Monk, even if you took the other Fire powers. And most DMs aren't to let you do Kratos's feats of strength unless you have a damn good strength score. Many of them wouldn't even let a Monk with a Belt of Fire Giant Strength throw a Minotaur three stories up, even though I would.

[Deathtongue]

D&D 5e Wizards do not capture playing a "fantasy wizard", they capture playing a D&D 5e Wizards.You're equivocating with "fantasy wizard" and "capture" here. Fantasy wizards like Gandalf and Dumbledore and Yen Sid and Moochick do things not captured by the class, but they tend to be things you can just make up with roleplay. The Wizard Class doesn't give you the administrative capabilities of Dumbledore or a secluded tower or an apprentice, but the wizard class with the right background selection gets you 95% of the way there of playing a fantasy wizard. Especially if you give it a few levels.

Generally, I'm satisfied if a class can get you 75% of the way there by level 7-8. Sometimes I'll have to make some serious compromises, like with Batman, and sometimes I'll just have to accept I can't really play the character, like Toph. But Monk often doesn't even get you 50% of the way there for most fictional martial artists. And when it does, usually another class will get you even closer. The only persistent exception is if you want to play a New Age Mystic Kung Fu Master like Remo or Iron Fist. Because that's what the base monk class does! It forces you to pick up New Age Mystic and/or Kung Fu Faster abilities no matter what kind of martial artist you want to roleplay.

[NaughtyTiger]

At this point I am bowing out.

Deaftongue has stated that he views the genre/imagery of a class as absolute.
He stated that the 12 different characters he called out SHOULD be monks, even though other classes or multiclassing would fill out the concept better.
I have played Hellboy, Kratos, and Toph inspired characters with various amounts of refluffing. No DM or other player was disturbed by the class choices and roleplay.

He is not interested in changing his mind nor mine, he is not looking for advice, and he is not offering any insight.

I have nothing to offer or learn here.

[Unoriginal]

Sorry to say, Deathtongue, but your reasoning is basically reaching the "Gandalf is a 5th level Wizard" level, if from the other side.


The only answer to the question "how do I make Toph in D&D 5e" is "you can't". This is not a failure of D&D 5e as it never pretended or presumed it could.


A more detailed answer would be "you can't, as D&D 5e can't emulate the capacities she's shown to have in the series she's from, but you can do something that is inspired by her, even said character's powers will be far different from Toph's."

[Willie the Duck]

D&D 5e Wizards do not capture playing a "fantasy wizard", they capture playing a D&D 5e Wizards. And the D&D 5e Fighter does not capture any specific knight in any specific work or generic concepts aside from the D&D 5e Fighter.

Most knights in modern fiction (including past D&D editions' books), historical accounts or old legends don't have the capacity to act very fast once between each rests or the one to survive touching lava at high level.

That is literally the point of that aside. We should not hold any theoretical monk up to a higher standard than the rest of the game.

[MaxWilson]

1) Outside of high-level JLA adventures, Batman doesn't need the fantastical gadgets that Artificer gives. He needs things like Grappling Hook Pistols, sleeping pellets, caltrops, and smoke grenades. Which in any other edition would be available to any kind of class by now, but 5E D&D is really stingy with creating new weapons or gear. That Batman in August of 2020 would need Artificer levels to have those things is a quirk of 5E D&D's project management, not of the base class.

2) Batman is honestly hurt much more in the conceptual department by not having rogue staples like Expertise, Reliable Talent, and Cunning Talent than he is by not having Slow Fall/Unarmored + Patient Defense/Extra Attack. If he lacks the latter, he loses some of his ability to fight hordes of goons in open combat, which is not good but not fatal for the concept. If he lacks the former, he's no longer the World's Greatest Detective.

Like, I would not be completely happy if I wanted to play Batman and had to play a single-classed Swashbuckler Rogue. It's still way too frail for the Batman feel even if you do things to patch it up. But being a monk is a non-starter. I get nothing that helps me be a detective from that class, my dream is doomed from the start.

Interesting. If I were willing to refluff I'd be fine playing Matban as a high-Int Observant Shadow Monk. Grappling Hook = Shadow Jump or wall running, excellent at armed and unarmed combat, Cloak of Shadows + PWT for Stealth, can survive explosions without a scratch, skilled in armed and unarmed combat, including while wearing a suit and tie at a party, Observant for picking up clues, Thieves' Tools + high Dex to deal with locks, Stunning Strike to win fights against the Joker when we've both kicked each other's weapons off the edge of the building, Slow Fall for all the times I throw myself off a building (practically every movie). Maybe Prodigy at some point if I need some Expertise but maxing my bonuses seems less core to the concept than versatility and stealth.

Seems like a good match. If I switched to Rogue or Fighter, ew, I'd have to wear body armor everywhere and carry backup daggers so I'm never unarmed. Observant Shadow Monk is better.

[Unoriginal]

That is literally the point of that aside. We should not hold any theoretical monk up to a higher standard than the rest of the game.

Then we are in agreement, and I apologize for not getting your meaning in your previous post.


You're equivocating with "fantasy wizard" and "capture" here. Fantasy wizards like Gandalf and Dumbledore and Yen Sid and Moochick do things not captured by the class, but they tend to be things you can just make up with roleplay. The Wizard Class doesn't give you the administrative capabilities of Dumbledore or a secluded tower or an apprentice, but the wizard class with the right background selection gets you 95% of the way there of playing a fantasy wizard. Especially if you give it a few levels.

Generally, I'm satisfied if a class can get you 75% of the way there by level 7-8. Sometimes I'll have to make some serious compromises, like with Batman, and sometimes I'll just have to accept I can't really play the character, like Toph. But Monk often doesn't even get you 50% of the way there for most fictional martial artists. And when it does, usually another class will get you even closer. The only persistent exception is if you want to play a New Age Mystic Kung Fu Master like Remo or Iron Fist. Because that's what the base monk class does! It forces you to pick up New Age Mystic and/or Kung Fu Faster abilities no matter what kind of martial artist you want to roleplay.

This is double standards.

Dumbledore can teleport at will, turn himself basically invisible at will, conjures hundreds of sleeping bags at will, animate half a dozen larger-than-human golden statues in an instant, scan people's memories at will, and stun people for at least minutes with one single ray attack at will. That is only a fraction of the powers he has displayed.

How does the D&D 5e Wizard captures that?

[MaxWilson]

This is double standards.

Dumbledore can teleport at will, turn himself basically invisible at will, conjures hundreds of sleeping bags at will, animate half a dozen larger-than-human golden statues in an instant, scan people's memories at will, and stun people for at least minutes with one single ray attack at will. That is only a fraction of the powers he has displayed.

How does the D&D 5e Wizard captures that?

Let's not forget that Dumbledore's detective capabilities put Batman's to shame thanks to time travel, divinations, and mind reading... which means Matban should focus on other parts of Batman's portfolio if he's in a world of Not Quite Dumbledores.

[Zalabim]

??? The blocks you make from Elemental Attunement are 1-foot cubes. Do you know how small that is? That's not even enough for a footstool. Now, Mold Earth? Now we're talking. It's not super-useful in combat, but you at least get it as early as level 1.
Elemental Attunement says: "Cause earth, fire, water, or mist that can fit within a 1-foot cube to shape itself into a crude form you designate for 1 minute." The volume of material you have to work with is 1 cubic foot, but the form may be allowed out of that area. I think that can make a very sturdy little stepladder, if that's what you want. (A 18.5"L x 15.5"W x 3"T platform, 21" tall footstool would allow four 3" diameter legs.) It would also be enough to make a 4'x1' (or 2'x2') ledge of the same 3" thickness as the thinner wall of stone platforms. You could use those, or parts of those, to make climbing a stone cliff trivial. Elemental Attunement can do a lot if you use forms somewhat more refined than "solid block of stone."

Mold Earth says: "You cause shapes, colors, or both to appear on the dirt or stone, spelling out words, creating images, or shaping patterns. The changes last for 1 hour." Mold Earth can't make a footstool. It has to settle for piling up dirt. It arguably can't even make a ladder out of a stone cliff face, and if it did, you'd have to dismiss the 5' square behind you to make the next 5' square in front of you, so it'd be a very lonely ladder.

[/Totally tangent]

[RSP]

Sorry, I misread Wall of Stone, you're not allowed to move people vertically when forming the wall. But that's what I was thinking of.

So we’re right back to my first posts: it’s not that the Monk is a flawed class, it’s that none of the 5e classes are made to emulate what you specifically want (and for some odd reason you want to take that frustration out on the Monk). The classes aren’t flawed: what you want/expect them to be able to do is flawed.

D&D is not trying to emulate XMen, Avengers, Anime or whatever else you might want to play next game, so bashing aspects of the game because it’s not doing that is going to be a pointless endeavor.

[Morty]

Assuming I gave free scaling martial arts die, what martial artist can I replicate with the monk better than I can with another class?

Batman? Swashbucker Rogue.
Naruto? Bladesinger Wizard.
Mike Haggar? Frenzied Berserker Barbarian.
Black Widow? Assassin Rogue.
Daredevil? The blindsight is problematic, but if I just wanted to keep the 'notices things people with normal vision can't' part, I could be a Scout Rogue with Expertise in Perception and Investigation.
Shao Kahn? Oath of Conquest Paladin.
Ryu Hayabusa? Eldritch Knight Fighter.

So on and so forth. The only exceptions I can think of is Iron Fist and characters like him. Even characters that you think SHOULD be a narratively good fit for the monk class, like Zuko and 4E monk, you get your vision faster by doing something else. Waiting until level 11 before Zuko throws a room-clearing fireball is unacceptable, but if you go Hexblade Warlock you don't have to wait that long.

This kind of gets into the central problem of the system, rather than just the monk, namely that if you want to do something cool and interesting you probably want to cast some spells.

[MaxWilson]

Elemental Attunement says: "Cause earth, fire, water, or mist that can fit within a 1-foot cube to shape itself into a crude form you designate for 1 minute." The volume of material you have to work with is 1 cubic foot, but the form may be allowed out of that area.

Hmmm. Nice find!


So we’re right back to my first posts: it’s not that the Monk is a flawed class, it’s that none of the 5e classes are made to emulate what you specifically want (and for some odd reason you want to take that frustration out on the Monk). The classes aren’t flawed: what you want/expect them to be able to do is flawed.

D&D is not trying to emulate XMen, Avengers, Anime or whatever else you might want to play next game, so bashing aspects of the game because it’s not doing that is going to be a pointless endeavor.

I think the "character inspired by fictional character" thing is useful, but more for roleplaying and enjoyment than replicating mechanics. What I'm trying to say is that certain abilities (e.g. a Goliath shrugging off d12+Con damage as a reaction) may be unexciting mechanically, but when you map them onto the fiction layer they can seem "cool", especially if it reminds you of something that would be done by a fictional character you like. "My Goliath just looks down at the crossbow bolt sticking out of his chest, then back up at the bartender, and says without changing expression, 'I need your clothes, your boots, and your flying carpet.'"

When it comes to monks, a monk may not be able to replicate everything Batman does, but realizing that you can jump off buildings like Batman and catch bullets (as well as crossbow bolts) like the Flash and survive explosions unharmed like the Last Action Hero can definitely make Slow Fall/Deflect Missiles/Evasion feel cooler and more fun. But I agree that you're not replicating a whole character from another game system, you're just realizing that you can replicate certain Crowning Moments of Awesome, and it's mostly only fun with actual live human beings at the table--this isn't the kind of fun that can really be had during Internet discussions (IMO).

Also it's more fun if you don't tell anyone that you're emulating a character from another genre. (In the same way that it's more fun as a DM if you don't tell the players which actor you're doing an impression of for a given NPC. If your Sean Connery is so bad as to be unrecognizable, it doesn't matter! and if it's so excellent that the players recognize Connery immediately, that's even better.)

[Wizard_Lizard]

1) The monk class is too mystical for martial artists who aren't supposed to get abilities like Empty Body. The Monk poorly serves characters like Batman, Michelangelo, the Bride, Storm Shadow/Snake Eyes, and Black Widow.

Batman and Black widow fit better a rogue, I think, with the skills utility and expertise and whatever. Don't know enough about the others to make comment though .


2) The monk class isn't tough enough for martial artists who are supposed to go toe-to-toe with raging giants and slavering dragons. As a lot of monk fans point out, you're not supposed to just rush into the enemy frontlines and start wailing on people; you're supposed to dart in and out and use your mobility to nail soft targets and keep yourself out of danger. Not just with boss monsters but also with any monster that's not CR<2 chaff. But a lot of martial artists characters are absolutely supposed to fight like raging barbarians. Can you imagine someone like Master Asia or Kenshiro regularly fighting enemies the way you're supposed to with a monk?

I mean you could put all of your several attacks against a single target, or play a rogue who is hard to hit and does lots of damage to a single target if you don't want to play a reflavoured barbarian.


3) The monk class isn't mystical enough for martial artists who do incorporate magic into their close-range combat, like Shao Kahn or Tifa Lockhart or Naruto or M. Bison.


So it is both too mystical and not enough? I think monk has enough mysticism for what it is. I don't really know enough about your examples though.


4) The monk doesn't get any abilities that help them out in noncombat until very late into advancement. A lot of martials are unfortunately like that, but it's just makes the monk class even more unsuitable for certain martial artists archetypes. If I want to be Batman, I'd be better off as a rogue or a Swords Bard or even a Knowledge Cleric, because monk definitely isn't going to help me crush investigations. Same for if I want to roleplay being Sokka -- Kensei doesn't help him realize his character in any way other than fighting.

That is because batman isn't a monk! A rogue fits a LOT better for him. If you want big brain investigations, play a ROGUE.

Conclusion. Play a rogue! :smallbiggrin:

[Bosh]

WRT the various comic book characters they mainly use martial arts because of various bits of censorship that comic books were bound by for decades. That persisted so long that it's become a genre convention. But comic book hero genre conventions port over badly to fantasy and don't really match.

One instance of that is "punches guys" covers a massive massive range of comic book characters, more than any one class can hope to cover. If I was porting them over to D&D I'd jettison the "punches guys" aspect of most of them and just give them some swords or whatever. Except for guys like Iron Fist most comic book characters would make more sense with a weapon in D&D.

That doesn't mean the monk class doesn't have problems. The 4e monk is a big ball of fail that if redone with good mechanics could cover a lot of AtLA characters etc. pretty well while in it's current incarnation it just doesn't.

[MaxWilson]

That doesn't mean the monk class doesn't have problems. The 4e monk is a big ball of fail that if redone with good mechanics could cover a lot of AtLA characters etc. pretty well while in it's current incarnation it just doesn't.

When I see people make this claim it makes me want to run a sim examining the relative performance of (3 Fighters and a healer) vs. (3 Elemental Monks and a healer) through an adventuring day full of beefy monsters, both big tough solos and mobs. My experience has been that Elemental Monks are actually just fine after level 11, and even before that they're not terrible.

When your 3 monks and a healer are fighting 3 or fewer bad guys (beholders, mind flayers, giants) you dominate them with mobility/stunning/etc. When they are fighting dozens and dozens of bad guys (githyanki, orogs) you Fireball them to death.

It would be fun to put numbers on the results, and show for example whether the Fighters or the Monks have a better chance of surviving an army of Orogs, or a squad of mind flayers backed up by goblin archers, and who finishes the adventure in the least time with the fewest rests.

[Unoriginal]

Let's not forget that Dumbledore's detective capabilities put Batman's to shame thanks to time travel, divinations, and mind reading... which means Matban should focus on other parts of Batman's portfolio if he's in a world of Not Quite Dumbledores.

Good points.


When I see people make this claim it makes me want to run a sim examining the relative performance of (3 Fighters and a healer) vs. (3 Elemental Monks and a healer) through an adventuring day full of beefy monsters, both big tough solos and mobs. My experience has been that Elemental Monks are actually just fine after level 11, and even before that they're not terrible.

When your 3 monks and a healer are fighting 3 or fewer bad guys (beholders, mind flayers, giants) you dominate them with mobility/stunning/etc. When they are fighting dozens and dozens of bad guys (githyanki, orogs) you Fireball them to death.

It would be fun to put numbers on the results, and show for example whether the Fighters or the Monks have a better chance of surviving an army of Orogs, or a squad of mind flayers backed up by goblin archers, and who finishes the adventure in the least time with the fewest rests.

People tend to really overlook the Monk's effectiveness as it is based on factors that are much harder to casually calculate than what showcases the power of other classes. And that's before any subclasses get taken into account.

IMO the 4 Elements Monk's only actual (minor) problem is that the powers that allow them to cast spells are relatively ki-expensive compared to what they can do.

[MaxWilson]

IMO the 4 Elements Monk's only actual (minor) problem is that the powers that allow them to cast spells are relatively ki-expensive compared to what they can do.

I essentially agree, which is why I always call out level 11, as that is the first point at which the Elemental Monk starts getting a discount on spells, relative to a sorcerer.

It definitely wouldn't hurt them to have a greater variety of disciplines or more disciplines to choose from, and I also like the idea of letting monks substitute Wisdom(Athletics) for Strength (Athletics), but even RAW the current Elemonk is definitely not unplayable or un-fun if you know how to play them.

[stoutstien]

honestly the wizard is the class that never made much sense to me in the standard DnD game/ party.

[Wizard_Lizard]

honestly the wizard is the class that never made much sense to me in the standard DnD game/ party.

Yeah anyone with enough intelligence to be a wizard would not be- NO YOU CANNOT TRY TO SEDUCE THE MIND FLAYER WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO SEDUCE THE MIND FLAYER!?- ahem.

[Bosh]

When I see people make this claim it makes me want to run a sim examining the relative performance of (3 Fighters and a healer) vs. (3 Elemental Monks and a healer) through an adventuring day full of beefy monsters, both big tough solos and mobs. My experience has been that Elemental Monks are actually just fine after level 11, and even before that they're not terrible.

