Why are all swords not listed as martial weapons?
One of the most common martial arts weapons in media is the jian (equivalent to a rapier) and the katana (pretty similar to a longsword in the RAW).
In fictions that many of us are going to draw our characters from, these weapons are used interchangeably with unarmed martial arts.
Why was the decision made to not include them as Monk weapons?
With the increased damage dealt with monk weapons as the character gains levels, more than 1 type of sword isn't really neeed - and my best guess is that balance is why the one class that can make 3 attacks at first level has a more restricted set of weapons that some might expect.
Just call your shortsword a jian or katana if that is what you want your character to be using.
Because monks in D&D have very little to do with the historical figures and it fits the most common archetype their audience expects. This is the most common verson of monks of western fiction and movies, not a fighter with oriental flavor.
The Monk already gets to use almost every non-martial weapon with his special shtick. As his fists become deadlier than other weapons, he need not go armed at all. Assuming your campaign includes both role-playing and combat opportunities, a Monk can get out of trouble that the Fighter will be hard-pressed to avoid.
Classically, the Town Watch wants to search all who enter for weapons (maybe they have Sword Control laws) and confiscate any expensive or high-end armors. The Fighter will have to put ALL the tools of HIS trade into storage. But a monk can dress like a common man and have no sharp edged items whatsoever on his person. He looks utterly inoffensive and unable to protect himself from thieves (or corrupt police). But he still is able to clobber whoever he wants and dodge their attacks in return.
Classically2: Jailbreak ! The monk is ready to fight at the top of his game from the moment he gets out of his cell, while the Fighter needs his full-bodylength gear and the Ranger needs his weapons and the Wizard needs his spellbook THEN they can do their thing at full performance.
My Monk carries a disassembled pair of scissors as a reminder of his hard-working father. For purpose of the game rules, they are Shortswords. The fact that I don't use a Greatsword doesn't bother me because I have something else cool I can do instead.
OoftaMeg wrote:
My 2 cents: There is a giant differance between the classes from D&D and the media, like movies. The image of a monk wielding swords is one created from movies and sometimes real life documenteries. But the monk from the D&D world isn't like the ones from our world. Therefore you can't compare them. It's like comparing a wizard from D&D with an illusionist from our world, like harry potter. He had to use a wand, where our wizards don't have to.
I can get it that you would like a monk that's a bit more like the hollywood type, why not create a fighter with that style? You won't have the same profs as a monk, but thats where RP comes to play 
That's about where I'm going with it, but I like the feel of the Monk abilities (ki, deflecting arrows with my sword, etc.).
Ask your DM if you take the Weapon Master feat if any one handed melee weapon you take could be included into your monk weapon list. Or come up with a Kensai sub-class that you can both agree on. If this is for Adventure Leage play, thems the breaks. Use a shortsword and call it the Green Destiny all you want.
Fluff goes a LONG way. Just saying...
Suddenly that shortsword isn't so short. Yeah it still deals damage like a shortsword but it's as long as you want! Remember, the "Monk" is a hodgepodge of pop-culture and real culture, but what it boils down to is that it's the DUGNEONS AND DRAGONS version of a "Monk." Which means it's effectively just a name attached to unique and balanced abilities. So you can make a Celtic fighter, a Wu-Shu master, an unarmored Samurai, Joe Schmoe the Bare-knuckle Brawler, Riddick from Pitch Black, or Aang from Avatar. All of these can be made quite effectively with the Monk class
I see no problem with a monk gaining rapier proficiency (and it becoming one of his monk weapons) at level 10...
I think the devs were thinking more old-school. Think Bruce Lee era with a more mystical twist. The original monks in D&D were created back in the 80s before the other variations were popular in the west and that is the feeling they were trying to capture.
While I enjoyed Crouching Tiger it is one of many sub-genres. Back from the old (oriental adventures campaign book) they probably would have fit the ninja sub-type better. I'm just happy we have monks in the first PHB.
Of course the DM's Guide will be out soon and will have information on how to customize classes or create your own. So wait for guidelines from that or an oriental-based campaign setting (which will probably be a while).
Twitter from Mike Mearls, When in doubt with the monk, ask "What would Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan do?" That answer is probably correct.
In other words, I think OoftaMeg is correct.
Looks like Mike has a limited experience of classic martial arts movies. I think of Jet Li, Donnie Yen, Gordon Liu, etc., when I think of "movie monks".
I guess I'll just have to accept it. It's unfortunate that the game is so interprative for so many classes, and then so confined to designer influence for others. I guess I'll have to save my dueling swordsman monk concepts for another game and keep this one to hand-to-hand monks and viking brawls. (Not terrible, but certainly not a feature.)
Prescient wrote:
Prescient wrote:
It's not that I want the Monk to be all things to me. I want it to be able to represent what it claims to. A Fighter is capable of representing any melee or ranged warrior, with just a few tweaks or multiclassing for things like rage or sneak attack, for example. The Monk benefits very little from multiclassing, as any proficiencies you gain are not going to be used as a Monk weapon.
They're another hodge-podge of thematic abilities that tries, but fails, to meet the basic requirements of a huge number of monk archetypes.
Now, if they were called "Masters of the Fist" or something more specific to what it is that they do, like most of the other classes, that would have made me expect what it seems they are offering. But "Monk" is so generic and interpretive. I think Jet Li, you think David Carradine, the devs think Bruce Lee (which is odd, since all of his movies are set in modern times).
I guess I'm learning how to read between the lines here. Unless I want a purely unarmed fighter (or a very specific class of weapons that are not represantitive of a full list of real monk's weapons), I need to be thinking of my martial concepts in terms of Fighters, Rogues, and Rangers.
I just wish monks got to use dex(athletics) instead of str(athletics) for grapple and shove checks from the martial arts ability.
Thats very much a DM call. Under skills they specifically state that a DM may change associated skills if the situation warrents it.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Llenlleawg wrote:
Llenlleawg wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote: