Why does monk exist

[Beleriphon]

See, you say that, but that isn't true. If the fighter was properly designed (why is their subclass at level 3?) and more flexible for such a generic class, you wouldn't have a need for another class.

My build a martial is far from perfect, but it's a good proof of concept that such a thing can work within the 5e structure.

Its level 3 because to 1 to 3 are supposed to be the learn your class levels. Most of the classes don't have subclasses start until level 3, or at least not have their subclass abilities come online until then.

The fighter is very generic and flexible. The issue is that it's a broad archetype of a particular type of character, that is the character that is the master of weapons and armour, not the master of kung fu face punching. Even in classical Chinese fantasy stories the guy in with the sword, and the kung fu master are different. The monk and the fighter represent those differences.

[King539]

Getting a crit and killing the enemy is just my cue to go "You are already dead" and watch them explode.

Isn't that Quivering Palm?

[KorvinStarmast]

Stan is correct in terms of where monks come from: Kwai Chang Caine, and I think a little bit of Bruce Lee. The 1970's martial arts craze (movies and TV) was really fun as a new kind of action hero besides soldiers, cowboys and hard nosed detectives. I was a teenager during that era, and practiced Tae Kwon Do for two years under a Korean instructor. It's neat how that trope has grown and gotten even better over the years.

That said, monk is an acquired taste. Of all of the editions that have monk, I find the 5e the best effort so far.

As most people have pointed out, the combat role is hit and run/skirmisher, but what I have always found intriguing is the exploring and role playing of the monk. This is where being a fan of Kwai Chang Caine has tended to inform my monks over the years. For me, each monk has more or less been a pilgrim, a wanderer in search of enlightenment ... who now and again has to kick someone's butt and dodge all of that dangerous stuff that shows up in a dungeon and dragons adventure.

(One of the worst beat downs our party ever got in 1e was from a team of evil monks ... OMG, they kicked our butts).

[Deleted]

Its level 3 because to 1 to 3 are supposed to be the learn your class levels. Most of the classes don't have subclasses start until level 3, or at least not have their subclass abilities come online until then.

The fighter is very generic and flexible. The issue is that it's a broad archetype of a particular type of character, that is the character that is the master of weapons and armour, not the master of kung fu face punching. Even in classical Chinese fantasy stories the guy in with the sword, and the kung fu master are different. The monk and the fighter represent those differences.

Which doesn't actually answer anything. The "simple" class(es) need 3 levels to learn but Cleric, Warlock, Wizard, and Druid all need 1 or 2?

If you want to punish people who don't play casters, why even have them in the game? Just call it for what it is.

See, you are also just making stuff up. The fighter, because of its generic nature, can be a martial artist. It isn't that hard to make a truly generic martial.

You could make the fighter specific to an ideology and give it specific features that reflect that... You know, since everyone else (martial and partial casters) are like that. Making the fighter a generic class around with specific classes causes issues and is one of the reasons we have an unbalanced game and there are soooooooo many fighter changes and fixes.

I'm not saying specific classes are better than generic or vice versa... But some consistency would go a long way in fixing some problems with this class and game.

[Beleriphon]

Which doesn't actually answer anything. The "simple" class(es) need 3 levels to learn but Cleric, Warlock, Wizard, and Druid all need 1 or 2?

Because those classes generally have abilities that are core to the D&D conceits that need to be active at level 1, or shortly there after. Again, you'll note I say most abilities start come online at level 3, including the classes you mention.

If you want to punish people who don't play casters, why even have them in the game? Just call it for what it is.

See, you are also just making stuff up. The fighter, because of its generic nature, can be a martial artist. It isn't that hard to make a truly generic martial.

I'm not making stuff up, that's literally the reason we've been provided by the design team about why the fighter is the way it is. You might not like it, but that's the reason. I also don't see how the fighter vs monk is punishing somebody for choosing to play one of those instead of say a wizard. The fighter's abilities for the first three levels are basically hit it with a sword, just like the rogue is try to sneak attack it, and the wizard is use a cantrip. Remember the subclass abilities for wizards come online a bit earlier, but they don't get new spells until level 3.

As for the reason for why the monk and fighter are different is quite frankly because they represent two different archetypes. The monk is the kung fu master, and the fighter is the master-of-arms. The fighter because of its relatively generic nature can be any kind of armed combatant, while the monk is always going to be the kung fu master. And due to the way unarmed combat works in D&D currently means that only the monk is good at it. Whether that's good or bad is a question of preference.

You could make the fighter specific to an ideology and give it specific features that reflect that... You know, since everyone else (martial and partial casters) are like that. Making the fighter a generic class around with specific classes causes issues and is one of the reasons we have an unbalanced game and there are soooooooo many fighter changes and fixes.

I'm not saying specific classes are better than generic or vice versa... But some consistency would go a long way in fixing some problems with this class and game.

What class? The monk or the fighter? I'm a fan of the fighter, the only one that really seems lackluster is the champion subclass and even then its very good at fightering. The eldritch knight and the battlemaster both have fairly specific designs that do specific things, and aren't generic.

[TentacleSurpris]

I took a good look at monk and played a game or two with him at a low level and i quickly realized that anything monk can do rouges or fighters do better so can someone tell me their role and why they are a class

because they were a fan favorite in 1e DND and so they've been carried forward.

And stunning fist is something that Rogues and Fighters can't do.

[georgie_leech]

See, you say that, but that isn't true. If the fighter was properly designed (why is their subclass at level 3?)

TIL the Rogue, Ranger, and Monk are all poorly designed because they get their subclasses at level 3.

[Naanomi]

From a tactical war-game mechanics perspective you really only need 3 or 4 classes.

The monk (and many other classes) exist to allow the player to play a fantasy archetype with mechanical support.

In a 'designed from the ground up' system I could easily envision a system where Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue were the only 'base classes' and everything else is built on a nested 'subclass' system where monk, ranger, paladin, etc. live... but probably too far away from the 'feels like DnD' core that 5e was built upon

[KorvinStarmast]

In a 'designed from the ground up' system I could easily envision a system where Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue were the only 'base classes' and everything else is built on a nested 'subclass' system where monk, ranger, paladin, etc. live... but probably too far away from the 'feels like DnD' core that 5e was built upon

Um, that's how the game was originally built.
Fighting Man, Magic User, Cleric ... and then Thief. (Which later became Rogue).
All else were subclasses of that.
Ranger and Paladin: sub of Fighting Man.
Druid: sub of Cleric
Assassin: Sub of Thief
Illusionist: sub of Magic User (Strat Review #4)
Monk: sub of Cleric (BlackMoor, page 1)
Warlock: didn't exist.
Sorcerer: didn't exist
Bard: as someone pointed out earlier, was the first attempt at a prestige class and it was in interesting if difficult attempt. (Strat Review #6)

That's the Pre 1e AD&D framework. Having played through that, and with it, I find the current model to work just fine since the attempt it made, however successful or not, for each class to have a distinct "feel" so that there is some overlap, but nothing is "that same as that class."

[Tanarii]

In a 'designed from the ground up' system I could easily envision a system where Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue were the only 'base classes' and everything else is built on a nested 'subclass' system where monk, ranger, paladin, etc. live... but probably too far away from the 'feels like DnD' core that 5e was built upon

To me, that would feel far more like D&D than having separate classes does. Edit: I should say, it would feel more like 'traditional D&D'. Separate classes for them also feels like D&D.

[KorvinStarmast]

To me, that would feel far more like D&D than having separate classes does. Edit: I should say, it would feel more like 'traditional D&D'. Separate classes for them also feels like D&D.

Yeah, but we're old.
Ahem, could you please pass the Geritol?

[Desamir]

I took a good look at monk and played a game or two with him at a low level and i quickly realized that anything monk can do rouges or fighters do better so can someone tell me their role and why they are a class

Monks are significantly more mobile than fighters, have many more defensive abilities than rogues, and have some of the best repeatable crowd control in the game (Stunning Strike).

