D&D Class concepts - martial artist

[Sneak Dog]

So, conceptually, I must wonder. What are the differences between a monk and a fighter in D&D?
They're both martial artists, training their mind and body to perfect their prowess at war, their martial art. Mind that martial comes from Mars, the ancient god of war. A martial artist is a person practising skills (arts) useful for war (Mars).

Is it just that the monk takes inspiration from more eastern martial arts and the fighter from more western martial arts?
Are they the same concept with different implementations?

Mind, I'm talking about concept, not implementation. I am not looking at any specific edition of D&D either, as I don't think it changed much after 3rd edition and the evolution is interesting regardless.

[Morty]

Is it just that the monk takes inspiration from more eastern martial arts and the fighter from more western martial arts?
Are they the same concept with different implementations?

Pretty much, though your description is a little too charitable. The monk class is just a bundle of martial arts flick concepts thrown together into a class.

[Quertus]

I think that it would be interesting to evaluate this from a PoV like Fate, or Apocalypse World, or Mutants and Masterminds: what really *is* the difference between a martial artist, a knight in shining armor, a space Marine, Batman?

I suspect they would look *very* similar under some of those systems (once they were normalized to be of equal power, at least).

[Nifft]

Mind, I'm talking about concept, not implementation. I am not looking at any specific edition of D&D either, as I don't think it changed much after 3rd edition and the evolution is interesting regardless.

Implementations changed radically after 3rd edition.

In 4e, a Fighter is a Martial Defender (minoring in Striker), and a Monk is a Psionic Striker (minoring in Controller).

[MoiMagnus]

I think that it would be interesting to evaluate this from a PoV like Fate, or Apocalypse World, or Mutants and Masterminds: what really *is* the difference between a martial artist, a knight in shining armor, a space Marine, Batman?

I suspect they would look *very* similar under some of those systems (once they were normalized to be of equal power, at least).

I've looked M&M3e, so below are a quick sum up of the archetypes Martial Artist and Crime Fighter, Powerhouse, Warrior, Weapon Master (I've tried to convert into D&D terms). Archetypes are only suggested builds to give inspiration to new players, as M&M is classless.

In the end, for M&M3e:
+ The difference with Crime Fighter is that the Crime Fighter is pretty bad at combat (though gadgets help), and instead focuses on investigation
+ The difference with the Powerhouse is that the Martial Artist is subtle, while the Powerhouse is brutal.
+ The difference with Warrior is that the warrior is much less focussed and much more balanced/polyvalent.
+ There would not be a lot of difference between a Martial Artist and a Weapon Master specialised in unarmed combat, if that was a suggested option.

Details:

Martial Artist:
+ All the feats imaginable to have modular combat behaviour (grab, disarm, defensive rolls, feint, redirect, etc).
+ Acrobatics, Athletics, Philosophy, Insight, Intimidation, Perception, Stealth
+ Very high initiative, unarmed combat with high precision / low damage. Possibility to switch to average precision / average damage.
+ Good AC, low HP.

Crime Fighter
+ A lot of small equipments (flash-bang, etc)
+ Various feats related to having contacts with the good peoples and being a good investigator
+ Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Insight, Intimidation, Investigation, Perception, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, Technology, Vehicles
+ High initiative, unarmed combat and thrown weapons with high precision / low damage
+ Balanced defences, slightly more AC and less HP

Powerhouse
+ Super strength, super constitution, super leaping, shockwave while hitting the ground or a target.
+ Athletics, Insight, Intimidation, Perception
+ Low initiative, Unarmed combat and thrown weapons, low precision / high damage
+ Low defences and save except Fortitude, high HP

Warrior
+ Super strength, plus some sort of "totem effects" (high speed, or aquatic bonuses, etc)
+ Various feats with a nature theme (tracking, etc)
+ Acrobatics, Athletics, Tactics, Insight, Intimidation, Perception, Stealth
+ High initiative, attack with weapons or unarmed, for average precision and damages
+ Balanced defences, save and HP

Weapon master
+This archetype is much less precise than the other, and in particular have some remaining points for two small powers of your choice (regeneration, super-vision, supernatural speed, etc).
+You specialise in one weapon and get a bunch of associated feats that works well with it.
+Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Intimidation, Investigation, Perception, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, Vehicles
+High initiative, high precision low damage with your chosen weapon
+ Good AC, low HP.

[JoeJ]

So, conceptually, I must wonder. What are the differences between a monk and a fighter in D&D?
They're both martial artists, training their mind and body to perfect their prowess at war, their martial art. Mind that martial comes from Mars, the ancient god of war. A martial artist is a person practising skills (arts) useful for war (Mars).

Is it just that the monk takes inspiration from more eastern martial arts and the fighter from more western martial arts?
Are they the same concept with different implementations?

Mind, I'm talking about concept, not implementation. I am not looking at any specific edition of D&D either, as I don't think it changed much after 3rd edition and the evolution is interesting regardless.

