Observations on the monk and some info

[CyberThread]

The monk is very much a psychic warrior style of magic. You get ki much like psychic 3.5 system points. An each ability cost so many points, which you can fully replenish after a short or long rest and 30 mins of meditating. So after a rest you must take an extra 30 mins to fix it back all the way up. Their is no limit of how often a day you can do this. Ki also fuels class abilties like flurry of blows and such.


I am going to do a small break down of things and keep them vauge as site rules require.

Quivering Palm, very much self healing and enhance flurry of blows and quivering palm

WAy of the shadow

Access to the spells , darkness, darkvision, pass without trace, silence minor illusion ( all these require ki points to cast)

shadow step (as 3.5 would put it ) no limits and comes with some combat advatage

become invisible



Way of the four elements ... very ... last airbender

a bit complex so won't get into it , but it has some good benefits , and you chose an element you want and you get corresponding abilties or spells to go with it. So it is 4 subclasses merged into one.

[Tholomyes]

Way of the four elements ... very ... last airbender

a bit complex so won't get into it , but it has some good benefits , and you chose an element you want and you get corresponding abilties or spells to go with it. So it is 4 subclasses merged into one.Do you need to pick a single element to focus on, as a element monk? Or can you mix and match? Also, Do you get your elemental abilities at set levels, like a set list of subclass abilities or do you get to choose, more like an elemental battlemaster?

As an aside, does it not bug anyone else that they didn't use the traditional 5 chinese elements, rather than the 4 classical ones? I mean, I liked Avatar as much as the next guy, but still...

[EternalHobbyist]

Sounds boss, and possibly as fun and potentially OP as the 4e monk got to be. I feel like I need to MC monk/warlock for some reason, like I could be a wicked fast Monklock punching out people's souls left and right....

[CyberThread]

Do you need to pick a single element to focus on, as a element monk? Or can you mix and match? Also, Do you get your elemental abilities at set levels, like a set list of subclass abilities or do you get to choose, more like an elemental battlemaster?

As an aside, does it not bug anyone else that they didn't use the traditional 5 chinese elements, rather than the 4 classical ones? I mean, I liked Avatar as much as the next guy, but still...

Look at the universe map , once you get access to it, they broke it down on how their realm works .

Open Palm is Postive Plane , Shadow is negative plane, and the elements are access to the air,water,earth,fire . Makes perfect logic within the cosmo set up that D&D is using.

[Tholomyes]

Look at the universe map , once you get access to it, they broke it down on how their realm works .

Open Palm is Postive Plane , Shadow is negative plane, and the elements are access to the air,water,earth,fire . Makes perfect logic within the cosmo set up that D&D is using.I can understand why they chose it. That doesn't mean I agree with the decision.

[CyberThread]

Maybe the chinese should have been into dnd then.

[Inevitability]

Sounds boss, and possibly as fun and potentially OP as the 4e monk got to be. I feel like I need to MC monk/warlock for some reason, like I could be a wicked fast Monklock punching out people's souls left and right....

The 4e monk wasn't really OP. Sorcerers were better at area striking, rangers at single-target striking. Monks have nice powers, but they are somewhere in the middle (or even close to weak) regarding power.

[pikeamus]

...An each ability cost so many points, which you can fully replenish after a short or long rest and 30 mins of meditating. So after a rest you must take an extra 30 mins to fix it back all the way up. Their is no limit of how often a day you can do this. Ki also fuels class abilties like flurry of blows and such....


It's 30 minutes of the rest for meditation, not the rest plus 30 minutes. That would suck. There is a screenshot of the monk features page in this reddit thread (http://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/2cvw4i/i_have_a_review_copy_of_the_5e_phb_and_hoard_of/) for confirmation (didn't want to link to it directly as I'm not sure on the rules for that).

[Millennium]

As an aside, does it not bug anyone else that they didn't use the traditional 5 chinese elements, rather than the 4 classical ones? I mean, I liked Avatar as much as the next guy, but still...
Which fifth element should they have gone with? Wood? Metal? Spirit? Void? Space? The problem with using "the five traditional Chinese elements" is that there are so many traditions to choose from, but the nature of a five-element system means that you can only pick one.

No matter what you do, you will inevitably leave out proponents of the other traditions. The four elements that I mentioned above are only the ones that I can remember off the top of my head; there may be others that I have forgotten. Also worth noting is that some systems did not use a fifth element at all.

I believe it's better to go with the elements that most systems agree upon (though some Chinese systems did not use air). The system seems to have tried to be as inclusive as possible, and although this setup is certainly not perfect, I'm not sure how it could be more inclusive on this particular count.

[Human Paragon 3]

Monk looks very fun. I'm psyched that all versions of monk, not just open hand, get access to the now-very-powerful Flurry of Blows power and extra attack. This means Monk gets to make 4 attacks/round, similar to fighter (though 2 of them must be unarmed attacks and it costs ki to do so).

I can't wait to read what the elemental monks do.

[Person_Man]

5E Monk observations:

Looks like its strictly superior to the 3.5 or Pathfinder Monk.
I disagree somewhat with the "Psychic Warrior" characterization of the class. Psychic Warriors gets more options, and those options are more useful and varied. My read is that Monk will play a lot like a Rogue. Both classes get a small number of cool tricks, but you'll be using those same 2-5ish tricks over and over and over again every combat. Both are very mobile. Both get a number of fairly potent defensive abilities (with some direct overlaps), making the Rogue and Monk surprisingly tanky at mid-high levels.
Dex and Wis dependent, plus Con, to the extent that every character needs high hit points. Every other non-caster only requires Str or Dex + Con, and every caster only requires Primary Casting Ability Score + Con. Thanks to maximum ability score cap of 20, MAD isn't as big of an issue as it used to be. But I wouldn't play a Monk unless I used randomly generated Ability Scores and got lucky enough to roll 16ish+ at least three time. (Though I haven't seen the Ranger or Paladin yet. They may also be MAD).
They kept a number of fluffy but mostly useless and highly situational abilities. I'm fine with keeping such things, but it shouldn't be the only real benefit you gain at a certain level, creating dead-ish levels.
Default non-Monk Unarmed Strike is not a Finesse (Dex based) or Light Weapon (TWF) that deal 1 point of damage. You have to take 1 level of Monk to do so. Mearls publicly stated that this was done on purpose to protect the Monks niche. And I hate "permission based" rules. (Oh, you can do that thing which any humanoid can do. But you completely suck at it unless you take X class level or Feat).

[Sartharina]

Dex and Wis dependent, plus Con, to the extent that every character needs high hit points. Every other non-caster only requires Str or Dex + Con, and every caster only requires Primary Casting Ability Score + Con. Thanks to maximum ability score cap of 20, MAD isn't as big of an issue as it used to be. But I wouldn't play a Monk unless I used randomly generated Ability Scores and got lucky enough to roll 16ish+ at least three time. (Though I haven't seen the Ranger or Paladin yet. They may also be MAD).


Barbarians are STR, CON, and DEX dependent. Rangers and paladins are likewise dependent on two non-con ability scores.

[Tholomyes]

Which fifth element should they have gone with? Wood? Metal? Spirit? Void? Space? The problem with using "the five traditional Chinese elements" is that there are so many traditions to choose from, but the nature of a five-element system means that you can only pick one.

No matter what you do, you will inevitably leave out proponents of the other traditions. The four elements that I mentioned above are only the ones that I can remember off the top of my head; there may be others that I have forgotten. Also worth noting is that some systems did not use a fifth element at all.

I believe it's better to go with the elements that most systems agree upon (though some Chinese systems did not use air). The system seems to have tried to be as inclusive as possible, and although this setup is certainly not perfect, I'm not sure how it could be more inclusive on this particular count.Traditionally, the Chinese elements are described as: Metal, Water, Wood, Fire, and Earth, which tend to be as commonplace in literature about Chinese classical elements as Fire, Water, Earth, and Air are when discussing western classical element. Moreover, these five elements have a distinct place in many Chinese martial arts traditions, which could be drawn on to inspire the abilities granted by the subclass.

[Sartharina]

Traditionally, the Chinese elements are described as: Metal, Water, Wood, Fire, and Earth, which tend to be as commonplace in literature about Chinese classical elements as Fire, Water, Earth, and Air are when discussing western classical element. Moreover, these five elements have a distinct place in many Chinese martial arts traditions, which could be drawn on to inspire the abilities granted by the subclass.
Those are SOME of the five traditional elements. But there are a lot of chinese traditions.

Also - the monk is not Chinese. He's a kung-fu Friar.

[Millennium]

Traditionally, the Chinese elements are described as: Metal, Water, Wood, Fire, and Earth, which tend to be as commonplace in literature about Chinese classical elements as Fire, Water, Earth, and Air are when discussing western classical element. Moreover, these five elements have a distinct place in many Chinese martial arts traditions, which could be drawn on to inspire the abilities granted by the subclass.
By one tradition, yes. There were others. The elemental traditions of other Asian cultures also need to be considered -why pick Chinese over any other?- and again, some of these did not use a fifth element.

However, there is another concern: when reconstructing counterparts of real-world cultures in a fantasy setting, one must consider how the setting would affect and possibly alter the developments of those cultures. In the real world, the various four-element and five-element systems of antiquity, Eastern and Western alike, were all created in attempts to rationalize the physical world on a level that cannot be directly experienced. In a fantasy setting which makes this sort of experience possible, it's reasonable to expect that the elemental systems would have developed along the lines of what that experience would show, and deviate from the real world accordingly. Indeed, failing to do this could be interpreted as caricaturing the culture, making it seem willfully ignorant of the world around it.

It is not hard to imagine a setting which bears out a five-element system: a world encircled by five Elemental Planes (and possibly Positive and Negative as well, or perhaps not). The repercussions of this setting would have repercussions, not only for monks, but also for magic of all kinds, as it adapted to the world around it and how it works. But that is not the setting presented in the PHB.

[brainface]

5E Monk observations:
Looks like its strictly superior to the 3.5 or Pathfinder Monk.

Well, thank goodness. I don't think we needed one that wasn't. ^_^


5E Monk observations:]
Dex and Wis dependent, plus Con, to the extent that every character needs high hit points. Every other non-caster only requires Str or Dex + Con, and every caster only requires Primary Casting Ability Score + Con. Thanks to maximum ability score cap of 20, MAD isn't as big of an issue as it used to be. But I wouldn't play a Monk unless I used randomly generated Ability Scores and got lucky enough to roll 16ish+ at least three time. (Though I haven't seen the Ranger or Paladin yet. They may also be MAD).

One of the things that's... befuddled me the most is about this edition is why they kept a middling constitution's rather universal necessity. 4e just made it a good idea, but I could conceive of playing an unhealthy scholar or rogue past his prime with a constitution of 8 or so without being completely hamstrung. I can't foresee ever doing that with a 3e style con penalty every level.

[Tholomyes]

Those are SOME of the five traditional elements. But there are a lot of chinese traditions.

Also - the monk is not Chinese. He's a kung-fu Friar.Ah, my mistake. I forgot kung fu isn't Chinese. How silly of me.


By one tradition, yes. There were others. The elemental traditions of other Asian cultures also need to be considered -why pick Chinese over any other?- and again, some of these did not use a fifth element. A decent point, however, the Chinese 5 element system is the most prevalent within martial arts traditions. The monk is definitively a martial artist, as well as a ki user (another chinese concept). The Buddhist, Hindu and Jain elements are similar to the 4 classical elements, with the addition of Void/Aether, however the Buddhist, Hindu and Jain monastic traditions do not practice martial arts.


However, there is another concern: when reconstructing counterparts of real-world cultures in a fantasy setting, one must consider how the setting would affect and possibly alter the developments of those cultures. In the real world, the various four-element and five-element systems of antiquity, Eastern and Western alike, were all created in attempts to rationalize the physical world on a level that cannot be directly experienced. In a fantasy setting which makes this sort of experience possible, it's reasonable to expect that the elemental systems would have developed along the lines of what that experience would show, and deviate from the real world accordingly. Indeed, failing to do this could be interpreted as caricaturing the culture, making it seem willfully ignorant of the world around it.

It is not hard to imagine a setting which bears out a five-element system: a world encircled by five Elemental Planes (and possibly Positive and Negative as well, or perhaps not). The repercussions of this setting would have repercussions, not only for monks, but also for magic of all kinds, as it adapted to the world around it and how it works. But that is not the setting presented in the PHB.The elements of Chinese philosophy differ from their western counterparts. A common misconception is that they hold the same roles as the western classical elements, however what they govern is different: Chinese classical elements govern the seasons, as well as celestial bodies, medicine, feng shui, and many other natural cycles. They are philosophical, rather than alchemical. The elemental planes can cover the classic elements in an alchemical way, but that does not take away from the philosophical role of the chinese elements.

[Human Paragon 3]

Ah, my mistake. I forgot kung fu isn't Chinese. How silly of me.



Yes it is.

Also, this is silly. The four elements of the D&D universe are great, and awesome, and I want fire monks and water monks and air monks and earth monks. Give the people what they want!

[Tholomyes]

Yes it is. Forgot to blue text, fixed.

[Dienekes]

Traditionally, the Chinese elements are described as: Metal, Water, Wood, Fire, and Earth, which tend to be as commonplace in literature about Chinese classical elements as Fire, Water, Earth, and Air are when discussing western classical element. Moreover, these five elements have a distinct place in many Chinese martial arts traditions, which could be drawn on to inspire the abilities granted by the subclass.

Yeah, WotC doesn't really draw elements from actual martial arts except in the most basic and limited sense. It would be cool to see what a monk actually based around martial arts would look and play like.

[Tholomyes]

Yeah, WotC doesn't really draw elements from actual martial arts except in the most basic and limited sense. It would be cool to see what a monk actually based around martial arts would look and play like.I'm not sure how doable it'd be, with how abstracted combat is. I'm just kind of a bit disappointed that they failed to capitalize on the opportunity to give a nod to actual martial arts traditions.

And yes, I realize how hypocritical I'm being, since I'm usually the first one to argue that the historical uses of weapons or armor or what have you doesn't matter, or how martials shouldn't be bound by 'realism'. However I hold that It would just be a nice nod to those chinese traditions, and I don't actually think it's too important.

[da_chicken]

Clearly they should have gone with Five Element Ninja's elements of Gold, Wood, Water, Fire, and Earth.

[Theodoxus]

Clearly they should have gone with Five Element Ninja's elements of Gold, Wood, Water, Fire, and Earth.

I always go to Leelu when I hear Five Elements... I don't know why.

Also, they did have a martial arts based "monk" called the swordsage, and it was awesome. Setting Sun maneuvers were very much judo - and I hope someone (WotC or third party) bring out a 5th Ed revised Quintessential (see what I did there?) line for the classes. An expanded archetype book for each class (preferably, though I guess smushing all the classes into one book would be ok, if sad) that showcased new concepts - an Elemental Monk that used Wood or Void (Necrotic Energy?) what would be the Radiant equivalent? A martial artist that used Setting Sun-esque maneuvers, etc.

I'm sure we'll get something like that eventually - just curious what the quality and (shudder) power creep we'll see when it does come out.

[Prophet_of_Io]

I do miss that there isn't enough early Earth representation.

[Craft (Cheese)]

And yes, I realize how hypocritical I'm being, since I'm usually the first one to argue that the historical uses of weapons or armor or what have you doesn't matter, or how martials shouldn't be bound by 'realism'. However I hold that It would just be a nice nod to those chinese traditions, and I don't actually think it's too important.

I don't think it's hypocritical at all: A monk inspired by actual martial arts would be more nuanced and interesting than what we have now, which is a monk inspired by "Uhh he punches stuff I guess? And he has ki powers of some sort? I dunno."

[Malifice]

Im more intrested in the Monk from a gamist perspective.

The 3.P monk relied on a lot of extraneous splat to make it viable (and even then it never managed to achieve what you thought it should be doing - a mobile striker/ melee combatant).

I had to apply some heavy errata to PF monks in my house rules to make them work as I envisioned they should. Pounce type abilities, and insight bonuses to attack rolls to get them on par with the Fighter.

I'm seriouly hoping for a 'mobile striker' with this iteration.

[HorridElemental]

Im more intrested in the Monk from a gamist perspective.

The 3.P monk relied on a lot of extraneous splat to make it viable (and even then it never managed to achieve what you thought it should be doing - a mobile striker/ melee combatant).

I had to apply some heavy errata to PF monks in my house rules to make them work as I envisioned they should. Pounce type abilities, and insight bonuses to attack rolls to get them on par with the Fighter.

I'm seriouly hoping for a 'mobile striker' with this iteration.

As bad as some people may think 4e is, what you should take a look at is the 4e monk. They did an awesome job with the 4e monk and once I get my 5e PHB that is the monk I'll compare this one to.

Hate or love 4e all you want, but the Monk was fun and useful in game play.

[Malifice]

As bad as some people may think 4e is, what you should take a look at is the 4e monk. They did an awesome job with the 4e monk and once I ran my 5e PHB that is the monk I'll compare this one to.

Hate or love 4e all you want, but the Monk was fun and useful in game play.

Yeah I neither love nor hate 4th. It just offered a playstyle for me that wasnt DnD. Good game mind you, just not my personal playstyle.

[ImperiousLeader]

Im more intrested in the Monk from a gamist perspective.

The 3.P monk relied on a lot of extraneous splat to make it viable (and even then it never managed to achieve what you thought it should be doing - a mobile striker/ melee combatant).

I had to apply some heavy errata to PF monks in my house rules to make them work as I envisioned they should. Pounce type abilities, and insight bonuses to attack rolls to get them on par with the Fighter.

I'm seriouly hoping for a 'mobile striker' with this iteration.

Well, the 4e Monk had that in spades ... and while I've yet to really digest the class, the 5e one does too.

The main consequence of 5e's action and move structure is that everyone has Spring attack, you can move, attack, move more. And if you have extra attacks, you can even move in between them. So the Monk and other warrior classes no longer have to give up movement for their full attacks. That's huge.

[Malifice]

Well, the 4e Monk had that in spades ... and while I've yet to really digest the class, the 5e one does too.

The main consequence of 5e's action and move structure is that everyone has Spring attack, you can move, attack, move more. And if you have extra attacks, you can even move in between them. So the Monk and other warrior classes no longer have to give up movement for their full attacks. That's huge.

Which is a change I love.

I ran a 3.5 campaign that allowed Move + Full attack for everyone. Basically I handed everone pounce.

It actually made the game much better; more mobile and fluid. Also provided a power boost to the 'melee' classes and monsters, which actually evened the game out more at higher levels (and made the game slightly deadly at lower levels for the PC's).

[Jenckes]

I kind of worry about damage output. Way of the open hand ability kind of works on that with a more or less instant kill ability at 17th, up till then you could argue that the ability to knock everything prone and/or fling it away from you gives you some important battlefield control.

The elemental monks have access to some decent evocation spells that they can be cast more times per day than than a wizard assuming the party doesn't mind taking an hour brunch break and an hour break for early dinner. Which is cool, but it does still leave them in an odd place damage wise.

And then there's Way of the Shadow. Which is last on the list simply because I think it's the only class in the book that is pretty much an auto-multiclass. You stick in until 11 or 12 and then you GTFO. If you don't you'll be dealing ruffly the damage of a 5th level monk from now until the end of your days. That said, they get some very cool abilities.

[Tholomyes]

As bad as some people may think 4e is, what you should take a look at is the 4e monk. They did an awesome job with the 4e monk and once I get my 5e PHB that is the monk I'll compare this one to.

Hate or love 4e all you want, but the Monk was fun and useful in game play.I'll admit I never played a monk in 4e, but I'm not nearly as hot on it as you are, even as someone who liked a lot about 4e (despite coming to not particularly like it as a whole). The way the Full-discipline mechanic bound attack powers to the movement options meant instead of feeling like a mobile fighter, it often felt like you got an awesome attack power combined with an only moderately or occasionally useful movement ability.

That being said, I'm hoping to see good things from the 5e monk, but I'm also not sure things will live up to my hopes. I don't have the book yet, and likely won't have it for some time, so I can't see things for sure, but the main issue I have is that there's enough mobility baked into the base game (move being split between attacks, for example), that it seems difficult for the monk to emulate. Moreover, since the rogue gets cunning action second level, for a monk to stand above the rogue in mobility, I'd expect to see something greater than that even.

[ImperiousLeader]

I'll admit I never played a monk in 4e, but I'm not nearly as hot on it as you are, even as someone who liked a lot about 4e (despite coming to not particularly like it as a whole). The way the Full-discipline mechanic bound attack powers to the movement options meant instead of feeling like a mobile fighter, it often felt like you got an awesome attack power combined with an only moderately or occasionally useful movement ability.

I played two. An 11th level for a one-shot adventure, and a mid-heroic campaign.

I was impressed. I didn't have the single-target damage of the rogue or ranger, or the multi-target damage of the Sorcerer, but I was a bizarre hybrid of the two. And I found I had almost too much mobility, especially my 11th level Elf monk. Multi-square shifts, plus the Elf's ability to ignore difficult terrain while shifting meant I was almost impossible to lock down.

[EternalHobbyist]

I was impressed. I didn't have the single-target damage of the rogue or ranger, or the multi-target damage of the Sorcerer, but I was a bizarre hybrid of the two. And I found I had almost too much mobility, especially my 11th level Elf monk. Multi-square shifts, plus the Elf's ability to ignore difficult terrain while shifting meant I was almost impossible to lock down.

I played a low-level Monk and really enjoyed it in 4e. The combinations of move+attack possible with the Disciplines, combined with the ability to throw enemies around like ragdolls really made up for any lack of high damage output.

Looks like 5e monks get a lot of speed and extra attacks with Ki points, but they cut down on the tactical movement a lot, which appears consistent across all classes.

[Falka]

I played a lot Monk back in 3.5 and one of my best characters was a Monk / Fighter girl that aimed to become a samurai. She was a very fun character.

The main problem I have with Monk characters is that they feel like they are artificially gimped because they have the potential to become a broken class. And certainly, in paper they appear to be broken (multiple attacks, mobility, huge saves, etc.) but once you sat down and played one, you'd find yourself in a world with medium BAB and unable to hit half of the time because... well, you were a martial class with a hybrid class BAB.

I guess that with the AC nerfs to this edition, the Monk's accuracy will become more consistent (especially now that they have made the class less MAD - you're fine if you invest mostly in Dex and Wis since your unarmed strikes are treated as finesse weapons) and they will probably feel stronger than back in 3.5.

I can't say much about the 4e Monk as I haven't played the class a lot (my group doesn't really dig psionics, we never actually used PHB3), but I heard it was an okayish class.

[Human Paragon 3]

I guess that with the AC nerfs to this edition, the Monk's accuracy will become more consistent (especially now that they have made the class less MAD - you're fine if you invest mostly in Dex and Wis since your unarmed strikes are treated as finesse weapons) and they will probably feel stronger than back in 3.5.


