What Is A Monk?

[JNAProductions]

When you think "Monk", what do you think?

What should the Monk be able to do, and do well?
What should they be able to do okay?
What should they be bad at?
What should they not be able to do at all?

One of the issues I've seen people mention with 3.5's Monk is that it's not focused. It's a grab-bag of somewhat fun and interesting features, that just don't really mesh well together to make a cohesive whole. So, what SHOULD the Monk be redesigned to?

[Unavenger]

A miserable little pile of unarmed strikes!

[rferries]

When you think "Monk", what do you think?

What should the Monk be able to do, and do well?
What should they be able to do okay?
What should they be bad at?
What should they not be able to do at all?

One of the issues I've seen people mention with 3.5's Monk is that it's not focused. It's a grab-bag of somewhat fun and interesting features, that just don't really mesh well together to make a cohesive whole. So, what SHOULD the Monk be redesigned to?

It's a very good question, but my first thought was "it boils down to the theme of Wuxia and Star Wars" (e.g. primarily a martial class with acrobatic abilities, +/- non-combat abilities).

I'd say they should aim for a divine or psionic martial class with 6th-level spells, equivalent to a bard -albeit with full BAB instead of bardic performance abilities.

A miserable little pile of unarmed strikes!

[Elves]

I brought this up in a recent thread so I'll give my answer.

Monk is kind of a dumb name since we're really talking about a martial artist with no necessary religious connotation, but in the absence of a snappier name, whatever.

I think the fluff concept from 3e is fine: a martial artist who pursues enlightenment.

The weak gestures at giving them magical powers that meleers often want, like dimension door and incorporeality (Invisible Fist ACF extends this by giving them invisibility and blur) make sense. Giving them magical and spiritual abilities distinguishes them from a Fighter who focuses on unarmed combat.

I would say they should be a melee class that is not focused on DPS. Debuff enemies with martial arts techniques like quivering palm and stunning fist (redone as more regularly usable class features), move enemies around with throws and knockbacks, be very mobile yourself and have strong in-combat utility/defense through magical abilities, but don't do that much damage.

If redoing flurry of blows, it should penalize damage rather than to-hit -- have it be lighter damage to more enemies.

[ngilop]

I envisioned the eastern classes (monk, samurai, and ninja) as more mystic counterparts to the fighter and rogue. I gave the samurai invocations, the ninja spell progression, and the monk sort-of invocations.


I see them at skirmishers. not the D&D mechanic BUT as people who run in get some attacks then get out of dodge. Not the up in your face trading blows like a fighter or samurai.

[noob]

When I am told monk I think about an European monk with skills such as treating wounds and diseases or making alcohol.

[Dienekes]

In general I agree with noob.

In D&D a monk is pretty much a fantastical portrayal of a Shaolin Monk.

A monk should be able to a highly skilled melee combatant. As opposed to other combatants playing one should feel graceful. Like you can flow around the battlefield and the enemy. They should be able to meditate and get some benefit from doing so. 3rd Age did some cool stuff by designing martial arts forms like katas that the player can move between giving a lot of options that still feel like a martial artist.

In their base form they should be okay at damage. Taking out minions in one or two punches certainly, but even if you watch the good old kung fu movies, it's not the one hit kills you'll see in a sword fighting based film. Instead options for controlling and manipulating their opponents should be their highest expression. If you've ever seen that Avatar tv show, I can see at least one type of monk play like that Ty Lee character. When she got pinned down she was out of the fight pretty quick. But she was able to jump in the thick of a fight, send out a flurry of attacks that didn't really knock anyone out, but suddenly people can't use their arm or cast their spells anymore.
I also think they should be ok at skills. But then I believe everyone who isn't a full caster should be at least ok at skills.

Relative to the other martial classes they should be bad at straight tanking. That's not their job. And while I can see them getting some mystical abilities possibly keyed off that meditation thing. The base rendition of the class should not really be demonstrating really overt high magic effects. Though I admit there is room for this sort of thing if you're doing subclasses or archetypes.

[Nifft]

Yeah, a Shaolin Monk.

What it should do is function as weaponized enlightenment.

No armor? Meditation lets me dodge better. No weapons? Empathy makes my fists hit harder.

It's a playable pastiche of tropes about people who are pacifists, mixed with martial arts movies, and a dash of general Eastern fantasy.

If a Swashbuckler swings from a chandelier and cuts a centerpiece candle on his way to carving an initial in the cheek of the BBEG while quipping wittily, then the Monk would dance across the table stepping only on candle-flames in order to kick the BBEG in the rib while delivering a smug aphorism. Same damage, similar mechanics, different insult generator.

[nonsi]

.
All official incarnations of the Monk class pose a bundle of medium-minus features with little to no synergy.

At the risk of being accused of self promotion, this is one of the few Monk remakes I know of that would not be put to shame by other combat classes.

Btw, I personally liked BECMI D&D title "Mystic" better. My proposal is a mix of both 3.5e Monk and BECMI D&D Mystic, and then some.
AFAICT, it stays true in spirit to both classes, but is richer in capabilities and quite a few of its features actually synergize nicely.

[Just to Browse]

What should the Monk be able to do, and do well?
Moving around, punching, incapacitating enemies, and *mumble mumble* mystic things

What should they be able to do okay?
Stealth, light tanking (by being flighty & disruptive)

What should they be bad at?
Being a legit damage sponge, outright killing (of level-appropriate enemies)

What should they not be able to do at all?
Doing things at range

--

I disagree that Monks should be compared to a swashbuckling character. They have some similarities in terms of mobility expectations, and the "tank while not being beefy" schtick. But Monk's have some crucial differences:

• Monks get lots of weird sorta-magic power sources like being powered by ghosts, psionics, becoming the avatar, force magic, maybe shapeshifting, teleportation.
• Monks can play at high fantasy and still feel like monks, while the swashbuckler concept has a lifespan of like 5-10 levels before you have to start reaching
• Monks are poorly-defined enough as a concept that they can fit into a ton of different character concepts. Swashbucklers are a lot more locked to the Three Musketeers or a quippy pirate.

And since this thread is 3.x... I consider the Dungeonimcon Monk the authoritative fix for the Monk. It removes most of the noise (did we really need 3 extra columns on the original Monk's class table??) and lets you assemble your various interesting monk concepts.

[noob]

What should the Monk be able to do, and do well?
Moving around, punching, incapacitating enemies, and *mumble mumble* mystic things

What should they be able to do okay?
Stealth, light tanking (by being flighty & disruptive)

What should they be bad at?
Being a legit damage sponge, outright killing (of level-appropriate enemies)

What should they not be able to do at all?
Doing things at range

--

I disagree that Monks should be compared to a swashbuckling character. They have some similarities in terms of mobility expectations, and the "tank while not being beefy" schtick. But Monk's have some crucial differences:

• Monks get lots of weird sorta-magic power sources like being powered by ghosts, psionics, becoming the avatar, force magic, maybe shapeshifting, teleportation.
• Monks can play at high fantasy and still feel like monks, while the swashbuckler concept has a lifespan of like 5-10 levels before you have to start reaching
• Monks are poorly-defined enough as a concept that they can fit into a ton of different character concepts. Swashbucklers are a lot more locked to the Three Musketeers or a quippy pirate.

And since this thread is 3.x... I consider the Dungeonimcon Monk the authoritative fix for the Monk. It removes most of the noise (did we really need 3 extra columns on the original Monk's class table??) and lets you assemble your various interesting monk concepts.

You see the problem is that if you are bad at "Being a legit damage sponge, outright killing (of level-appropriate enemies)" Then you are necessarily not good at punching too: the people who are good at punching kills the opponents in one or two turns with punches.(unarmed strike uberchargers for example)
You are also bad at incapacitating because good incapacitations allows to kill outright the opponent very fast(coup de grace right after incapacitation or the opponent is out of the fight long enough for it being equivalent to killing)
Light tanking can happen only if you are good at killing opponents else the opponents ignore you and kill the other people easily.
Basically being good at half of the first roles means "being good at killing opponents" then you say that monk should be bad at killing opponents so it is a huge contradiction.
Essentially it is the dnd core monk contradiction and why the core monk is a so bad class.
Unless we take the good at punching idea and put it in a non fighting way.
For example Sam the monk is so good at punching that when someone is choking they can stop the choking by punching them, Sam also punch in a safe way that does not inflict harm and Sam can repair complex machinery with either punches or kicks, Sam once punched someone back from death by waking them up really intensely with their punch. Sam also solves hunger, sickness and depression with either kicks or punches and Sam can convince bad people to become good by punching them harmlessly.

[Kadhel]

I've seen this thread and I already gave an answer about this, so I'll simply past it here :

For me, the monk concept is all about a guy who find enlightment and improves his spirit and body to "transcend" mortal limits, using a strict discipline and work. The monk is all about this. Better health, spiritual techniques, better mind, better speed, more attack/round, evading attacks with intuition alone... That's about the flavor and concept.

Now, the question is : What is the monk's role in a party ? With the rework I did, a monk can properly fight if wanted, or control people, or scout, or being a short-length tactical taxi.

For me, answering to "what is monk's role ?" is like answering "what is fighter's role ?". A fighter can specialize in one or two things very well :
- Charge of doom with the beatstick (or with horse and prc)
- Dungeoncrasher bullrush and door destroyer
- The one guy that stand and control anything in reach
- This one guy with two-weapons doing what the heck he specialized in (special combo ? Full crit scimitar ? Wounding weapon ?)
- This guy who has an insane AC and tactically stand at the right point to help allies.
- This zentharim intimidating guy

We are not speaking about some caster class or ToB class that can do all they want (or close to). Here we are talking about these guys who do melee and specialize in some things. The monk has a kit, and what you want to do witth it is up to you. There is also many prc enabling a monk to cross-class with paladins, wizard, cleric, etc. Even to give a completely different flavor to your monk. It's just a path different from the initial enlightment he seeked.