A monk's primary role in combat is to shut down critical or hard-to-reach targets.

[Naanomi]

Druid: sub of Cleric

Druid always felt pretty distinct from cleric to me, even from the beginning. In any case, by ADnD both Druid and Cleric were clearly defined in their own terms separate from the 'subclass' style system

[Bohandas]

Um, that's how the game was originally built.
Fighting Man, Magic User, Cleric ... and then Thief. (Which later became Rogue).
All else were subclasses of that.
Ranger and Paladin: sub of Fighting Man.
Druid: sub of Cleric
Assassin: Sub of Thief
Illusionist: sub of Magic User (Strat Review #4)
Monk: sub of Cleric (BlackMoor, page 1)
Warlock: didn't exist.
Sorcerer: didn't exist
Bard: as someone pointed out earlier, was the first attempt at a prestige class and it was in interesting if difficult attempt. (Strat Review #6)

That's the Pre 1e AD&D framework. Having played through that, and with it, I find the current model to work just fine since the attempt it made, however successful or not, for each class to have a distinct "feel" so that there is some overlap, but nothing is "that same as that class."

is a subclass the same as a kit or a variant class?

[BladeWing81]

Because I want to be a kung-fu badass who goes "your kung-fu is weak, you need weapons and armor to fight me and therefore you have already failed." I want to meditate on the mysteries of the universe, catch flies with chop sticks because I can, and punch the BBEG in the face with my bare fists, and generally be a badass who gets all his strength from the inside because that is what counts.

To me, its like not even a question, why wouldn't I? I can be anything from Sun Wukong, to Bruce Lee to Jackie Chan to a street brawler to a ninja, to Real Batman, to a Jedi, to Fist of the North Star. Getting a crit and killing the enemy is just my cue to go "You are already dead" and watch them explode.

a Boxer like Hajime no Ippo with a Dempsey roll or a Jojo character with Hamon or a stand making jojo poses.

[Beelzebubba]

Stan is correct in terms of where monks come from: Kwai Chang Caine,

I don't think so - that TV series only got made because of the huge number of cheap, awesome, badly-dubbed martial arts movies of the late 60's.

I remember watching those on weekend afternoons as a kid in the early 70's. Those were a staple of the nerd / gaming crowd. The Kung Fu TV series was pretty boring and mainstream in comparison.

I mean, check THIS out:

https://youtu.be/IAidqFI3P00?t=55s

[Citan]

I took a good look at monk and played a game or two with him at a low level and i quickly realized that anything monk can do rouges or fighters do better so can someone tell me their role and why they are a class

Sorry, the only thing you should have realized is that you still didn't know jack about the class.

Seriously, how can you even expect that a class is useless without actually trying to play its fortes?

[Matticusrex]

Does anyone else find it sad that monks are basically only good for stunning? They should have had 10+ techniques they could use Ki on but now you can play a better monk with a mystic.

[jitzul]

Does anyone else find it sad that monks are basically only good for stunning? They should have had 10+ techniques they could use Ki on but now you can play a better monk with a mystic.

One of the reasons I've grown to dislike monk even though it was my first character ever. Stunning strike is so good it's to the point where I felt like not using it was wasting my only important role to the party. Most of the time I felt less like kenshrio fighting raoh and more like daredevil trying to fight thanos. Honestly I would love to see a variant monk that has stunning strike either removed or nerfred with either a one per round limit or increased ki cost. I know people on these forums will go on and on about how drop dead amazing the monk class is but my experience with it made me a hate a class I thought I would love.

[Citan]

Plus, no other class gets dex and wis saves (2 most common/important) as a base feature.

Monks start with Str and Dex. Later on they get all saves.