Also now all classes have the same attack bonus, so monks should be just as good at hitting people as everyone else. Their extra attacks will actually be useful because they'll hit.

Not sure how the MADness will shake out. Hopefully their class features will balance this. I am interested in learning more about the elemental monks powers.

[Falka]

Uh... Am I the only one who is noticing a little problem in the Monk's unarmed strike?

He doesn't have PROFICIENCY in unarmed strikes...

At least I don't see it listed anywhere. Which could be a big errata, or we will suddenly see all Monks paying the Tavern Brawler feat tax (which gives them unarmed strike proficiency).

Is this the whole medium BAB dilemma all over again?

[Yuki Akuma]

Uh... Am I the only one who is noticing a little problem in the Monk's unarmed strike?

He doesn't have PROFICIENCY in unarmed strikes...

At least I don't see it listed anywhere. Which could be a big errata, or we will suddenly see all Monks paying the Tavern Brawler feat tax (which gives them unarmed strike proficiency).

Is this the whole medium BAB dilemma all over again?

Monks are proficient with all simple weapons.

Guess what unarmed strike is. Go on. (Hint: it's a simple weapon.)

[pikeamus]

I don't think it's hypocritical at all: A monk inspired by actual martial arts would be more nuanced and interesting than what we have now, which is a monk inspired by "Uhh he punches stuff I guess? And he has ki powers of some sort? I dunno."

I always wanted to play a monk based on Marcelo Garcia (http://www.bjjheroes.com/bjj-fighters/marcelo-garcia-fighter-profile) - an agile grappler that looks to finish fights by choking his opponent. Slightly disappointed that 5th edition doesn't have my back just yet. Hopefully a future release will have some more involved (and useful) options for grappling, and a monk sub-class that leans that way as well.

[Falka]

Monks are proficient with all simple weapons.

Guess what unarmed strike is. Go on. (Hint: it's a simple weapon.)

Woops. Thanks for the remark!

[Gracht Grabmaw]

So... are they finally gonna explain why the class is called "monk" even though it's not a divine class and most monks aren't even particularly religious?

[Yuki Akuma]

So... are they finally gonna explain why the class is called "monk" even though it's not a divine class and most monks aren't even particularly religious?

They really shouldn't need to. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaolin_Kung_Fu)

[Yagyujubei]

doing a WotS monk mixed with Assassin Rogue seems like it would be alot of fun esp. if you home brewed a way to apply debuffs and poisons with your attacks.


it also seems possible to build an Erevis Cale type character using WotS/cleric with a little home brew as well.

WotOF seems pretty generic to me and a bit boring, and the WotFE does seem very avatar-like but I don't particularly like the idea of a caster monk

[Gracht Grabmaw]

They really shouldn't need to. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaolin_Kung_Fu)

Xiao Lin monks ARE all practicing Zen Buddhists though. I don't think I've ever read even a vague description of the monk religion, much less seen it practiced by characters or NPCs in any game. They're not like real monks in any way, they're just random martial artists who are connected not by their beliefs but by their love for punching people.

[HorridElemental]

So... are they finally gonna explain why the class is called "monk" even though it's not a divine class and most monks aren't even particularly religious?

Same reason they weren't divine classes in 4e, 3e, PF, or whatever else WotC (or directly taken from WotC) has made.

Being religious or religious based doesn't make you a divine class. A warlock serves a higher power and receives spells and other little gifts for doing as they are told, some may worship their patron even. The warlock is closer to an divine class than the monk.

Ki comes from the Monk themselves, divine energy come from gods.

It would be weird if they were a divine class because mechanically and fluff wise they have nothing to do with getting power(s) from gods.

[CyberThread]

I don't think the monk really counts as a gish, I think it just counts as a class, that gets a few SLA's they can use on one rest.

Then again am also looking at elemental monk and just not feeling the wow factor, you get to use elemental things way .. way too little.