When your 3 monks and a healer are fighting 3 or fewer bad guys (beholders, mind flayers, giants) you dominate them with mobility/stunning/etc. When they are fighting dozens and dozens of bad guys (githyanki, orogs) you Fireball them to death.

It would be fun to put numbers on the results, and show for example whether the Fighters or the Monks have a better chance of surviving an army of Orogs, or a squad of mind flayers backed up by goblin archers, and who finishes the adventure in the least time with the fewest rests.

Eh, when you need to be 11th level before your subclass does its thing it's a bad subclass. Especially since faaaaaaaaar more than half of D&D sessions are played before the PCs hit the 11th level.

Now monks are effective at many things. A party of monks could avoid combat by running away, doing some kiting and hit and run tactics. I like monks overall (with a few caveats) just don't think 4e adds much to them.

[RSP]

Let's not forget that Dumbledore's detective capabilities put Batman's to shame thanks to time travel, divinations, and mind reading... which means Matban should focus on other parts of Batman's portfolio if he's in a world of Not Quite Dumbledores.

Disagree, at least so far as being skilled in detective work. It sounds like you’re equating being better at getting clues through better resources (magic in this case), with being better at discerning what those clues mean.

For instance, the original Sherlock Holmes was amazing at detective work but wasn’t in a horribly advanced technological setting. Your average PD detective today doesn’t rise to the level of Sherlock Holmes’ deduction skills just because they have a DNA sample they can run through their forensic team.

In this case, being able to go back in time and see what happened doesn’t mean you’re particularly skillful in deducing what happened from clues. It’s like guessing what’s going to happen in a movie you haven’t seen, with someone who’s already seen the movie: having seen the movie isn’t a skill.

Particular to the game of 5e D&D, which very much supports the skill of Investigation, the skill is different than the resources. The Rogue should be better at Investigation (assuming dedicating resources like Prof and Expertise), than a Wizard.

That said, if you’re talking about which person you’d hire if they’re both available to find out who committed a crime; yes, Dumbledore being able to go back in time and see the crime happen vs Batman’s actual detective skills, would be the way to go, assuming costs for hire were acceptable.

[ZRN]

OP's main problem with the class is one with an easy answer: most fictional protagonists are just much higher level than everyone around them, and are generally better at everything. Just because your monk doesn't have Expertise in Stealth doesn't mean he's not sneaky; if he's level 20 with proficiency, he's still sneakier than 99% of people in the world.

Batman isn't a straight monk; he may have trained at a monastery or whatever, but he also got a bunch of gadgets, learned to sneak around, etc. He's some kind of multiclass monk-rogue-artificer, which is only "viable" because he's ten levels higher than everyone else in Gotham except his nemeses.

THAT SAID, I do think there's a bit of a design disappointment in the monk class as the OP says. A lot of the core monk abilities are indeed tied to 70s-era "kung fu" tropes that a lot of players under 40 might not even recognize. (Like, did David Carradine really speak every language?) It's a missed opportunity that they didn't dump more of those weird ribbons into subclasses to leave room for more varied martial-artist tropes in the class. Not necessarily Batman, but since we're already trying to make airbenders and ninjas monks (via 4E and shadow subclasses), it would make sense if there was more design room for ribbons specific to those subclasses.

As a practical approach, though, it's easy enough to just highlight the aspects of the class that work for your character concept and ignore the rest.

[RSP]

THAT SAID, I do think there's a bit of a design disappointment in the monk class as the OP says. A lot of the core monk abilities are indeed tied to 70s-era "kung fu" tropes that a lot of players under 40 might not even recognize. (Like, did David Carradine really speak every language?) It's a missed opportunity that they didn't dump more of those weird ribbons into subclasses to leave room for more varied martial-artist tropes in the class.

But it’s not an issue with the Monk class: it’s an issue with anyone looking at any class in 5e and wanting it to cover areas they don’t.

Someone upthread pointed out that the vast majority of abilities of Dumbledore aren’t covered by the Wizard class. To that end, Wizards in the Harry Potter fiction in general don’t fit the Wizard class in that once they learn a spell in HP, they can do it at will.

So if you want to play Harry Potter, you’ll be disappointed to find out the Wizard’s system of magic doesn’t cover all HP abilities. This is the same argument of “why doesn’t Monk allow me to play Batman.” In either case, you can make do with emulating aspects of either Harry or Batman with the Wizard or Monk class, respectively, but if you have a strict desire for specific abilities being covered, you’ll be disappointed.

This is a failure of understanding the 5e system and managing expectations, rather than issues with the classes or the design.

5e isn’t intended to provide what is being looked for in these instances, so it’s not their fault for not providing it.

[Willie the Duck]

Batman isn't a straight monk; he may have trained at a monastery or whatever, but he also got a bunch of gadgets, learned to sneak around, etc. He's some kind of multiclass monk-rogue-artificer, which is only "viable" because he's ten levels higher than everyone else in Gotham except his nemeses.

This does make me think of one thing: In the spirit of 5e having multiple ways to do things (in particular having feats or archetypes being able to replicate the effects of multiclassing), there really is an opening for a feat which allows a single class rogue to pick up the monk or artificer components necessary to make your aspirant Batman character (I am excluding Tavern Brawler in this, as your character can't have all-18+ stats, so you would want the rogue character to be able to use Dex).


THAT SAID, I do think there's a bit of a design disappointment in the monk class as the OP says. A lot of the core monk abilities are indeed tied to 70s-era "kung fu" tropes that a lot of players under 40 might not even recognize. (Like, did David Carradine really speak every language?)
Someone somewhere on Youtube (I will look after work) there was someone who broke down which oD&D/1E monk abilities likely came from which fictional work (it wasn't all Kung Fu and The Destroyer).


It's a missed opportunity that they didn't dump more of those weird ribbons into subclasses to leave room for more varied martial-artist tropes in the class. Not necessarily Batman, but since we're already trying to make airbenders and ninjas monks (via 4E and shadow subclasses), it would make sense if there was more design room for ribbons specific to those subclasses.

I will say that there is room in a theoretical alt-5e for a monk class that is as customizable as 5e warlocks ended up. That probably would bridge the gap between the OP's desires and D&D being D&D.

[KorvinStarmast]

The thing is D&D has been so popular for so long that that doesn't really matter. At this point the snake has eaten it's tail so many times that the main thing D&D classes are supposed to emulate is D&D classes and that's basically fine. The point of D&D was that you created a character who, if they survived, wrote their own story by their actions and achievements and became a hero, or famous wizard, or what have you, named ... Whatever You Named Your Character. For example, Derelix, my first ever druid, (Circa 1976-1977) wasn't trying to emulate or model anyone or anything else than Derelix the druid. He was trying to grow as a character/druid alongside the half elves, dwarves, humans and others in our party were trying to grow and become famous within the story that was our series of dungeon crawls and other adventures.

As someone further up pointed out: being inspired by a particular character (Lancelot, Paul Bunyan, Jimmy Raynor, Hawkeye, etc) is a fine idea, but it's not the point of D&D. We are supposed to use our own imaginations to create our own, unique characters.
OP, please take note of the above sentence. That's the whole point of the game. And it has not changed since 1974.
"Go for the eyes, Minsc!"

"I can't perfectly replicate Character X from this form of media, so the class is the problem." Nice summary. The OP's opening position is dead on arrival.

It did. It just didn't attempted to cover the archetypes YOU want it to cover. Likewise.

That’s right, you can make a “sneaky scoundrel with a plan” without touching the Rogue class. My gloom stalker ranger utterly agrees. :smallbiggrin: His criminal background and thieves tools proficiency sure help.

Your perception that the classes have to RP a certain way is just flat out wrong. Bravo.
The classes fit broad roles, not narrow/specific roles.

Also, just like all characters, they aren’t going to be super heroes starting at level 1, so you’ll need to plan around what you want earlier and what can wait until later. The journey's the thing. That's also baked into D&D's DNA.

Classes absolutely have to RP playing a certain way.
Nope. My warlock with the background of Entertainer role played a bard in-game. That was his whole schtick. He only did this adventuring stuff on the side ...

There's certainly a lot of wiggle room in how to roleplay characters within a class, but at a certain point if it's not on your sheet it's not on your sheet. There's your problem, right there. You fix this fixation on the char sheet and you fix your problem.

D&D 5e is D&D 5e, not anything else.

Inspiration is neither translation nor adaptation, and certainly not representation. D&D took characters as inspirations, and made it its own archetypes, and then more than 30 years of changes and reflections were applied to said archetypes. It's not because the D&D 5e Monk's capacities are close to the ones of a 70's Kung Fu movie's hero than the ones of the Sidereal Exalted that the Monk is supposed to be a 70's Kung Fu movie's hero.

Saying "the D&D 5e Monk is problematic because it doesn't represent any character except [X]" is just as disingenuous as saying "the D&D 5e Barbarian is problematic because it doesn't represent the Hulk", or "the D&D 5e spellcasters are problematic because none of them can replicate Lord Voldemort's capacities" Well said, and nice to see you drop back in. Welcome back. :smallsmile:


The D&D monk was designed by someone (Brian Blume) who got the idea from the Kung Fu TV show, The Destroyer series of novels, and whatever Saturday afternoon Kung Fu theater movies his local TV station showed. It hits that concept best ... The original monk was a very weird fit into the standard dungeoneering party. First one I recall seeing in play was late 1975/early 1976. Party of seven.

OP's main problem with the class is one with an easy answer: most fictional protagonists are just much higher level than everyone around them, and are generally better at everything. Fair point. Batman when we meet him in Gotham City has already reached name level: Vigilante Billionaire class. :smallbiggrin:

[MrStabby]

But it’s not an issue with the Monk class: it’s an issue with anyone looking at any class in 5e and wanting it to cover areas they don’t.

Someone upthread pointed out that the vast majority of abilities of Dumbledore aren’t covered by the Wizard class. To that end, Wizards in the Harry Potter fiction in general don’t fit the Wizard class in that once they learn a spell in HP, they can do it at will.

So if you want to play Harry Potter, you’ll be disappointed to find out the Wizard’s system of magic doesn’t cover all HP abilities. This is the same argument of “why doesn’t Monk allow me to play Batman.” In either case, you can make do with emulating aspects of either Harry or Batman with the Wizard or Monk class, respectively, but if you have a strict desire for specific abilities being covered, you’ll be disappointed.

This is a failure of understanding the 5e system and managing expectations, rather than issues with the classes or the design.

5e isn’t intended to provide what is being looked for in these instances, so it’s not their fault for not providing it.

I think this is being needlessly condescendingtowards the OP. It is entirely possible to understand to understand that this is the way 5th edition works whilst not liking is. As with any thread like this, the opening position is that "here is something I don't likeabout the game as it is and I would like it to change". Saying the game shouldn't change because the game isn't like that isn't really helpful... because if the game WAS like that then the OP wouldn't think it would benefit from a change.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean it is them that is failing to understand.

Now I am not saying that there are not reasonable responses. You can look at a proposed change andexplain why you think that would make D&D 5th edition worse not better. It would be a reasonable response. You could ask for the OP to be more specific in what changes they are looking to make so you can critique them. Go for it.

But if the premise is that someone is saying "I don't like X about the game,I think it should be different", what are you actually going to disagree with? Argue that in factthey do like it? Argue that you don't care about their opinions and they arenotimportant (which, whilst also fair enough seems a bit wierd to drop into a thread to say rather than ignoring), or you could argue that the game is perfect and it is inconcievible that there could ever be any improvement to it so no discussion should ever take place. But suggesting no discussions about how it could be different because it is already the way it is? I just don't buy it.

You say "5e isn’t intended to provide what is being looked for in these instances, so it’s not their fault for not providing it." - isn't the whole contention that the problem the OP has is that 5e isn'tintending to do this? Thatifthey tried even just a little bit then it wouldbe better for them? If they failed to deliver what someone is looking for they failed to do it, whether it was a failure of execution or becausethey didn't even try.