In comparison:
Rogues start with Dex and Int, and later on get Wis.
Fighters start with Str and Dex, and later on get Indomitable.
Barbarians start with Str and Con, and later on get Danger Sense and Feral Instinct.
Paladins start with Wis and Cha and later on get stackable and shareable Cha to all saves.
Rangers start with Str and Dex and Hunters later on optionally ... Steel Will?

Looks like the only Martial gets a 'special defense' short end of the stick is the Ranger. But the point that made me start typing this is Monks don't start with Dex and Wis, and Rogues also later on have Dex and Wis. So Monks are not singular in that regard.

Yeah they are singular, because they are the only ones that end with all saves. :)
STR saves, although rarely targeted, can be devastating on classes which rely on speed and evasion because these save or suck spells generally apply grappled/restrained condition. ;)
CHA saves govern some nasty spells also.
and CON, although just a bit less important for a non-caster, still makes you suffer or not some very nasty effects.

As for the reason for why the monk and fighter are different is quite frankly because they represent two different archetypes. The monk is the kung fu master, and the fighter is the master-of-arms. The fighter because of its relatively generic nature can be any kind of armed combatant, while the monk is always going to be the kung fu master. And due to the way unarmed combat works in D&D currently means that only the monk is good at it. Whether that's good or bad is a question of preference.

I think you nailed it pretty good there.

Does anyone else find it sad that monks are basically only good for stunning? They should have had 10+ techniques they could use Ki on but now you can play a better monk with a mystic.

Wut?
I didn't pay attention to Mystic (yet), but saying that Monks are basically only good for stunning is a sad and very limitative view of them.

Any Monk will fare better than any other pure martial (barring EK/AT with Haste or Fly) at moving around/above obstacles (including crossing a pool of water ;)).
Monks are all around sturdier than Fighters (except EK when using Shield) in the end because of 20 AC, proficiency in all saves and especially good DEX and WIS saves, not including Evasion, potential Diamond Sould reroll and potential bonus action Dodge.
They are also better than Rogues for these reasons, although Rogue has the great Uncanny Dodge (barring maybe an AT using Mirror Image + Blur on himself).

And each archetype provides solid abilities. Sure you have much lesser number of "spelllike" abilities than even a third-caster.
But each can be used in different ways, so it's just up to you to be creative about it.

You could certainly reproduce the same kind of abilities with other classes, but it would require multiclass involving Fighter, Rogue, and at least one caster class.

[MrStabby]

Does anyone else find it sad that monks are basically only good for stunning? They should have had 10+ techniques they could use Ki on but now you can play a better monk with a mystic.

Kind of yes and no...

Monks have loads of good abilities, some pretty unique to monks - like ability to use dex for some weapons, unarmoured defense etc.. But for abilities that use Ki? Yeah, I use the others - bonus movement or dodge is good but stunning is just superb. Thinks like flurry of blows just don't seem as good as stunning.

I think shadow has better options than open hand. It has spells that are situationally useful. They are not ALWAYS great but as a set of tools they add a lot to the character.

[Haldir]

To execute a character type that is not sufficiently covered by any of the other classes.

This is blatantly false. The Fighter literally does a Monk better than the Monk class. It deserves to be an archetype, at best. At worst it's a trap class, and always has been.

[mephnick]

The Fighter literally does a Monk better than the Monk class.

Man...you're going to have to explain that one.

[Sigreid]

Didn't we have this exact thread a few weeks ago?

[Gryndle]

I cant imagine that anyone who has played a monk or seen one played in an actual ongoing game can believe the monk is a trap class, at least not in 5E. I have to beleive there is some trolling going on here.

Most of the posters here have answered the OP question quite well in a serious tone, so here is my answer, given in the same spirit that I believe the question was asked: Why does the monk exist?

Well, you see, one night Daddy monk and Mommy monk were up late drinking sake' and ugglies got bumped. Approximately nine months later Baby Monk was born. and Baby Monk's first words were -"I exist. the why does not matter. Get over it."

[MrStabby]

This is blatantly false. The Fighter literally does a Monk better than the Monk class. It deserves to be an archetype, at best. At worst it's a trap class, and always has been.

Really? How so?

If I want to play a nimble and acrobatic martial class able to control the battlefield and with exceptional mobility then maybe I could make a bad monk from a fighter class. When I enjoy the extra features like being able to use a quarterstaff for this or having proficiency in all saves and with a decent enough armour class on top then I just cant see how to do this with a fighter.

There may be occasional early levels where a battlemaster looks OK, well level 3 or 4 before the monk far surpasses their control ability. You can take feats to catch up with monk speed and a fighting style to partially offset the lack of unarmoured defense or you can use a fighting style to up your weapon damage to the level monk dice scale to, you can use feats to cover off some of the extra saves monks get and so on. But you can't to all of this on the same character. If you want a decent fraction of this stuff you really need monk to pick it up. Then there are abilities to run up walls and the subclass abilities which just take these things out of reach.

I might be wrong - happy to be shown otherwise. Show me what you can do at level 10 to surpass a monk.

[Lombra]

Didn't we have this exact thread a few weeks ago?

Yes we did, and with the same arguments

Monks are very unique, useful, and funny in this edition. They suffer at low levels (but which martial character doesn't?) But once they pass 5th they become a blast. I'm currently playing a level 6 shadow monk tiefling which is very far from optimized (16 DEX 14 WIS) but it's mobility and control options are a lot of fun, plus it deals a lot of damage: a constant 2d8+1d6+3DEX basically equals a fighter's damage output with the option of an extra 1d6+DEX.

[Sigreid]

Yes we did, and with the same arguments

Thought it seemed familiar...

[Citan]

Yes we did, and with the same arguments

Monks are very unique, useful, and funny in this edition. They suffer at low levels (but which martial character doesn't?) But once they pass 5th they become a blast. I'm currently playing a level 6 shadow monk tiefling which is very far from optimized (16 DEX 14 WIS) but it's mobility and control options are a lot of fun, plus it deals a lot of damage: a constant 2d8+1d6+3DEX basically equals a fighter's damage output with the option of an extra 1d6+DEX.

Hey, if you don't mind and have it close to your hand, could you please post the link here?

Maybe it would be good for OP to go check this other thread if the starting question was similar. :)

[KorvinStarmast]

is a subclass the same as a kit or a variant class?

No, a sub-class in original D&D (starting with Greyhawk and paladins) was a special class you could play, based on the basic class, that called for some higher stats to permit entry. For example, the Druid required a Cha and Wis minimum score. Paladin required a high charisma. The Assassin and Monk also had minimum score requirements (Blackmoor sup).

Characters with a wisdom score of not less than 15. who also have a strength score of not less than 12 and a dexterity score of not less than 15 may elect to become monks. (Blackmoor page 1, TSR, 1975)

That approach changed over time, although in AD&D 1e most of the sub classes had barriers to entry in the form of minimum score requirements.

Clerics and fighters have been strengthened in relation to magic-users, although not overly so. Clerics have more and improved spell capability. Fighters are more effective in combat and have other new advantages as well. Still, magic-users are powerful indeed, and they have many new spells. None of these over-shadow thieves. All recommended sub classes -- druids, paladins, rangers, illusionists, and assassins, as well as the special monk class of character, are included in order to assure as much variety of approach as possible. (PHB p 7, TSR, 1978, AD&D 1e)

To be a monk a character must have the following minimum ability scores: strength 15, wisdom 15, dexterity 15, and constitution 1 1. Monks never gain any experience points bonuses. Dexterity gives them no armor class adjustment (page 30, 1e PHB)

The AD&D 1e monk's barrier to entry was dice rolls not making the cut. :p
The 'kit' idea came in 2e (and it wasn't a bad idea, IMO).

I don't think so - that TV series only got made because of the huge number of cheap, awesome, badly-dubbed martial arts movies of the late 60's.

OK, the B movies, Bruce Lee stuff, and Kwai Chang Caine all contributed. Fair point.