The religious/mystical trappings of the monk give it away as representing one specific type of eastern martial artist; the Shaolin monk (although based on Shaolin as portrayed in movies and the TV show Kung Fu rather than real life). That's unfortunate IMO. I think they would be much better simply as a kind of figher specializing in unarmed combat. The player could decide whether to make a contemplative kung-fu master, a more typical non-religious eastern martial artist, or a western style unarmed fighter. That would also make it easier to fit into a wide variety of campaign worlds where, for example, the typical unarmed fighter might be a gladiator or part of a travelling wrestling show rather than anything resembling a monk.

[Elves]

I think they would be much better simply as a kind of figher specializing in unarmed combat.
At that point it's just a brawler fighter though. A system with prefabricated classes is necessarily archetypal. It's right for it to lean into what it does best and embrace that each class is a specific archetype with a specific flavor. Generic classes are still much less flexible than points systems like GURPS while being flavorless and unexciting.

[JoeJ]

At that point it's just a brawler fighter though. A system with prefabricated classes is necessarily archetypal. It's right for it to lean into what it does best and embrace that each class is a specific archetype with a specific flavor. Generic classes are still much less flexible than points systems like GURPS while being flavorless and unexciting.

Figher is already a hugely broad class though, encompasing gladiators, knights, archers, fencers, axe throwers; basically anybody who's shtick is fighting. Except unarmed fighers, which for some reason TSR put into a different class that only represents one specific kind of unarmed combattant.

[Sneak Dog]

Implementations changed radically after 3rd edition.

In 4e, a Fighter is a Martial Defender (minoring in Striker), and a Monk is a Psionic Striker (minoring in Controller).

Argh, 4th edition. Of course, always an anomaly.
Considering what classes are in 4th, this would indeed be different concepts. 4th is weird, class concepts being mechanical distinctions. I have always wondered about the psionicness of a monk in 4th though.


The religious/mystical trappings of the monk give it away as representing one specific type of eastern martial artist; the Shaolin monk (although based on Shaolin as portrayed in movies and the TV show Kung Fu rather than real life). That's unfortunate IMO. I think they would be much better simply as a kind of figher specializing in unarmed combat. The player could decide whether to make a contemplative kung-fu master, a more typical non-religious eastern martial artist, or a western style unarmed fighter. That would also make it easier to fit into a wide variety of campaign worlds where, for example, the typical unarmed fighter might be a gladiator or part of a travelling wrestling show rather than anything resembling a monk.

Weird origins that it still stays true to.

Unarmed combat would be new, but I'm not sure it'd be sufficient. Conceptually unarmed combat is weird, as it was widely practised but never preferred over armed combat. The humble staff would always be preferred.
Also, I think most martial arts practised unarmed combat to a significant degree, because unfortunate things happen during life. You might just get charged at by a traitorous serf with a knife while you were unarmed, or get your sword flung from your hands during an improper parry after an exhausting day.

Specialising into unarmed combat is an option, but would be novel? Which is to say, not have a lot of source material.

[Nifft]

Argh, 4th edition. Of course, always an anomaly.
Considering what classes are in 4th, this would indeed be different concepts. 4th is weird, class concepts being mechanical distinctions. I have always wondered about the psionicness of a monk in 4th though. 5e Monks are spellpoint casters, who can also cast fist.

3e was the anomaly.

[Elves]

Figher is already a hugely broad class though, encompasing gladiators, knights, archers, fencers, axe throwers; basically anybody who's shtick is fighting. Except unarmed fighers, which for some reason TSR put into a different class that only represents one specific kind of unarmed combattant.
so sure put in a brawler fighter. no need for it to invalidate the monk.

monk is admittedly a bad name but I don't know any alternatives that are as snappy and are english words. i suppose its just cultural fantastification similar to druids who were boring gaelic priests but are now shapechanging nature wizards.

[AntiAuthority]

So, conceptually, I must wonder. What are the differences between a monk and a fighter in D&D?
They're both martial artists, training their mind and body to perfect their prowess at war, their martial art. Mind that martial comes from Mars, the ancient god of war. A martial artist is a person practising skills (arts) useful for war (Mars).

Is it just that the monk takes inspiration from more eastern martial arts and the fighter from more western martial arts?
Are they the same concept with different implementations?

Mind, I'm talking about concept, not implementation. I am not looking at any specific edition of D&D either, as I don't think it changed much after 3rd edition and the evolution is interesting regardless.

Pretty much. Fighters are warrior archetypes you'd find in Western tales, such as guards, gladiators, knights, etc. Monks are also warrior archetypes, but what you'd find in Eastern tales, and genres include Wuxia and Xianxia.

Only real difference is that the Fighter archetype usually places emphasis on their body, mind and strength of arms to do plausibly realistic stuff, while Monks place emphasis on their body, mind, weapons and internal energy of Ki to do plausibly (or not so much) realistic stuff.

[Morty]

It does bear keeping in mind that D&D fighters are such a blank slate that they're really not defined at all. The concepts they don't cover are those the game arbitrarily decides they don't - like a berserker. And of course, anyone who practices combat could be called a "martial artist".

[Sneak Dog]

It does bear keeping in mind that D&D fighters are such a blank slate that they're really not defined at all. The concepts they don't cover are those the game arbitrarily decides they don't - like a berserker. And of course, anyone who practices combat could be called a "martial artist".

I feel like D&D's barbarian isn't a martial artist. They practise combat, but they don't seek to practise their martial skills to perfection. A hunter practises hunting, not war. A ranger... is weird.

[Nifft]

I feel like D&D's barbarian isn't a martial artist. They practise combat, but they don't seek to practise their martial skills to perfection. A hunter practises hunting, not war. A ranger... is weird.

Rangers are Special Forces operatives.

[Weasel of Doom]

What are the differences between a monk and a fighter in D&D?
Is it just that the monk takes inspiration from more eastern martial arts and the fighter from more western martial arts?


Monk and fighter are classes with a very different design philosophy. You could maybe call it fluff-neutral vs fluff-intrinsic. A fighter is a set of very generic rules that can fit just about any martial archetype. The fluff written alongside the class might describe a 'martial artist', training their mind and body to become the perfect warrior but that is essentially divorced from the actual rules of the class. A monk on the other hand is a very specific set of rules tailored to fit one very specific archetype - the Shaolin monk as seen in a 1970s kungfu movie.

Personally I'm fine with the difference in design philosophy. The more generic classes (fighter, rogue) can be made to fit a lot of character ideas but you're inevitably going to get some archetypes that are sufficiently unique to not fit anywhere else particularly well. In that case you might as well come up with a new class rather than fiddle around with existing classes until you get something that kinda fits.

[Dienekes]

Figher is already a hugely broad class though, encompasing gladiators, knights, archers, fencers, axe throwers; basically anybody who's shtick is fighting. Except unarmed fighers, which for some reason TSR put into a different class that only represents one specific kind of unarmed combattant.

And anyone who gets angry when they fight, or fight but with a little holy magic, or people who fence because for some reason that keeps getting given to Rogues despite that being a literal mrtial art.

Anyway, to answer the original question. It's usually easier to consider it like this: Did the designers of the edition take the time to create a specific class to best fulfill the fantasy they wanted to get across with the character type? Then it has it's own class. Barbarians get their Rage ability to show their unbridled fury and undisciplined brutality. Monks often get some form of Ki ability to demonstrate the idea of tranquility and replicate Kung Fu movies. Rogues get Sneak Attack to show the well timed precision of an assassin.

For everything else, there's Fighter.

[JoeJ]

And anyone who gets angry when they fight, or fight but with a little holy magic, or people who fence because for some reason that keeps getting given to Rogues despite that being a literal mrtial art.

Angry barbarians and fencing rogues didn't exist until much later (AD&D did have sneaky backstabbing thieves, though). And from the beginning, magic defined the classes that used it.

[gijoemike]

4E actually got the classification of monk correct. A fighter uses weapons and battlefield tactics. A monk even in 3e had weird unexplainable magic powers that wasn't spells like a bard/sorc/wizard/favored soul/warlock. Ki points were really a first attempt at psionics in 3.X.

Suddenly slow falling, healing, spider sense of danger, gaining damage reduction, attacking faster and hitting harder than a trained expert combatant that specializes in that fighting style, your body is magical cold iron, you stop taking age penalties are all strange magical traits. Monk mixes I punch hard and weird magic while fighter just hits hard and wears armor.

[Nifft]

Ki points were really a first attempt at psionics in 3.X.

What?

3.5e had significantly better Psionics mechanics than monk mechanics, and Psionics with power points goes back to 1e.

[Max_Killjoy]

Fighter still suffers from a bit from the "Europeans just bashed each other with metal bars while wearing metal suits" trope that Victorian "scholars" and Hollywood inflicted on the "everyone knows" pool.

"Monk", on the other hand, is a product of later-day orientalism.

"Europeans? Martial arts? No, no, Everyone Knows that martial arts are Asian!"

[Anonymouswizard]

Honestly, I find it very easy to give the monk a place in the setting if I actually want to, even if I remove the explicit shaolin monk theming. It's mainly because monks have managed to retain the theming of mysticism as separate to magic.


the monk isn't just a warrior, they're a warrior-poet and mystic linked to ideals and philosophies larger than themselves, and in my mind this is worth keeping and focusing on. Your standard 'monk' has locked themselves away from the outside world with or without other monks to seek enlightenment, and decided that they cannot achieve mental enlightenment without physical enlightenment, and thus trains their body as well as their minds. In your standard D&D cosmology they seek to know and become one with the knowledge of the planes and their movements, or something else equivalent, and their abilities come not from studying martial arts (which, RAW, is something even PC wizards do, check those weapon proficiencies) but from some understanding of how the universe really works.

Although if you wanted this is all theming you could lay over any class, so it's not by itself a reason to keep the monk, it's just why I stopped dropping it by default.

[Duff]

Theme wise, fighters train the body and sometimes the mind
Monks train the spirit, the mind, and body