What I did here was boosting monk's base kit in order to make it relevant and not a joke anymore (one for just "repairing" monk, the other to make it more strong).

As for the real "niche", I think a monk is, above else, a melee fighter with some utilitary and control abilities, and that can SURVIVE more against a variety of attacks, instead of having lot of hp.
What you want to do as a melee is up to you. If you want something not tied to melee, I recommand to PrC or cross-class to achieve the role you want.

The answer was tied to the rework I did here : https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...7#post24577087

Now, about the monk AS IT IS in the 3.5 Player Handbook, well... The real problem is that most of his abilities are irrelevant, if not jokes when you obtain them. I can see someone pulling off a nice build by exploiting the monk's unarmed attack and either lot of damage or disabling effects, but that's it.

The original monk in 3.5 is hurt by the fact that he has 3/4 BaB and is MAD (need con, dex, str, wis to be relevant). So he's all about sacrifices and don't look back. It's a real pain, because whatever you do, you'll skip almost half your class features or be bad. And even when specializing, other classes can often do better. It is to the point that the better monk is a one or two level dip, or prc out as soon as possible (with some nice cross class and prc as Enlighted Fist, Argent Fist, Sacred Fist and Fist of Forest, to only give some).

Current 3.5 monk role is : not being a monk for too long. That's it. Even a full fighter can pull off better. I made my rework only to repair the monk. And an other to improves it a bit. It's really similar to the standard monk, but patches the problems without making it a powerhouse.

I've read the nonsi rework (here : https://forums.giantitp.com/showsing...4&postcount=21), which is the "better" monk rework I've seen so far in making the monk STRONG without diverging too much from original concept or making it utterly broken. But it's almost too powerful for me, although there are good ideas there. I'm almost tempted to add a third version of rework, based on nonsi's version and mine, for really high-tiered campains.

One thing I often see in reworks is that people make base class broken or completely cast away the initial vibe of it. And the main "argument" for this is "ToB is so strong, Casters are so strong". I admit they are. But when you don't pull cheesed build on table, it happens that they ARE better, but not UTTERLY broken. And seeing a wizard losing his spellbook or a cleric being confronted to a situation he doesn't have prepared the spell for is always fun, because fighters and low-tier classes save their ass this time. When you do rework, don't base it on feeling and high-cheese build. Just do it having numbers for appropriate level in mind, and keep the flavor behind the class, because it's what make a class what it is.

(Wow I've disgressed a lot there)

[Just to Browse]

Basically being good at half of the first roles means "being good at killing opponents" then you say that monk should be bad at killing opponents so it is a huge contradiction.

I think the primary confusion is around this idea. You don't have to deal damage to be disruptive or to incapacitate enemies. The Monk's stunning fist is a great example of that. Denying actions, reducing / preventing mobility, forced movement, weakening attacks, and weakening saves are all things that a monk can theoretically do to an enemy without killing them.

[noob]

I think the primary confusion is around this idea. You don't have to deal damage to be disruptive or to incapacitate enemies. The Monk's stunning fist is a great example of that. Denying actions, reducing / preventing mobility, forced movement, weakening attacks, and weakening saves are all things that a monk can theoretically do to an enemy without killing them.

Except that all that is weak when you have to punch first to apply them: someone good at punching would not just inflict those by punching: they would also kill or turn unconscious.
It is the melee problem: landing an attack is hard (you have to be close enough and also not be fighting an illusory projection of the opponent and a dozen of other restriction) so it must end the fight fast.
Stunning fist is identical to killing if it lasts long enough but the base duration is really low and you get really few uses and it is prevented by a save unlike killing with damage thus making it even more luck based than regular attacks.

[Nifft]

I think the primary confusion is around this idea. You don't have to deal damage to be disruptive or to incapacitate enemies. The Monk's stunning fist is a great example of that. Denying actions, reducing / preventing mobility, forced movement, weakening attacks, and weakening saves are all things that a monk can theoretically do to an enemy without killing them.

In 4e, this sort of thing was the domain of the Controller role.

Forced movement, area denial / area damage, action denial, debuffs -- the types of things that a 3.x "GOD Wizard" might do to influence a fight in order that the rest of the party will win.

And yeah, a Monk class could be built around that role, and it could be awesome.

[noob]

In 4e, this sort of thing was the domain of the Controller role.

Forced movement, area denial / area damage, action denial, debuffs -- the types of things that a 3.x "GOD Wizard" might do to influence a fight in order that the rest of the party will win.

