New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 96
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by JackPhoenix View Post
    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!

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deathtongue View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deathtongue View Post
    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.

  3. - Top - End - #33

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deathtongue View Post
    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.

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Deathtongue; 2020-08-04 at 11:49 AM.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    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.
    Last edited by RSP; 2020-08-04 at 12:49 PM.

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Man_Over_Game's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deathtongue View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Man_Over_Game; 2020-08-04 at 11:55 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.

    5th Edition Homebrewery
    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes to open a world of new multiclassing.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deathtongue View Post
    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!!

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deathtongue View Post
    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...
    Last edited by NaughtyTiger; 2020-08-04 at 11:53 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Just, please don't. Insisting on that technicality improves nothing.

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    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.

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    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.

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by NaughtyTiger View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Deathtongue; 2020-08-04 at 12:08 PM.

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deathtongue View Post
    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.
    Last edited by NaughtyTiger; 2020-08-04 at 12:32 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Just, please don't. Insisting on that technicality improves nothing.

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    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"

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Man_Over_Game's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by NaughtyTiger View Post
    unrelated, but 4e monk is a freaking great platform for Kratos from GoW...
    Quote Originally Posted by Deathtongue View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.

    5th Edition Homebrewery
    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes to open a world of new multiclassing.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deathtongue View Post
    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.

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Just, please don't. Insisting on that technicality improves nothing.

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zalabim View Post
    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.

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by NaughtyTiger View Post
    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
    Look, 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.

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zalabim View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Just, please don't. Insisting on that technicality improves nothing.

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrStabby View Post
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bosh View Post
    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.

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deathtongue View Post
    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.
    Last edited by NaughtyTiger; 2020-08-04 at 01:04 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Just, please don't. Insisting on that technicality improves nothing.

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by NaughtyTiger View Post
    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.

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by NaughtyTiger View Post
    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.

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deathtongue View Post
    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.

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deathtongue View Post
    I don't think I have a minority opinion...
    You do. It’s why everyone else is posting and telling you as such.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deathtongue View Post
    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?

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie the Duck View Post
    *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.

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zalabim View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a
    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.

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Deathtongue; 2020-08-04 at 01:55 PM.

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    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.
    Last edited by NaughtyTiger; 2020-08-04 at 02:00 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Just, please don't. Insisting on that technicality improves nothing.

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Monks are problematic from a roleplaying perspective, too.

    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."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •