Two weapon fighting was purposefully designed to be nerfed in 5e, and it was made a built in feature of monks. So a more exciting version of two weapon fighting (and martial arts) would be more exciting for monk's too.
Personally I think that two-weapon fighting in 5e is fine as it is; the only characters for whom it's a problem really are Fighters, because they get more attacks at higher levels so the extra one for two-weapon fighting becomes less significant to them. Any "fix" for two-weapon fighting therefore should be fighter specific., and even then I'm not sure I'd personally ask for anything, as an extra attack is still an extra attack, it may only be 25% extra on four attacks, but that's still five attacks in a turn, which means more chances to hit/less impact if you miss.
There are also so many ways to get extra damage on attacks in 5e, this is partly why Flurry of Blows can be so good; if you can pick up Divine Favor, Hex or Hunter's Mark for yourself via a feat or multiclassing, or an ally can use Crusader's Mantle or similar, then with four attacks in a round you can really maximise the bonus damage you're getting from 5th level onwards. This is why extra attacks should be limited in 5e. That's why I was thinking only a reaction attack costing Ki, as it's still limited that way.
Regarding two-weapon fighting specifically for Monks, I do kind of agree that it'd be nice to have a way to use two weapons a bit more viably on the Monk; personally I'd maybe just tweak Martial Arts and Flurry of Blows so that one of the attacks can be made using your off-hand weapon if you have one, basically gives you two-weapon fighting for free. At higher levels it doesn't really matter what you use anyway, because the monk damage dice will override all damage differences eventually, so the main difference really is that if you found two light magic weapons then you could use them.
Hex/Hunter's mark isn't nothing, but it really isn't that amazing either for Two Weapon Fighting.
It only averages to 3.5 damage per hit, and is usually used with smaller weapon dice to begin with. And with Two Weapon Fighting, its nearly worthless because it takes up your bonus action on the first turn, then can very readily require your bonus action to be moved onto new targets on following turns. They are even concentration, which is far less than ideal for a melee combatant.
If you suddenly feel that the hag across from you is your best friend because you failed the save for Charm Person, and know they are causing you to have that feeling, that still doesn't explain why you would act contrary to the charmed condition to break the charm. So far as you are concerned, your best comrade may as well have cast bless on you, because your mind is actively being altered.
I'm confused now; are you agreeing with how I am saying that Stillness of Mind is supposed to work or not?
Neither the charmed condition nor Charm Person cause you to automatically accept what the caster says is true; if your "friend" (actually only a "friendly acquaintance") tells you to betray your long-term friends or do something that you wouldn't normally do for a friendly acquaintance, then you're allowed to find that strange and ask for an insight check. That's the balancing act with charm effects; you need the target to remain convinced that what they are being asked to do is normal within the context of the charm effect, otherwise they're going to become aware that something is wrong and have reasonable grounds to take actions that make sense in that situation.
However most characters can't actually do anything once they're aware something is wrong, as only Monks with Stillness of Mind, casters with Dispel Magic (vs. spells) or Dispel Evil and Good (vs. certain enemy types) or Greater Restoration, and Berserkers with Mindless Rage can directly counter the effect iirc. Other characters can only really try to resist doing as they're compelled, but only to the extent your DM might allow (if at all, otherwise they're just stuck thinking something is wrong but otherwise going along with it). Berserkers actually have the easiest time in such a scenario, as they only need an excuse to be enraged, they don't actually need to be aware of the charm effect at all, but then theirs is a full level feature (not a secondary on top of Evasion), and gives full immunity while active.
Of course there are also cases where you can't do anything anyway; for example Crown of Madness takes your action as long as there is a target within reach, Dominate Person can issue commands that do not allow wiggle room to take other actions and so-on, and no interpretation of Stillness of Mind would work in these cases anyway. It's mostly useful against the more insidious long term charm effects where it's absolutely still great to have.
Once again though, what I am actually asking for is that Wizards of the Coast clarify the feature and the intention behind the charmed condition (and effects that apply it) to make all this clearer one way or the other. I don't want to turn this into another circular like a certain metagaming thread I had to unsubscribe from because people who ask if they are metagaming when they metagame get real pissy when the answer is "yes".
Hex/Hunter's mark isn't nothing, but it really isn't that amazing either for Two Weapon Fighting.
It only averages to 3.5 damage per hit, and is usually used with smaller weapon dice to begin with. And with Two Weapon Fighting, its nearly worthless because it takes up your bonus action on the first turn, then can very readily require your bonus action to be moved onto new targets on following turns. They are even concentration, which is far less than ideal for a melee combatant.
Let's assume otherwise identical 5th level characters with Extra Attack and +3 attack modifier. One has a greatsword with great weapon fighting (2d6+3 re-rolling 1's and 2's for an average of 11.333 weapon damage per hit) vs. twin shortswords with two-weapon fighting (d6+3 for an average of 6.5 weapon damage per hit). Assuming no misses this would give a basic average damage of 22.666 for the greatsword, and 19.5 for the shortswords, a difference of just over 3, so pretty similar.
If you factor in the loss of damage due to missing then if you assume a target with AC 17 (for a nice and simple 50/50 chance to hit) then you're looking at one hit (11.333 average damage) for the greatsword or 1.5 hits (9.75 average damage) for the shortswords. For a difference of only 1.583 that's negligible enough that it's really just up to the player which they prefer for their character. And this is assuming purely average performance; in practice having more attacks is also nice because it makes that it much less likely that you'll miss with all of your attacks in a single turn, which is good because there are few things worse in D&D than feeling like you wasted an entire turn. 😝
Anyway, if we now assume both characters have access to Divine Favor which they must cast themselves as a bonus action then in the first round this gives the greatsword 13.833 average damage, and twin shortswords 9 average, but in the second round it's 13.833 vs. 13.5. Substitute for Hex or Hunter's Mark and it becomes 14.833 vs. 10 then 14.833 vs 15. This is broadly the same damage, and it's also assuming that you have to cast these in the first turn (but if you initiate combat you could do it in advance) or that you have to cast them at all, as an ally with Crusader's Mantle or similar wouldn't require you to. It's also ignoring other factors that make more attacks beneficial, namely that they give more opportunities to use per attack features such as Battle Master Manoeuvres or a Monk's Stunning Strike. I'm also ignoring Spirit Shroud, but for a Warlock with 4th level or better slots you're looking at a sizeable damage boost from an extra attack, even with the normal penalty (no two-weapon fighting).
Since we're specifically talking about Monk, it's also worth keeping in mind that the damage difference of two-weapon fighting (assuming we had a two-weapon fighting equivalent) is much less of an issue, as the martial arts die would eliminate the base damage difference over time anyway, causing two weapon fighting to pull ahead sooner, plus the higher your weapon attack modifier becomes the less important the damage dice is anyway. It's a similar reason why versatile weapons only really matter earlier on as well, which I think is fine because it means that the better you get at martial arts, the more you can just attack however you like.
Overall two weapon fighting is pretty decently balanced as it is IMO; if I were to change anything about it I'd probably just eliminate the no damage modifier on off hand attacks part as you're already limited by only using light weapons, and whether or not you have other things you can do with your bonus action (I don't think we really need to cater to characters who have few or no bonus actions yet are determined to use only a single dagger). This would mean eliminating the two-weapon fighting style entirely, but with new fighting styles in Tasha's it's no longer as simple as "all two-weapon fighters will now just take Defence" meanwhile great weapon fighting, even with basically the same damage, still has the advantage of focusing on only a single weapon (only need one magic weapon, weapon based effects only need to be applied once etc.), though two weapon fighting has the benefit of being two weapons (harder to fully disarm, could have two magic weapons with different effects etc.) but these are lesser benefits.
As long as the two options have basically the same damage that's really all that matters; i.e- both should be roughly equally viable so that players are free to choose whatever makes most sense for their character, and this is arguably already the case in 5e, it just has annoying added complexities.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
You're inserting Insight checks where, RAW, there aren't any. There's nothing about any charm spell or charm effect that I know of, that gives anyone a chance to notice it with Insight. Compare to some illusion spells that give people a chance to notice with Investigation.
Just a note there. In case that changes your opinion or whatever.
I'm confused now; are you agreeing with how I am saying that Stillness of Mind is supposed to work or not?
Im saying Stillness of Mind largely doesn't work.
Neither the charmed condition nor Charm Person cause you to automatically accept what the caster says is true; if your "friend" (actually only a "friendly acquaintance") tells you to betray your long-term friends or do something that you wouldn't normally do for a friendly acquaintance, then you're allowed to find that strange and ask for an insight check.
Its true that a charmed character does not have to believe or do anything the charmer says, but that isn't what is the matter with stillness of mind and charms.
If a charmed character sees the charmer as a friendly acquaintance, they have no reason to use Stillness of Mind. There would be no motivation to break the spell effect a friendly character cast on you.
Also, unless the text of the charm spell/ability gives you an opportunity to do insight checks to beat the spell, that is just your DM ruling on the effect. It might be a good one and fun adaption to make Stillness of Mind more useful and represent the struggle of mental fortitude the monk can wage, but its not RAW.
would eliminate the base damage difference over time anyway,
Yes, comparing greatsword with 2 weapon fighting with no feats at level 5 comes out pretty evenly. But longsword gets access to feats to take it far ahead in terms of damage.
And hex/hunters mark is still actually better on a greatsword because of action economy: you generally lose nothing the first turn you cast it, and nothing on proceeding turns when you move it to new targets. Its not just a first turn difference in damage.
But making this comparison to salvage Monk's combat ability doesn't make sense, because they must multiclass or take a feat to even get hex/hunters mark. And they already have a heaping plateful of things they want to do with their bonus actions. So we would need to be willing to admit the comparison should be to a greatsword wielder who can also multiclass and take feats by level 5. Its not a fair comparison.
But the base difference that martial dice eliminate over time is another part of the problem: getting to eventually dual wield the equivalent of 1d10 silvered weapons isn't all that impressive. It just scales far too slowly to be something to write home about.
You're inserting Insight checks where, RAW, there aren't any. There's nothing about any charm spell or charm effect that I know of, that gives anyone a chance to notice it with Insight. Compare to some illusion spells that give people a chance to notice with Investigation.
These spells do not need to specify the use of insight because skill checks are a core part of the rules; if someone asks you to do something you are allowed to wonder why, or to try to determine if they're lying and so-on. You may notice that the spell also does not state that your character continues to breathe, yet you can do that to.
Yet again, this is why these kinds of features and rules need to be better clarified, because people struggle with combining the rules of the game with other rules in the game. And I don't want to keep going in circles on this; I said clarify it, if you don't want it clarified then whatever.
Yes, comparing greatsword with 2 weapon fighting with no feats at level 5 comes out pretty evenly. But longsword gets access to feats to take it far ahead in terms of damage.
And dual wielding has a feat that not only keeps the damage competitive (by allowing non-light weapons) but boosts your defence while you're at it; if you're going to compare no feat to a feat then at least compare like for like.
And hex/hunters mark is still actually better on a greatsword because of action economy: you generally lose nothing the first turn you cast it, and nothing on proceeding turns when you move it to new targets. Its not just a first turn difference in damage.
It also doesn't have to be a first turn difference, and there are similar effects that require no bonus action on your part at all. I can't help but notice that you only ever cherry pick the bits you can mash onto an argument while ignoring the rest entirely, but thanks for reminding me that as always I'm wasting my time trying to be comprehensive because you don't read posts for what they say, only what you can twist.
But making this comparison to salvage Monk's combat ability doesn't make sense, because they must multiclass or take a feat to even get hex/hunters mark.
I was discussing dual wielding in general in response to you whining about dual wielding in general, FFS. Again, please try reading.
And they already have a heaping plateful of things they want to do with their bonus actions.
And? One of these is to already have a bonus action attack (or two) as others have pointed out (and you've also ignored). What is even your point anymore? You don't listen and you don't actually seem to want to say anything either?
So we would need to be willing to admit the comparison should be to a greatsword wielder who can also multiclass and take feats by level 5. Its not a fair comparison.
Except that I literally showed both, both with and without attack bonuses and showed that they're both broadly the same in both cases, so I don't have to admit shit because you haven't got the winning argument you seem to think you do. But thanks for reminding me why it's pointless replying to you; you don't actually read anything.
But the base difference that martial dice eliminate over time is another part of the problem: getting to eventually dual wield the equivalent of 1d10 silvered weapons isn't all that impressive. It just scales far too slowly to be something to write home about.
Which might why in my post to the thread I covered changing the scaling on the martial arts dice; you know, because it's a thread about Monk changes we might like to see? FFS, is it seriously too much to ask you to read the thread you're posting in? Why post in this thread (or this forum for that matter) when you care so little about reading what you reply to?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
And dual wielding has a feat that not only keeps the damage competitive (by allowing non-light weapons) but boosts your defence while you're at it; if you're going to compare no feat to a feat then at least compare like for like.
Great Weapon Master can add a +10 to hits while Dual Wielder lets you up your damage by and average of 1. One feat is clearly far more powerful.
It also doesn't have to be a first turn difference, and there are similar effects that require no bonus action on your part at all.
So far the only such effect you've mentioned is Divine Favor. Which is arguably not even worth it when it only averages an additional 2 damage to each attack, and requires multiclassing to get if you aren't a Paladin or war cleric.
I was discussing dual wielding in general in response to you whining about dual wielding in general, FFS. Again, please try reading.
Then you weren't reading, because I wasn't talking about Dual Wielding in general, I was mentioning that martial arts is just having the dual wielding mechanic built into monks.
And? One of these is to already have a bonus action attack (or two) as others have pointed out (and you've also ignored). What is even your point anymore? You don't listen and you don't actually seem to want to say anything either?
I don't get what you are trying to say. I pointed out they already have too many priorities for their bonus action, so you say "Yeah" and insult me? My clearly stated point is that hex/hunters mark doesn't do much to improve 2 weapon fighting or martial arts.
Except that I literally showed both
Not in the context of a monk multiclassing/picking up a feat to get hex/hunters mark, which was the whole point of bringing up two weapon fighting in the first place.
Which might why in my post to the thread I covered changing the scaling on the martial arts dice; you know, because it's a thread about Monk changes we might like to see?
If you agree it advances too slowly, then FFS, why would you use that slow advancement to argue the monk's version of 2 weapon fighting will keep up in damage over time with another martial using a Greatsword? You're projecting the level 5 results would continue on the same despite heavy weapon martials getting access to more feats and class abilities to benefit from.
Ok, so quite a few interesting ideas people have. Clarifying Stillness of Mind/Charm would be helpful. Or just changing it to advantage on saves against charm/frightened effects so you don’t have to figure out if someone is aware they are charmed or not.
What would people think if Monk was made a WIS based class? Save DC based on WIS, martial arts can use WIS instead of STR so if you want a STR build you can. AC is a scaling flat number + WIS modifier. Take DEX out if the picture so it’s less MAD. Or go DEX and no WIS.
@Haravikk, I like the counter strike idea as well as the offhand attack you added as well. Anything to give more variety.
You're inserting Insight checks where, RAW, there aren't any. There's nothing about any charm spell or charm effect that I know of, that gives anyone a chance to notice it with Insight. Compare to some illusion spells that give people a chance to notice with Investigation.
These spells do not need to specify the use of insight because skill checks are a core part of the rules; if someone asks you to do something you are allowed to wonder why, or to try to determine if they're lying and so-on. You may notice that the spell also does not state that your character continues to breathe, yet you can do that to.
Yet again, this is why these kinds of features and rules need to be better clarified, because people struggle with combining the rules of the game with other rules in the game. And I don't want to keep going in circles on this; I said clarify it, if you don't want it clarified then whatever.
And what, pray tell, would the DC on that check be?
Stillness of Mind, most DMs interpret it as a instant anti-charm because otherwise it's completely useless. What charm effects do you know that 1. explicitly tell the charmed that they are charmed
Of course charm effects don't make you aware, that's literally their point; they forcibly change your behaviour, you are no longer in control of everything you do. The way you detect charm is when you're given requests that seem unreasonable within the context; for example, if an effect onlycharms you then it doesn't make you regard someone as a friend, it just prevents you from attacking them and makes you more easily suggestible. So if they ask you to do something that is very out of character for you to do for a stranger/unfriendly acquaintance, and the persuasion fails, then you should absolutely become aware that something is wrong. Likewise a charmed creature can always push for insight checks when something is clearly amiss, and should do exactly that, especially for long-running charm effects.
The ability is far from useless, as the moment you become aware something is wrong, you can use it to immediately end the effect as an action; the only other characters that can do this are casters with Dispel Magic (and only if the charm comes from a spell) or Berserker Barbarians (for whom it's an entire level's feature, though their protection extends to full immunity while raging). While yes, if you can't take an action then none of these can end the effect, that's definitely intended to be the case, though actually very few charm effects fully prevent actions. Also worth remembering that you're not the only one who can or should break the effect; your allies are allowed to do-so, or to take actions to try to make you aware of it if you are somehow the only one able to do something about it (or they can go after the caster etc.). No character needs to be able to end charm on themselves, and certainly not automatically, otherwise you eliminate a massive chunk of abilities and spells from the game entirely.
Eh I overextragrated Stillness of Mind, but my point still stands. Relies too much on DM interpretation. Your interpretation is cool but cause it's unsupported by anything in the game so I can't call it RAI.
But it doesn't matter, because I'd like to remind everyone this isn't a thread about what monks can do, but a thread about what monks should do.
You might be right that if we do add on a bunch of monk buffs stuff like Stillness of Mind doesn't need to that powerful. I would add that there is precedence for basically completely deleting charm and fear effects, see Berserker who doesn't even need a action, but I will concede that that's a barbarian not a monk, and that barbarians aren't the ones getting massively buffed in this forum.
I think you could actually just have Stillness of Mind be your version of Diamond Soul, move it to level 9 and have it grant INT WIS CHA saving throw proficiencies, would certainly fit the name.
Duel-wielder change works. To be fair, I'd allow any monk who doesn't want to use unarmed strikes to reflavor their unarmed strikes as weapon attacks, and I'd even allow them to change the damage type. That's just my preferred solution though. I'd also allow them to benefit from any magical weapon like this (as long as it's 2 with one weapon 2 with the other), cause if I granted them two magic weapons, then chances are I could have granted them 1 magical weapon and 1 magical unarmed strike improvement (see Eldritch Claw tattoo, the thousand different HB magical monk gloves/wraps/armbands/whatever).
Great Weapon Master can add a +10 to hits while Dual Wielder lets you up your damage by and average of 1. One feat is clearly far more powerful.
Except that it doesn't really, does it? It only adds +10 damage at a cost of -5 to hit, making it less likely that you will deal any damage in the first place if you have no means to counteract it.
[REDACTED]
To stick with my 5th level example earlier (which I set the level at for simplicity btw, not some grand conspiracy) then that -5 to hit penalty takes you from a 50% chance to hit (11 or better on the d20 hits) to 25% chance (only 16 or better hits) which actually reduces the average damage to 10.667 (from 11.333) meanwhile the two weapon fighting with Dual Wielder has increased their average to 11.25, and gained some extra defence.
Of course the balance changes depending upon the target AC, but there isn't really a tipping point where GWM becomes guaranteed extra damage; to take advantage of that part of GWM requires you to have ways to gain advantage, but these aren't usually free (a Samurai only gets it so many times per long rest, a Barbarian takes more damage in return, Faerie Fire requires multiclassing and an action or an ally using it for you etc.). The real damage benefit of GWM is when you can roll the extra bonus action attack, but this is only reliable against weak hordes to put them to 0 hp, as you can't really rely on rolling critical hits.
So far the only such effect you've mentioned is Divine Favor. Which is arguably not even worth it when it only averages an additional 2 damage to each attack, and requires multiclassing to get if you aren't a Paladin or war cleric.
I've mentioned far more than that. [REDACTED]
Then you weren't reading, because I wasn't talking about Dual Wielding in general, I was mentioning that martial arts is just having the dual wielding mechanic built into monks.
Incorrect. [REDACTED]
I don't get what you are trying to say. I pointed out they already have too many priorities for their bonus action, so you say "Yeah" and insult me? My clearly stated point is that hex/hunters mark doesn't do much to improve 2 weapon fighting or martial arts.
Except that it does; I showed that both do broadly the same damage without being boosted, and both are boosted around the same amount by using it, both with and without bonus action considerations. The difference is even more noticeable if you compare a pure greatsword Fighter at 6th with a multiclassed dual wielder (5th in something + single level dip in something else) and that's ignoring feats, or the possibility of getting bonuses from allies instead; [REDACTED]
The dual wielder or Monk benefits more simply by virtue of having more attacks, and because as modifiers and bonus damage increase, the base weapon damage matters less and less (especially on a Monk where they become equal), and for a high attacks build you're more likely to want to take these bonuses. I've shown all of these things; [REDACTED]
If you agree it advances too slowly, then FFS, why would you use that slow advancement to argue the monk's version of 2 weapon fighting will keep up in damage over time with another martial using a Greatsword?
Because tweaking the progression is a valid point in a thread about changes to the core Monk class; [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
Notes: Please remain respectful with your comments or refrain from posting.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
If you're being lied to then opposed deception vs. insight is the obvious one, if you're trying to see if your allies can convince you that something is wrong then your DM can either set a flat DC, or adjust it based upon allied persuasion rolls (e.g- the more allies roll 15+ the easier your insight check becomes).
These are all basic tools that exist in the core rules; a spell being cast does not mean that suddenly none of the other rules of the game exist. But this is precisely the kind of thing that could do with being clarified; currently we just have a throwaway line in spellcasting targets about how spells are not automatically perceptible, but there are ways to perceive things in D&D. Either for you as the affected character, or for your allies who are not powerless to just watch as you do whatever you're told to do.
Your interpretation is cool but cause it's unsupported by anything in the game so I can't call it RAI.
Actually it's in the rules, as I've said to ChoirOfFire; skill checks are a core part of the game, the charm effects/spells do not need to specify their use because they are always a part of D&D. This is a big part of what needs clarified though, because some people are of a mind that if a spell doesn't say something it can never be done, but that actually introduces enormous problems with the rules as they are simply not written to be used that way.
I think this stems from the sage advice about how spells "only do as they say", but I feel like people mistakenly take this to mean that spells exist in a little bubble where no other rules apply to them, but that's not what that sage advice was addressing, which is whether a spell can be used to do things that they don't state, but which a player might think should be possible. For example, lighting an area of Grease on fire; this is not what the spell is for (it's for knocking enemies prone) which is why it doesn't talk about setting it alight. DM fiat always allows it to happen anyway, but that's adding rules on top of what the spell states. However spells do not take away or override rules that they do not specifically address, and that includes using skill checks to perceive things.
It's an extreme example, but if a charm effect does not say that you can continue to breathe, would you assume your charmed character is now starting to suffocate? I hope not, because you shouldn't, but hopefully it makes the point.
With the exception of the charm effects that very specifically rob you of all free agency (like Dominate Person can) there is always wiggle room that can and should be used, otherwise charm effects would become massively overpowered. But by the same token, ending them should not be too easy either, some kind of check should almost always be involved, otherwise they become largely pointless, and they're one of the most fun challenges the game can present. A charm effect can turn an otherwise easy fight into a dramatic and desperate battle when one of your party members if forced to turn against you, or is effectively taken out of the fight etc. This is why you're not supposed to be aware of them.
I would add that there is precedence for basically completely deleting charm and fear effects, see Berserker who doesn't even need a action, but I will concede that that's a barbarian not a monk, and that barbarians aren't the ones getting massively buffed in this forum.
The Berserker's Mindless Rage is a full class feature (not a secondary feature on top of Evasion), it's also not actually completely deleting these effects; a Berserker is only immune while raging, if they are not raging they are affected by these conditions as normal. Just as with using an action for Stillness of Mind, a Berserker needs to use a bonus action to Rage and gain their immunity, but why would they Rage if due to being charmed they no longer perceive any threats to Rage against?
It's a bit easier for the Berserker because they only need an excuse to get angry, they don't need to know or suspect that they are charmed, but that's in keeping with it being a full feature, whereas Stillness of Mind is not; it can grant full preemptive protection, and is easier to use as a counter.
I've thought before about whether Stillness of Mind should just become advantage against charm effects, but Monks are already likely to have a decent Wisdom save, and Diamond Soul makes them basically impossible to charm eventually anyway. It would also devalue the feature right away for races that already have re-rolls such as Elves and Gnomes.
I think you could actually just have Stillness of Mind be your version of Diamond Soul, move it to level 9 and have it grant INT WIS CHA saving throw proficiencies, would certainly fit the name.
Good point! Actually you reminded me of something which I meant to put in my list, which was to swap STR save proficiency for WIS; while this does mean Monk would be the only class with the two most common proficiencies (rather than one common and one less common as other classes do) I don't think DEX/WIS save proficiency would particularly unbalance them. This would give them more inbuilt resistance to charm/fear from level one, and at that point adding INT/CHA proficiency would be fine as a minor initial boost, while leaving STR and CON for later. I might edit that into my first post.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
- free disengage as a bonus action is needed for survivability at low levels. I agree if rogues can do it for free so should monks.
-some type of reaction parry maneuver to reduce damage or deflect attacks. I think this makes more sense to provide a sense of durability then increasing the monk hit die.
-monks are good until level 10 or so and then they drop off the cliff. Stunning strike becomes less effective and damage does not scale properly. an extra unarmed strike at 11 and 17th level either though the attack action or flurry of blows. This makes the monks seem faster and i think is a better option then increasing the damage of the martial arts die.
-stunning strike i think needs a revamp. Maybe you can do it once per turn when you use flurry of blows and even if they make their save, they have disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks until the end of your next turn. That way its useful all the time. I am not a fan of stun locking opponents or spending ki for potentially zero results.
- more subclass abilities that are not chi dependent. Certain monk subclasses like astral monk and 4 elements are 100% chi dependent. If you have no chi then you are just generic monk. This is a terrible design flaw. Less dependence on chi for subclass skills and abilities i think is key.
- specific monk combat maneuvers similar to battle master. like flying leg kick, riposte, roundhouse kick etc.. that have combat effects and provide more flavor. Riposte i a very monkish maneuver.
-a monk should be able to knock people out .i.e apply the unconscious condition. Maybe that belongs in a subclass like open hand but knocking people out is classic monk.
-I am fine with unarmored defense. Patient defense is incredible and i don't think people use it enough. But since monks are so MAD i think another A.S.I. at 10th level like rogues is necessary.
-i am fine with monk weapons as is but a few specific monk weapons in the players handbook like katana or numb chucks would be nice
- more monk specific magic items and feats
-the 20th level capstone is underwhelming at best. Maybe if you start your round with less then 10 ki, you regain all your ki points Or +4 to dex and wisdom.
-in general, monks in 5e mechanically dont live up to the fantasy of what you imagine they could do. This is a fantasy game after all.
- free disengage as a bonus action is needed for survivability at low levels. I agree if rogues can do it for free so should monks.
-some type of reaction parry maneuver to reduce damage or deflect attacks. I think this makes more sense to provide a sense of durability then increasing the monk hit die.
-monks are good until level 10 or so and then they drop off the cliff. Stunning strike becomes less effective and damage does not scale properly. an extra unarmed strike at 11 and 17th level either though the attack action or flurry of blows. This makes the monks seem faster and i think is a better option then increasing the damage of the martial arts die.
-stunning strike i think needs a revamp. Maybe you can do it once per turn when you use flurry of blows and even if they make their save, they have disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks until the end of your next turn. That way its useful all the time. I am not a fan of stun locking opponents or spending ki for potentially zero results.
- more subclass abilities that are not chi dependent. Certain monk subclasses like astral monk and 4 elements are 100% chi dependent. If you have no chi then you are just generic monk. This is a terrible design flaw. Less dependence on chi for subclass skills and abilities i think is key.
- specific monk combat maneuvers similar to battle master. like flying leg kick, riposte, roundhouse kick etc.. that have combat effects and provide more flavor. Riposte i a very monkish maneuver.
-a monk should be able to knock people out .i.e apply the unconscious condition. Maybe that belongs in a subclass like open hand but knocking people out is classic monk.
-I am fine with unarmored defense. Patient defense is incredible and i don't think people use it enough. But since monks are so MAD i think another A.S.I. at 10th level like rogues is necessary.
-i am fine with monk weapons as is but a few specific monk weapons in the players handbook like katana or numb chucks would be nice
- more monk specific magic items and feats
-the 20th level capstone is underwhelming at best. Maybe if you start your round with less then 10 ki, you regain all your ki points Or +4 to dex and wisdom.
-in general, monks in 5e mechanically dont live up to the fantasy of what you imagine they could do. This is a fantasy game after all.
Good points. I especially like the idea of adding a better blocking mechanic to the monk. If we think of martial arts as mechanically similar to two weapon fighting, it makes sense to bake in a feat like Defensive Duelist.
Changing up stunning strike for a Battle Master Maneuver like system would be fun too.
stunning strike i think needs a revamp. Maybe you can do it once per turn when you use flurry of blows and even if they make their save, they have disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks until the end of your next turn. That way its useful all the time. I am not a fan of stun locking opponents or spending ki for potentially zero results.
I feel like Stunning Strike works well as it is; keep in mind that the more Ki a Monk has, the more they can burn on forcing it to work. With a Flurry of Blows most Monks can spend 5 Ki to force four saves (and you only need the flurry and all four strikes if the target beats the first two/three) which gives you a good chance of forcing a failure even on high CON enemies, and a single round stunned is a huge force multiplier, especially on a lone boss. This is a lot of Ki for a lower level Monk, but for a higher level Monk it's not such a big deal, so it's a part of how Monks scale.
-the 20th level capstone is underwhelming at best. Maybe if you start your round with less then 10 ki, you regain all your ki points Or +4 to dex and wisdom.
I actually think that the feature itself is a good one; it works well with the fact that Monks want to be burning Ki at higher levels, but you can't always guarantee a short rest. It's the short rest part that actually is a bit of a mechanical issue with 5e, as I've played with so many groups that hardly ever take short rests, so that penalises classes that rely on them like Fighters, Monks and Warlocks, I usually have to fight the group to take short rests, even when it's not actually my own character that benefits.
This makes a Ki on Initiative feature quite good. I would however probably change it to something more like "if you roll initiative and have less than 5 Ki points remaining then your Ki point total is increased to 5". This solves annoying cases where you have only 1 left or such.
It could however probably use a secondary feature to go with it, as not every Monk will run that low on Ki often enough to really benefit.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I wonder if it would really be that broken to just give monks unlimited ki at level 20? I mean, by that time Fighters are making at least 4 attacks with enchanted weapons, casters are changing reality, and Barbarians straight up break the strength and con limits.
Any serious enemies they face will probably have immunity to paralysis and crazy con bonuses, so no spamming stunning strike.
Thanks for the response. Knocking people out for one round is more potent then stunning strike for sure but does not bring them to zero hit points. The hit points remain wherever they are at. The unconscious condition is:
An unconscious creature is incapacitated (see the condition), can’t move or speak, and is unaware of its surroundings
The creature drops whatever it’s holding and falls prone.
I wonder if it would really be that broken to just give monks unlimited ki at level 20? I mean, by that time Fighters are making at least 4 attacks with enchanted weapons, casters are changing reality, and Barbarians straight up break the strength and con limits.
Any serious enemies they face will probably have immunity to paralysis and crazy con bonuses, so no spamming stunning strike.
I think it wouldn't be broken at all for the monk class, but it might be broken for some subclasses. Then again, depends of what you consider broken at 20th level. If you say "Anything that can't be done by anyone else" then yeah, the four elements running away spamming Wall of Fire without a cost or the Mercy healing and resurrecting everyone might seem a bit overpowered.
Monks should be aware of the charm effect to use stillness of mind?
What you're saying makes no sense. Stillness of Mind is like the Lucky feat, it's an ability that the player is using, not the character. From a flavor standpoint it is the character's mind being stilled thanks to their training to resist mind altering effects, but from a meta perspective it is the player's choice. Just like how a DnD character can't just trigger their own luck, but a player can still use a luck point, this ability shouldn't be nerfed by implying that the monk needs to be aware of the effect on them. That would just make it easier for DMs to have excuses for a player to not use the ability as intended, which is to resist mind control. It's not supposed to be super hard for monks to negate because that is literally the point of the ability. It would be like making it harder for Rogues to use their blindsense because invisible creatures are supposed to be hard to detect.
Hex/Hunter's mark isn't nothing, but it really isn't that amazing either for Two Weapon Fighting.
It only averages to 3.5 damage per hit, and is usually used with smaller weapon dice to begin with. And with Two Weapon Fighting, its nearly worthless because it takes up your bonus action on the first turn, then can very readily require your bonus action to be moved onto new targets on following turns. They are even concentration, which is far less than ideal for a melee combatant.
I'm confused now; are you agreeing with how I am saying that Stillness of Mind is supposed to work or not?
Neither the charmed condition nor Charm Person cause you to automatically accept what the caster says is true; if your "friend" (actually only a "friendly acquaintance") tells you to betray your long-term friends or do something that you wouldn't normally do for a friendly acquaintance, then you're allowed to find that strange and ask for an insight check. That's the balancing act with charm effects; you need the target to remain convinced that what they are being asked to do is normal within the context of the charm effect, otherwise they're going to become aware that something is wrong and have reasonable grounds to take actions that make sense in that situation.
However most characters can't actually do anything once they're aware something is wrong, as only Monks with Stillness of Mind, casters with Dispel Magic (vs. spells) or Dispel Evil and Good (vs. certain enemy types) or Greater Restoration, and Berserkers with Mindless Rage can directly counter the effect iirc. Other characters can only really try to resist doing as they're compelled, but only to the extent your DM might allow (if at all, otherwise they're just stuck thinking something is wrong but otherwise going along with it). Berserkers actually have the easiest time in such a scenario, as they only need an excuse to be enraged, they don't actually need to be aware of the charm effect at all, but then theirs is a full level feature (not a secondary on top of Evasion), and gives full immunity while active.
Of course there are also cases where you can't do anything anyway; for example Crown of Madness takes your action as long as there is a target within reach, Dominate Person can issue commands that do not allow wiggle room to take other actions and so-on, and no interpretation of Stillness of Mind would work in these cases anyway. It's mostly useful against the more insidious long term charm effects where it's absolutely still great to have.
Once again though, what I am actually asking for is that Wizards of the Coast clarify the feature and the intention behind the charmed condition (and effects that apply it) to make all this clearer one way or the other. I don't want to turn this into another circular like a certain metagaming thread I had to unsubscribe from because people who ask if they are metagaming when they metagame get real pissy when the answer is "yes".