I mean there are certainly some sugestions here I don't like and wouldn't want to see: I don't want to play batman, and nor do I want tobein a party alongside batman. I am happy that batman is not an option in the game, but this is a personal view but doesn't meananyone elseis wrong for wanting a set of options to better represent that type ofcharacter. Ofcourse5th edition doesn't support the character - if it did we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Man_Over_Game]

oops, i meant 4 elements monk. fangs of the fire snake

Whoops, duh. Sorry, I sometimes forget the four elements monk is a thing. Don't even mean that as an insult to the subclass, it's just never really come up. Think I would have preferred it as a caster, as it'd at least provide the monk of some means of blending with other casters.

[NaughtyTiger]

I think this is being needlessly condescendingtowards the OP.
Given the tone of the OP throughout this thread, I disagree.




Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean it is them that is failing to understand.
I agree. I do think the OP understood the nature/limitations/expansions of DnD 5e. I think he chose to ignore them.



Now I am not saying that there are not reasonable responses. You can look at a proposed change andexplain why you think that would make D&D 5th edition worse not better. It would be a reasonable response. You could ask for the OP to be more specific in what changes they are looking to make so you can critique them. Go for it.
We did. He was hostile.



But if the premise is that someone is saying "I don't like X about the game,I think it should be different", what are you actually going to disagree with? Argue that in factthey do like it? Argue that you don't care about their opinions and they arenotimportant (which, whilst also fair enough seems a bit wierd to drop into a thread to say rather than ignoring), or you could argue that the game is perfect and it is inconcievible that there could ever be any improvement to it so no discussion should ever take place. But suggesting no discussions about how it could be different because it is already the way it is? I just don't buy it.

The OP did exactly that. He argued that every other poster's opinions and experiences were wrong.


You say "5e isn’t intended to provide what is being looked for in these instances, so it’s not their fault for not providing it." - isn't the whole contention that the problem the OP has is that 5e isn'tintending to do this? Thatifthey tried even just a little bit then it wouldbe better for them? If they failed to deliver what someone is looking for they failed to do it, whether it was a failure of execution or becausethey didn't even try.

The OP has repeatedly indicated that he wants multiple epic-level fictional characters like [3 modern comic characters, 2 video game, and 8 anime] to be represented by a single class by level 10.
That is a very specific desire. Are you suggesting the WotC should explicitly try to fit all of that into a single class?
WotC does provide mechanics to build those characters already. Posted suggested specific mechanics to use.
The OP indicated they did not accept those mechanics.

[Unoriginal]

I think this is being needlessly condescendingtowards the OP. It is entirely possible to understand to understand that this is the way 5th edition works whilst not liking is. As with any thread like this, the opening position is that "here is something I don't likeabout the game as it is and I would like it to change". Saying the game shouldn't change because the game isn't like that isn't really helpful... because if the game WAS like that then the OP wouldn't think it would benefit from a change.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean it is them that is failing to understand.

Now I am not saying that there are not reasonable responses. You can look at a proposed change andexplain why you think that would make D&D 5th edition worse not better. It would be a reasonable response. You could ask for the OP to be more specific in what changes they are looking to make so you can critique them. Go for it.

But if the premise is that someone is saying "I don't like X about the game,I think it should be different", what are you actually going to disagree with? Argue that in factthey do like it? Argue that you don't care about their opinions and they arenotimportant (which, whilst also fair enough seems a bit wierd to drop into a thread to say rather than ignoring), or you could argue that the game is perfect and it is inconcievible that there could ever be any improvement to it so no discussion should ever take place. But suggesting no discussions about how it could be different because it is already the way it is? I just don't buy it.

You say "5e isnÂ’t intended to provide what is being looked for in these instances, so itÂ’s not their fault for not providing it." - isn't the whole contention that the problem the OP has is that 5e isn'tintending to do this? Thatifthey tried even just a little bit then it wouldbe better for them? If they failed to deliver what someone is looking for they failed to do it, whether it was a failure of execution or becausethey didn't even try.

I mean there are certainly some sugestions here I don't like and wouldn't want to see: I don't want to play batman, and nor do I want tobein a party alongside batman. I am happy that batman is not an option in the game, but this is a personal view but doesn't meananyone elseis wrong for wanting a set of options to better represent that type ofcharacter. Ofcourse5th edition doesn't support the character - if it did we wouldn't be having this discussion.

There is a difference between "I don't like that 5e does X" and "5e doing X is a problem". Deathtongue isn't presenting their opening position as "here is something I don't like about the game as it is and I would like it to change" but as "here is something problematic about the game.

Not liking how 5e does something is perfectly normal, and in fact it is baked into the game's DNA as it clearly acknowledges people should change things to make it more to their linking. But not liking something does not make it a problem with the game. 5e or any game doing X is not a problem *unless* it had for pretension to do notX and failed to achieve it, or to do Y and did X instead.

Ex: if a game has for set design goal to make the Steadfast Crusher a combatant who can take a lot of hits, but due to badly thought out interactions between damage rules and class rules the Steadfast Crusher ends up squishier than any class which has the Psychic Shield ability and they're the one of the only four classes which can't get Psychic Shield, it's a problem. If the Steadfast Crusher is able to take a lot of hits as intended and isn't overshadowed by those who have Psychic Shield, but a player does not like that the Crusher can't have Psychic Shield, it is not a problem.

[RSP]

As with any thread like this, the opening position is that "here is something I don't likeabout the game as it is and I would like it to change".

As others have pointed out, this isn’t the OPs position. He’s saying they need to scrap and rewrite the Monk class because it doesn’t allow him to play characters from other genres in 5e as a Monk. It’s not a “how do I work around this” thread, it’s a “WotC failed because I expect a part of the game to be specifically tailored to what I want it to be, and nothing more than I want it to be.”

That, as I said, is a failing of his expectations and perspective rather than a failing of the game.

You even stated you don’t want 5e classes to represent Batman: that’s in direct opposition to the OP who specifically want the class to be Batman and nothing else. If you accept the OP’s position, you’re saying there needs to be a class/subclass to perfectly represent ever possible fictional character anyone could want to play, and WotC is a failure for not providing that. Based on your Batman comment, I’m assuming you disagree with that position.

Apparently the rules of this forum dictate that I can’t suggest you read past posts (I’ve been knocked for suggesting this before). But, hypothetically, if one were to read through the OP’s posts, and the responses they’ve been given, I feel it would be apparent that the OP doesn’t want assistance/suggestions at getting around a part of the rules they don’t like; they’re just spiteful that the current Monk class doesn’t do exactly what they want and wish it were scrapped and looking for others to agree with them.

[NaughtyTiger]

the OP who specifically want the class to be Batman and nothing else.

actually, I think the OP wanted monk to be Batman and toph and m bison and.... and nothing else.

[MaxWilson]

Whoops, duh. Sorry, I sometimes forget the four elements monk is a thing. Don't even mean that as an insult to the subclass, it's just never really come up. Think I would have preferred it as a caster, as it'd at least provide the monk of some means of blending with other casters.

To avoid confusion I think it's better to use a different acronym than "4E monk." Elemental Monk/Elemonk for example.

If it had an actual spellcasting list and the Spellcasting feature, plus the ability to fuel spells with ki at a discount, not only would it multiclass better but you'd be able to combine it with Dragonmarks. That would be interesting, but... I'm not sure I like the flavor. Ki-powered Magic Missile seems weird, and ki-powered Aura of Vitality seems weird _and_ abusable.

[RSP]

actually, I think the OP wanted monk to be Batman and toph and m bison and.... and nothing else.

Yes and no. The OP clearly contradicted themself with contradicting positions like “Monk should be Batman and nothing else” and “Monk needs to be able to create pillars of earth that launch enemies into air.” So, my statement was correct that they wanted Monk to be Batman and nothing else, however, they also wanted Monk to be various other things, so you are correct on that.

It just further shows the lack of reason in their argument.

[NaughtyTiger]

Yes and no. The OP clearly contradicted themself with contradicting positions like “Monk should be Batman and nothing else” and “Monk needs to be able to create pillars of earth that launch enemies into air.” So, my statement was correct that they wanted Monk to be Batman and nothing else, however, they also wanted Monk to be various other things, so you are correct on that.
touche!


Think I would have preferred it as a caster, as it'd at least provide the monk of some means of blending with other casters.

I like that elemonk (i pay attention max!) isn't a caster, i just wish it had more options (and a little more ki)

[JackPhoenix]

I like that elemonk (i pay attention max!) isn't a caster

It kinda is. 12 out of 17 Elemental Disciplines are just "You cast the spell X for Y Ki points", though it's 'spell slot mechanic' is closer to spell-point based warlock than traditional spellcaster.

[MaxWilson]

It kinda is. 12 out of 17 Elemental Disciplines are just "You cast the spell X for Y Ki points", though it's 'spell slot mechanic' is closer to spell-point based warlock than traditional spellcaster.

I believe we're talking about the Spellcasting trait and the fact that Elemonks lack it and therefore don't add to your multiclassing caster level, nor do they have a spell list (so you can't benefit from stuff like Dragonmarked spells or Ravnica backgrounds, because you have no spell list to add those spells to).

[Chaosmancer]

One thing that jumped out to me from the OP's character list was Mike Haggar. A normal man punching normal gang member out in a fighting game.

If we assume that a street gang member is equivalent to a Bandit, then for Haggar to punch out an enemy in 3 strikes he just needs to be a man with 16 strength.

Unarmed strikes will deal 1+3 = 4 damage, three hits is 12 damage, beating a gang member. He's also strong enough to kill a normal civilian in a single blow. Want to emulate the fact that he can use a pipe? Given him tavern brawler (he's human, he can have a single feat easily) Now he can use improvised weapons, and does 1d4+3 with his punching, meaning we've now almost doubled his base damage.


Oh, want someone from Street Fighter? How about Sagat? Guy is clearly strong, and fast, give him a bit of wisdom too. You know, he bases a lot of his moves off tigers, let's use that... So, 1 point below a tiger in each gives him 16 STR and 14 Dex. Give him 2 levels in monk and he can strike 2 - 3 times in rapid succession, ripping a normal man apart with those 1d4+3 strikes (heck, he can half kill a tiger in a single round of combat if he gets lucky, and killing a tiger in 12 seconds wouldn't be too hard), but what about his famous Tiger Shot energy attack? Magic Initiate, Eldritch blast. That deals a massive 1d10, enough to devastate a normal foe, and if he does the Hex (an intimidating warrior spirit perhaps?) he can wreck his foes in short order.


See, it matters where you out your comparisons. A character with 16 strength is as strong as a Gorilla or an Ox, a character with a 14 or 16 dex is insanely agile and quick.



But also, some of the stuff you see in these other properties is just truly insane. Mortal Kombat, for example, has a strength mini-game where you smash through different incredibly thick blocks of material. Including diamond. The math was done on Death Battle once. That would take 50 million joules of energy, or about 26 vehicular collisions simultaneously.The equivalent would be, what 40d6 damage (since that is double falling 500 ft)? In a single blow. Oh, and they dodge automatic gunfire and lightning on the regular.



So, things are never quite as straightforward as they seem

[Unoriginal]

One thing that jumped out to me from the OP's character list was Mike Haggar. A normal man punching normal gang member out in a fighting game.

If we assume that a street gang member is equivalent to a Bandit, then for Haggar to punch out an enemy in 3 strikes he just needs to be a man with 16 strength.

Unarmed strikes will deal 1+3 = 4 damage, three hits is 12 damage, beating a gang member. He's also strong enough to kill a normal civilian in a single blow. Want to emulate the fact that he can use a pipe? Given him tavern brawler (he's human, he can have a single feat easily) Now he can use improvised weapons, and does 1d4+3 with his punching, meaning we've now almost doubled his base damage.