And yeah, a Monk class could be built around that role, and it could be awesome.

Needing to be close is a gigantic problem(ex: flying opponents or burrowing opponents).
unless your monk can throw his punches he will have trouble.(please note that punch throwing is an option but if you make it happen by default players will have the feeling that they are playing a refluffed warmage)
Also in 4e doing those effects are much more useful mostly because the damaging characters does not vaporize everything(tarrasque included) instantly before having at least 4 or 5 levels.
In 3.5 what makes a wizard really good is not its fighting spells else many of the T3 classes that gets most of the good wizard fighting spells would be higher tier.

[Nifft]

Needing to be close is a gigantic problem(ex: flying opponents or burrowing opponents).
unless your monk can throw his punches he will have trouble.(please note that punch throwing is an option but if you make it happen by default players will have the feeling that they are playing a refluffed warmage)
Also in 4e doing those effects are much more useful mostly because the damaging characters does not vaporize everything(tarrasque included) instantly before having at least 4 or 5 levels.
In 3.5 what makes a wizard really good is not its fighting spells else many of the T3 classes that gets most of the good wizard fighting spells would be higher tier.

Leap of the Heavens: You don't launch an arrow, you launch a Monk. Spend one ki point as an Action to jump through the air and make two unarmed melee attacks against a flying target within range ______. If either attack hits, you may initiate a Grapple on the target as a Bonus action. If you don't make and win the Grapple check, you fall. Note that Grappling interferes with some forms of flight, so you might fall together with your target. If you do, you land on top, and take half damage (if any).

Ring the Golden Bell: Spend a ki point as an Action to make a single unarmed melee attack against a target at range ________. If the attack hits, you can spend another ki point to use Stunning Strike. Note that the Stunned condition interferes with some forms of flight.

Kusarigama: It's a kama on a chain. You hook flying jerks, and jerk them down to punching range.

Lightning Lure: It's a cantrip which 4E Monks should have gotten. I think its forced movement can pull down flying targets.


... but yeah, the Monk would need to be re-worked to fit in that role. It's quite doable, but it's not trivial.

[Just to Browse]

Except that all that is weak when you have to punch first to apply them: someone good at punching would not just inflict those by punching: they would also kill or turn unconscious.
It is the melee problem: landing an attack is hard (you have to be close enough and also not be fighting an illusory projection of the opponent and a dozen of other restriction) so it must end the fight fast.
Stunning fist is identical to killing if it lasts long enough but the base duration is really low and you get really few uses and it is prevented by a save unlike killing with damage thus making it even more luck based than regular attacks.

The fixes for your problems seem pretty trivial: Make landing attacks easier, allow detection of illusory projections, increase the number of uses an ability has. A dozen restrictions can easily be matched by two dozen solutions. I'll point to the dungeonomicon monk again as a great example of this. It simply isn't true that melee attacks have to end fights quickly.

[Elves]

Leap of the Heavens: You don't launch an arrow, you launch a Monk. Spend one ki point as an Action to jump through the air and make two unarmed melee attacks against a flying target within range ______. If either attack hits, you may initiate a Grapple on the target as a Bonus action. If you don't make and win the Grapple check, you fall. Note that Grappling interferes with some forms of flight, so you might fall together with your target. If you do, you land on top, and take half damage (if any).

Ring the Golden Bell: Spend a ki point as an Action to make a single unarmed melee attack against a target at range ________. If the attack hits, you can spend another ki point to use Stunning Strike. Note that the Stunned condition interferes with some forms of flight.

Kusarigama: It's a kama on a chain. You hook flying jerks, and jerk them down to punching range.

Lightning Lure: It's a cantrip which 4E Monks should have gotten. I think its forced movement can pull down flying targets.


... but yeah, the Monk would need to be re-worked to fit in that role. It's quite doable, but it's not trivial.

Not a fan of the 5e ki points personally. Better to design a class's abilities so that they work together rather than taking the lazy route of "you have x points, here's a bag of abilities, they each cost 1 point." I'm not saying that's always bad, it's very basic, but it can be a form of laziness because it can be used to bind together any abilities whatsoever even when they don't form a coherent whole. In the case of the 3e monk, it risks being a semblance of unity plastered over the fundamental problem of having disconnected abilities.

But the idea of making monk "special weapons" more of a thing by giving monks a unique ability while wielding each weapon could be very cool. That could also be a prestige class.

[Nifft]

Not a fan of the 5e ki points personally. Better to design a class's abilities so that they work together rather than taking the lazy route of "you have x points, here's a bag of abilities, they each cost 1 point."

Spellcasters, Manifesters, and literally everyone with a class resource are looking at you like they've just been attacked.

Because they have been, since you're complaining about resource management in general as if it were somehow a thing for only one class in one edition.

I'm not saying that's always bad, it's very basic, but it can be a form of laziness because it can be used to bind together any abilities whatsoever even when they don't form a coherent whole. In the case of the 3e monk, it risks being a semblance of unity plastered over the fundamental problem of having disconnected abilities.

I think you're saying something incorrect here: 3e Monk would be improved if you could trade out uses of things like Stunning Fist for other features like Empty Body. AFAICT that's exactly what Pathfinder did, and it was regarded as an improvement. 5e's ki points are effectively identical to measuring a resource in Stunning Fist uses, since each Stunning Fist costs one point.

I'd have to guess you also hate Pathfinder Monks?

And you somehow prefer 3e Monks with their trashbag full of siloed 1/day abilities?

But the idea of making monk "special weapons" more of a thing by giving monks a unique ability while wielding each weapon could be very cool. That could also be a prestige class.

Monk weapons really do need an overhaul, but that's a bit of a distraction from the example of a Monk using a special weapon to fit in the niche of short-range Controller.

I think a redesigned Monk around using the Controller role would be a lot more satisfactory.

It'd keep the classical tropes mentioned above, of course.

[nonsi]

I've read the nonsi rework (here : https://forums.giantitp.com/showsing...4&postcount=21), which is the "better" monk rework I've seen so far in making the monk STRONG without diverging too much from original concept or making it utterly broken. But it's almost too powerful for me, although there are good ideas there. I'm almost tempted to add a third version of rework, based on nonsi's version and mine, for really high-tiered campains.

As you've probably noticed, my design has many purposes behind it.
First goal was getting rid of flurry of misses. On one hand FoB & TWF don't mix. On the other, Ki Strike boosts hit probability and basic damage output. Less dice rolls promotes a better game flow.
The idea of self-enhancement (and consequently far better self-reliance) was drawn from the Soulknife. At the same time, it serves for embodying many anime characters and enabling stuff seen in fantasy martial-arts movies.
In my settings magic items are harder to come by and are more costly to self-produce. Along with the above, this basically eliminates "Christmas Tree" monks.
The class is worth at least 2.5 Monk-equivalent classes in terms of richness of class features, granting it a lot more combat and non-combat options during a typical "work day".
As far as damage dealing goes, since it operates in a set of rules that doesn't implement ToB maneuvers, This class should not exceed ToB classes in terms of maximum damage potential, but shouldn't trail far behind either. I definitely expect it to be more effective in most situations.

[Elves]

Re Nifft:

I'm making a general point that putting several different abilities in a bag and saying you can use them for 1 point each is a very simple way to create relationality between any set of abilities, but exactly because of that, it can be used a way to mask a lack of synergy between what the abilities themselves actually do. The same is true of any resource system.

If you take the 3e monk and make its abilities draw from a single pool of resources, that creates a sense of unity, but a false sense of unity, because the problem remains that its different abilities don't sum up to a coherent gameplay.

I'm not criticizing your suggestions, but since you were implying use of ki points, it's something to keep in mind.


I agree that monk as melee controller is the right way to go, alluded to this upthread. The concerns about the impracticality of having to do that job in melee are exactly why the monk needs lots of mobility and defensives.

[Morphic tide]

Except that all that is weak when you have to punch first to apply them: someone good at punching would not just inflict those by punching: they would also kill or turn unconscious.
It is the melee problem: landing an attack is hard (you have to be close enough and also not be fighting an illusory projection of the opponent and a dozen of other restriction) so it must end the fight fast.
Stunning fist is identical to killing if it lasts long enough but the base duration is really low and you get really few uses and it is prevented by a save unlike killing with damage thus making it even more luck based than regular attacks.

The "Illusory projection" thing signals to me that you're thinking about actively playing the T1 nonsense of Astral Projection and Body Outside Body spam as the bar of viability, which is a set of things that nothing in the game is actually intended to handle. Because that pileup of risk-negation wasn't intended in the first place. And the extremely vast majority of that stuff is either handled decently well with just some halfway reliable form of Dispel, or even all-in scry-or-die t1 spellcasters have notable difficulties dealing with it. As for flying enemies... Jumps with Grapple attempts mixed in are a mechanic that should be generally applicable.

And Stunning Fist being "functionally identical" to killing isn't a problem, it would likely be a feature because that means there's a very direct compensatory property to not having as much raw HP damage. The entire point of the Fighter is grabbing the blunt "does damage" functions. The poor quality of most of the feats they can take for that is entire beside the point. A longer duration, more reliable, or more frequently used Stunning Fist can very well do most of the lifting on making the Monk a functional "battlefield control" class that doesn't bring the bulk damage to kill enemies in battle, and their Fast Movement can very much be doing a vast amount of work on the distance issue.

Not a fan of the 5e ki points personally. Better to design a class's abilities so that they work together rather than taking the lazy route of "you have x points, here's a bag of abilities, they each cost 1 point." I'm not saying that's always bad, it's very basic, but it can be a form of laziness because it can be used to bind together any abilities whatsoever even when they don't form a coherent whole. In the case of the 3e monk, it risks being a semblance of unity plastered over the fundamental problem of having disconnected abilities.

But the idea of making monk "special weapons" more of a thing by giving monks a unique ability while wielding each weapon could be very cool. That could also be a prestige class.

The issue with having class features properly tie together is that there's often too many things to do in 3.5, so without a centralizing feature such as slots, a points pool, shapeshifting, or some other Big Gimmick to hang effects off of, there's too many things you're likely to need to do to be a working single-class character to have a blunt list of features really work together. For the Monk, this centralizing function would most certainly be Ki Strike, likely adjusted such that it's more "modal" than piling up effects. Possibly having the Monk level be a "cap" on the effects?

Expanding on "special weapons" could borrow from the PF1e Fighter's Advanced Weapon Training, being a set of abilities that ask for the weapon to have a given property, whether that be a material it's made of, a certain type of damage, having Reach, or whatever.

[nonsi]

A longer duration, more reliable, or more frequently used Stunning Fist can very well do most of the lifting on making the Monk a functional "battlefield control" class that doesn't bring the bulk damage to kill enemies in battle, and their Fast Movement can very much be doing a vast amount of work on the distance issue.

Incorporate Spring attack, Bounding Assault and Rapid Blitz into the Monk's level progression and allow the Monk to flurry when using those options and we could start talking about your suggestion seriously.

A handful of additional useful suggestion would be:
1. Replace the Slow Fall line with feather fall and make room for actual class features, not something that any mage could do better at 1st level.
2. Give the Monk more feats to enable one to actually become a versatile battlefield controller.
3. Enrich Ki Strike to actually make it count for something and make the Monk more effective vs. a variety of opponents. Magic-Lawful-Adamantine is far from being enough.
4. Grant the Monk self-enhancement and remove dependency upon "the kindness of strangers" or dumb luck when rolling for treasure.
5. Increase the damage dealt by Monk weapons when wielded by monks.

Without getting into specific details, apply the above and you go a long way in making the Monk a solid choice.

[Anonymouswizard]

When you think "Monk", what do you think?

A member of a religious institution. Some in certain areas of the world learnt martial arts from retired soldiers who joined them, but their actual duties were along the lines of 'pray, read and/or copy religious texts, potentially act as priests', with variations based on religion and region.

I envisioned the eastern classes (monk, samurai, and ninja) as more mystic counterparts to the fighter and rogue. I gave the samurai invocations, the ninja spell progression, and the monk sort-of invocations.

[Profanity]

'Eastern classes' should not exist as a concept (and arguably neither should the 'Western class' of the Paladin). Especially as what people tend to mean is 'Japanese classes, plus Shaolin Monks', because we can just shove in names from one culture, along with the assumption that somebody with a certain rank or title must have said class.

Samurai are just a noble caste who tend towards the Fighter class, while Ninja are spies and assassins who probably have levels in Rogue. In 5e they might have a tendency towards a certain subclass or two, but they probably aren't uniquely Asian themed subclasses (now 'Samurai' might be a valid variant background in 5e, but backgrounds should really be DIY anyway).

The Monk class does have a valid archetype that's worth exploring, it's the mystical warrior who draws their powers from ritualistic training and self improvement without outright magic, but to me they honestly need to be divorced from Shaolin monks and moved more towards the warrior end of the scale. I'd honestly make the following changes:

• First off change the name, Mystic would be fine if you want to retain something from an earlier edition.
• Get rid of the idea of them only using 'martial arts weapons', and give them equivalent weapon proficiencies to the Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger
• Make them just as good at combat as the other warrior classes (full BAB in 3.X, Extra Attack and a way to boost their damage in 5e).IF you want to keep Flurry of Blows it shouldn't be balanced by 'half the attacks miss'.
• Armour proficiency should be either light only or none. It depends on if those couple of extra AC points are going to matter.
• Speed and mobility increases, especially lightfooting (I'd implement it as 'you can move in any direction as long as you start and end your move touching a surface')
• Focus the class on Dexterity and Wisdom, including the ability to substitute Wisdom for Strength on damage rolls.
• Abilities that make use of a free hand. Swift/Bonus Action shoves, grabs, and pulls, deflecting attacks, offhand chi-based strikes.

Make it more general instead of specific. Maybe add some support to allow the bare-fisted shaolin monk, but also allow it to represent the jian-wielding xia.