Oh, want someone from Street Fighter? How about Sagat? Guy is clearly strong, and fast, give him a bit of wisdom too. You know, he bases a lot of his moves off tigers, let's use that... So, 1 point below a tiger in each gives him 16 STR and 14 Dex. Give him 2 levels in monk and he can strike 2 - 3 times in rapid succession, ripping a normal man apart with those 1d4+3 strikes (heck, he can half kill a tiger in a single round of combat if he gets lucky, and killing a tiger in 12 seconds wouldn't be too hard), but what about his famous Tiger Shot energy attack? Magic Initiate, Eldritch blast. That deals a massive 1d10, enough to devastate a normal foe, and if he does the Hex (an intimidating warrior spirit perhaps?) he can wreck his foes in short order.

Good comparisons. Though Tiger Shot is probably best represented by a fire spell.



See, it matters where you out your comparisons. A character with 16 strength is as strong as a Gorilla or an Ox, a character with a 14 or 16 dex is insanely agile and quick.

Yeah, people forget this all the time. PCs really are a cut above your average joe, even if there is people and creatures capable of matching or outmatching them.



But also, some of the stuff you see in these other properties is just truly insane. Mortal Kombat, for example, has a strength mini-game where you smash through different incredibly thick blocks of material. Including diamond. The math was done on Death Battle once. That would take 50 million joules of energy, or about 26 vehicular collisions simultaneously.The equivalent would be, what 40d6 damage (since that is double falling 500 ft)? In a single blow. Oh, and they dodge automatic gunfire and lightning on the regular.

Mortal Combat characters in the most recent games are shown to get their bones broken and/or their body parts torn off as part of their opponents' special moves, and continue fighting afterward. While Mortal Combat has an higher general power level as, say, Street Fighter, it's also clear that some of the most "...what" stuff are to make the gameplay entertaining and not diegetic.

[Man_Over_Game]

I believe we're talking about the Spellcasting trait and the fact that Elemonks lack it and therefore don't add to your multiclassing caster level, nor do they have a spell list (so you can't benefit from stuff like Dragonmarked spells or Ravnica backgrounds, because you have no spell list to add those spells to).

Yup, and that there aren't very many good bridges between the martial/caster playstyles:


Sorcerer has a lot of melee-centric spells, but has no martial proficiencies and has the smallest hit die in the game, and is only valid as a melee option because of Booming Blade+Quickened/Twinned Spell.
Paladin is fine as a bridge, I just hate that the bridge is basically "Spend your spellcasting to deal extra damage", but I know a lot of people like that.
Ranger can spend spell slots on Ranger spells for attacks, but there aren't very many past level 1 spells, and their upcasting sucks.
Hexblade can't actually use their spells to enhance their attacking until you've hit mid-level. Until then, you basically just have better casting and worse AC than most other hybrids.
Eldritch Knight is a bridge once you get those higher level features, but those features are rarely relevant, and -once again- they're pretty high level options.
Shillellagh works like a Hexblade, but basically runs into the same problem where it basically translates to a bonus to hit with a weapon and nothing else (unless you're a Monk, and then you can just stack Wisdom).


For the build to function as a real "hybrid", you probably have to leverage the "bridging" features of two classes with them in order for it to work:
Paladin + Warlock
Warlock + Sorcerer
Paladin + Sorcerer
Ranger + Druid
Ranger + Nature Cleric



And that's about it. Anything else is running into an issue where you have to focus on the Martial or the Caster portion of the build, with the dip likely abusing some sort of early spell, feature or proficiency that doesn't get in the way (E.G. Druid+Monk, Wizard+Fighter, Barbarian+Moon Druid), but these builds often get worse the higher into the game you go, as those dip features generally don't scale as well as doing a boring, specialist build would have given you. They generally don't "Work together", but instead generally act like two people working on projects on opposite sides of the room so they don't get in each others' way.

Having something that worked like Sorcery Points for Monks to convert Ki into Spell Slots would have been easy, and had added it to this list, especially since that's almost exactly what the Elemonk already does (just with arbitrary cost/level requirements).

[MrCharlie]

I mean, the problem with base monk damage is the problem with base martial damage-good DPS classes use feats or spells, no exceptions. If you didn't allow a fighter to take feats, he'd also suck. Monks just don't have any feats that help them.

I do digress, but this is really part of the problem; monks have a very specific style of play which is kept in it's own little world. Stunning strike, ki points, host of additional features-they all add in but aren't synergistic with the greater whole of the game. Feats are largely irrelevant, and you have a pretty deterministic way to build a monk if you want to be effective at higher levels. I haven't really come across a character who uses so little of the content in the game before-Monks don't really use printed weapons, most printed items, spells, or most feats. You can barely even multi-class, given the DEX/WIS requirement pretty effectively locking you out of STR, CHA, and INT builds, translating to all non-divine non-rogue classes, and your features are all monk level dependent.

The other problem is that the class actively fights deviation. There is no way to build a STR monk with any pretense of AC, nor is there a way to build an INT monk without a homebrew archetype. In combat you basically have to be open hand to do "grappling", and can't interact with the actual grappling rules because everything is STR athletics based. You can get around some of this-Tortle Monks, for instance, have a decent enough built in AC that you'll at least be keeping up with the Rogue, sans magic armor or items, so you can rock STR monk that way-but that required a specific race choice to justify and limits roleplaying.

Monks in general have this problem; because their attribute requirements are so godsforsaken stringent they are forced into a few specific races to get their precious 16's.

Put simply, the Monk chassis punishes innovation. You can use your imagination all you want, but you'll be peddling uphill.

So, to put is succinctly, the problem is that the Monk is built in such a way that

A. It can't use feats, because it needs high ability scores.

B. Can't use magic armor

C. Can't effectively use most magic weapons.

D. Can't effectively use most skills because is needs two specific high ability scores (you can have investigation, just don't except to learn anything from it with your 8 INT).

E. Can't effectively be most races for the same reason.

F. Can't effectively multiclass, both because of the ability score requirements and because almost every single on of it's features simply does not work with any other classes. No fighting styles, spells are mostly anti-synergistic 'cause monk needs to take attack action and spellcasting monks don't stack with other classes, can't use armor proficiency, and all it's abilities have linear scaling with level so you stop advancing as a monk in any way.

G. Can't even really improvise in combat past punching people out of its sub-class, as most of the ways to do that are STR based.

In other words, Monk cannot make use of 90% of the games customization features effectively.