[Kadhel]

As you've probably noticed, my design has many purposes behind it.
First goal was getting rid of flurry of misses. On one hand FoB & TWF don't mix. On the other, Ki Strike boosts hit probability and basic damage output. Less dice rolls promotes a better game flow.
The idea of self-enhancement (and consequently far better self-reliance) was drawn from the Soulknife. At the same time, it serves for embodying many anime characters and enabling stuff seen in fantasy martial-arts movies.
In my settings magic items are harder to come by and are more costly to self-produce. Along with the above, this basically eliminates "Christmas Tree" monks.
The class is worth at least 2.5 Monk-equivalent classes in terms of richness of class features, granting it a lot more combat and non-combat options during a typical "work day".
As far as damage dealing goes, since it operates in a set of rules that doesn't implement ToB maneuvers, This class should not exceed ToB classes in terms of maximum damage potential, but shouldn't trail far behind either. I definitely expect it to be more effective in most situations.

I agree with the fact less rolls means better game flow ^^ I understand also that in a setting where magic items are a pain to find, the monk fall behind even more than usually. I also understand the concept of embodying anime characters and so.

In fact, because you speak about ToB, I personaly think many ToB features give this "fantasy martial-arts movies" vibe. I consider ToB classes really strong in comparison to standard melee classes (with the exception of some really specific builds in melee part), so in my own rework I focused to make the monk "on-par" with other standard melee classes from core (or slightly better) and staying as close as possible from the original class.

As I said, I find your rework really fine in order to make monk really strong, even if we have a totally different approach at how we are doing the thing (rework I mean). But it can also be explained by the fact your monk rework is part of a greater rework (in fact, a setting) where you houseruled many things. I did my own rework based on core rules and other melee classes, without considering ToB in that. That's why I said I should, maybe, also do a monk that could be played on par with ToB classes (and some ideas in your rework are really good in that).

TWF and Flurry

For the TWF/Flurry part, I understand the point about gameflow. But for a standard monk to take Two-Weapon Fighting Route is hard. High dex, heavy feat tax. And at the outcome, comparing monk to the fighter we would have :
- Fighter routine TWF full : +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3
- Monk routine flurry + TWF full : +13/+13/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3
So only one more attack for the monk, and worse to-hit overall for monk (not even considering the str to-hit for fighter and fact that monk don't have wis to hit without Intuitive attack in standard d&d).
In your case, you chose to give wis to-hit to the monk. In mine, I gave full BaB and the player CAN take intuitive attack if wanted. Well balanced with fighter this way. But taking feat to have Intuitive and TWF feat series could be heavy for the monk, where the fighter can pull it off in a TWF build with bonus feats. But I admit Ranger can be used to easily gain TWF ang gloves of balanced hand to gain ITWF (if we must talk about easy way). Overall we took a different approach on it, but seems fine in either case ^^

To further develop my point about "almost too strong"

To explain myself more about why I said it's "almost" too strong for me in your rework, here are some thoughts (And they are here comparing to "standard d&d", I totally UNDERSTAND that it's good in your setting !):
- Ascetic Athleticism is good. But monk level to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Jump, Move Silently, Swim and Tumble seems a really great advantage, as you're not wearing armor (no penalty to these checks) and have 6+int skill points, so 6 skills maxed if wanted. Add Listen, Spot, Diplomacy and Sense Motive and you get almost all the skills of the monk. It means the monk will easily outshine anybody in physical prowess's skills without many investment. It's basically 7 skills with a free maxed-3. (level instead of level +3), which enables you to max 6 other skills and be an all-rounder in all your skills. For me, it could be good in an high-tiered campaign where spells and ToB are proeminent, but it outshines all the rest ^^ (example : Ninja get +6 to Climb, Jump, Tumble. That's it.) And it's not even considering that when gaining meditation, Concentration and Autohypnosis are maxed as well.
- About ki-strike : I totally agree with the fact current monk ki-strike is hard for him. He can't pass many DR. That's why I think it's good to have a broader "Bypass DR" route (adding cold iron, silver, etc). That's what you do at level 4th, 7th and 10th. I also like the "ghost touch" thing, which pair nicely with the whole "spirit" thing of the monk fluff and is a nice help for him. Now, about the things I'm hesitant with : giving wis to hit and wis to dmg is good, but could easily be abused by cleric/druid multiclassing with one-level dip. I understand the concept behind (fighter and barbarian often have only to worry about str+con, so having wis+con for monk could be good, or wis+con+dex), but I'm hesitant with it. I solved this myself by giving full BaB to monk and letting him choose what he wants to do with it (with a bonus wis to trip, bullrush, etc). Giving wis to hit and to dmg is common sense if you want the monk to shine, but I wanted to pinpoint some things about it x) But adding it ON-TOP at level 10th seems really, really powerful and unecessary for me. The last thing I've to say is about DR/_. Monk should'nt bypass it. I know ToB has moutain hammer strike, but it's a standard action to make one, and you can't make one every turn. DR/_ should stay DR/_ ^^
- You give total immunity to fear, charm and compulsion effects at lvl 10. It's a bit too earlier I think. It's almost Mind Blank without divination part and mental illusion, which is a 17th spell, at level 10. You then give mind blank at level 19th, which is good, but could for example be given at level 17 or 18, making it relevant faster and enabling to get rid of the 10th level effect.
- DEDICATED DODGE IS SO NICE. I LOVE IT. Sorry I had to say it xD It's so nice to be like, the all dodgy monk that stand and says "TOUCH ME IF YOU CAN, MY SPIRIT AND MY BODY ARE READY". Nice way to reposition herself without teleport ability etc :p It's a good trade I think.
- Tempered Body is really special. I think it's a really good thing, but I can't imagine exactly how strong it is. By the way, in a low-magic item theme, it could make sense (but shouldn't outclass other classes). But if magic items are available, how does it pair with an amulet of natural attacks or mighty fists ?
- Uneartlhy Reactions is good for movement etc. But the part about AOO bothers me. It hurts me that a fighter which put all his effort to manage to gain an AOO with feats etc his just denied. Imagine : monk want to trip, fighter has the feat to react to that and trip, but monk trip before and say "nope lol". I would feel really sorry for the fighter in that case. Not a really big case, but I wanted to say it.
- About the AC Bonus you give (+1 to +10 at level 20). I see nowhere the wisdom to AC line, so I'll give 2 versions :
* if having widsom : the +10 bonus is too much. At level 20, it would easily give +19 AC alone, without other AC improvement. A fighter without shield would have 13/14 AC with full-plate, and with a shield, add 9 more, for 22/23 AC. And it's supposing only alteration bonus to AC, without other effects on shield and armor. The fighter with a shield would do really low dmg (one handed weapon) or lot with an animated shield, but then AC drop to 20/21. If monk dex is 16/18, monk have 22/23 AC but with no penalty to movement AND defensive effects from tempered body. Ouch :(
* if removed wisdom : +10 at level 20 isn't enough to be on par with other classes and facing mobs. And also, it scales linearly, where D&D AC isn't linear, resulting in your monk to be a punchbag for all his life.

I've nothing to say about the rest, only : GOOD WORK DAMN.
Sorry for this big disgression, but I felt like I should explain what I was meaning more clearly ^^'

BY THE WAY ! I'm enjoying the fact that so many people show interest in monks and how to make them work :p

(And I really like this full melee-control vibe in some posts ^^)

[Elves]

The Monk class does have a valid archetype that's worth exploring, it's the mystical warrior who draws their powers from ritualistic training and self improvement without outright magic, but to me they honestly need to be divorced from Shaolin monks and moved more towards the warrior end of the scale. I'd honestly make the following changes: [snip]

So swordsage, basically?

Agreed about samurai and ninja, but the theme of the mystical martial artist isn’t as easily covered by the other classes and is probably strong enough to stand on its own. Sure, it has cultural connotations, but so does paladin.

[Unavenger]

So swordsage, basically?

"Without outright magic" very much precludes the swordsage - but also, mind you, precludes the monk - for any definition of magic other than the "It has literally the spellcasting feature".

[Anonymouswizard]

So swordsage, basically?

Basically Get rid of the Shaolin Monk aspects, martial it up a bit, and keep everything else.

Agreed about samurai and ninja, but the theme of the mystical martial artist isn’t as easily covered by the other classes and is probably strong enough to stand on its own. Sure, it has cultural connotations, but so does paladin.

Oh, certainly, I have no problem with the core concept or half of the fluff, it's the other half of the fluff and the linked pigeonholing into certain weapons (why can't they dual weild dao?). There's nothing wrong with the mystical warrior who develops power from training under a waterfall/on top of burning coals/while falling from a cliff/in the middle of a dojo, the problem comes from the 'it's a martial artist so it's Shaolin' parts.

As for the Paladin, these days I wouldn't be sad to see it go, especially as it's shifted from 'as ideal a knight as possible' to 'divine warrior', which is a fine concept but should probably have a less culturally tied name (like the Monk).

"Without outright magic" very much precludes the swordsage - but also, mind you, precludes the monk - for any definition of magic other than the "It has literally the spellcasting feature".

Magic smagic. It's just running faster than the wind, because this is a fantasy setting. It's more about avoiding psionics/spellcasting/incanum/invocations/whatever, the point being that 'mystic warrior' does not mean to be 'magic warrior', no matter what people I play with keep insisting.

[Unavenger]

Magic smagic. It's just running faster than the wind, because this is a fantasy setting. It's more about avoiding psionics/spellcasting/incanum/invocations/whatever, the point being that 'mystic warrior' does not mean to be 'magic warrior', no matter what people I play with keep insisting.

I don't really know what the distinction you're trying to make. I would say you seem to be making the distinction between subsystem use and non-subsystem use, but maneuvers are a subsystem too. What's the difference between mystical teleportation and magical teleportation?