Let's assume otherwise identical 5th level characters with Extra Attack and +3 attack modifier. One has a greatsword with great weapon fighting (2d6+3 re-rolling 1's and 2's for an average of 11.333 weapon damage per hit) vs. twin shortswords with two-weapon fighting (d6+3 for an average of 6.5 weapon damage per hit). Assuming no misses this would give a basic average damage of 22.666 for the greatsword, and 19.5 for the shortswords, a difference of just over 3, so pretty similar.
If you factor in the loss of damage due to missing then if you assume a target with AC 17 (for a nice and simple 50/50 chance to hit) then you're looking at one hit (11.333 average damage) for the greatsword or 1.5 hits (9.75 average damage) for the shortswords. For a difference of only 1.583 that's negligible enough that it's really just up to the player which they prefer for their character. And this is assuming purely average performance; in practice having more attacks is also nice because it makes that it much less likely that you'll miss with all of your attacks in a single turn, which is good because there are few things worse in D&D than feeling like you wasted an entire turn. 😝
Anyway, if we now assume both characters have access to Divine Favor which they must cast themselves as a bonus action then in the first round this gives the greatsword 13.833 average damage, and twin shortswords 9 average, but in the second round it's 13.833 vs. 13.5. Substitute for Hex or Hunter's Mark and it becomes 14.833 vs. 10 then 14.833 vs 15. This is broadly the same damage, and it's also assuming that you have to cast these in the first turn (but if you initiate combat you could do it in advance) or that you have to cast them at all, as an ally with Crusader's Mantle or similar wouldn't require you to. It's also ignoring other factors that make more attacks beneficial, namely that they give more opportunities to use per attack features such as Battle Master Manoeuvres or a Monk's Stunning Strike. I'm also ignoring Spirit Shroud, but for a Warlock with 4th level or better slots you're looking at a sizeable damage boost from an extra attack, even with the normal penalty (no two-weapon fighting).
Since we're specifically talking about Monk, it's also worth keeping in mind that the damage difference of two-weapon fighting (assuming we had a two-weapon fighting equivalent) is much less of an issue, as the martial arts die would eliminate the base damage difference over time anyway, causing two weapon fighting to pull ahead sooner, plus the higher your weapon attack modifier becomes the less important the damage dice is anyway. It's a similar reason why versatile weapons only really matter earlier on as well, which I think is fine because it means that the better you get at martial arts, the more you can just attack however you like.
Overall two weapon fighting is pretty decently balanced as it is IMO; if I were to change anything about it I'd probably just eliminate the no damage modifier on off hand attacks part as you're already limited by only using light weapons, and whether or not you have other things you can do with your bonus action (I don't think we really need to cater to characters who have few or no bonus actions yet are determined to use only a single dagger). This would mean eliminating the two-weapon fighting style entirely, but with new fighting styles in Tasha's it's no longer as simple as "all two-weapon fighters will now just take Defence" meanwhile great weapon fighting, even with basically the same damage, still has the advantage of focusing on only a single weapon (only need one magic weapon, weapon based effects only need to be applied once etc.), though two weapon fighting has the benefit of being two weapons (harder to fully disarm, could have two magic weapons with different effects etc.) but these are lesser benefits.
As long as the two options have basically the same damage that's really all that matters; i.e- both should be roughly equally viable so that players are free to choose whatever makes most sense for their character, and this is arguably already the case in 5e, it just has annoying added complexities.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
You're inserting Insight checks where, RAW, there aren't any. There's nothing about any charm spell or charm effect that I know of, that gives anyone a chance to notice it with Insight. Compare to some illusion spells that give people a chance to notice with Investigation.
Just a note there. In case that changes your opinion or whatever.
Im saying Stillness of Mind largely doesn't work.
Its true that a charmed character does not have to believe or do anything the charmer says, but that isn't what is the matter with stillness of mind and charms.
If a charmed character sees the charmer as a friendly acquaintance, they have no reason to use Stillness of Mind. There would be no motivation to break the spell effect a friendly character cast on you.
Also, unless the text of the charm spell/ability gives you an opportunity to do insight checks to beat the spell, that is just your DM ruling on the effect. It might be a good one and fun adaption to make Stillness of Mind more useful and represent the struggle of mental fortitude the monk can wage, but its not RAW.
Yes, comparing greatsword with 2 weapon fighting with no feats at level 5 comes out pretty evenly. But longsword gets access to feats to take it far ahead in terms of damage.
And hex/hunters mark is still actually better on a greatsword because of action economy: you generally lose nothing the first turn you cast it, and nothing on proceeding turns when you move it to new targets. Its not just a first turn difference in damage.
But making this comparison to salvage Monk's combat ability doesn't make sense, because they must multiclass or take a feat to even get hex/hunters mark. And they already have a heaping plateful of things they want to do with their bonus actions. So we would need to be willing to admit the comparison should be to a greatsword wielder who can also multiclass and take feats by level 5. Its not a fair comparison.
But the base difference that martial dice eliminate over time is another part of the problem: getting to eventually dual wield the equivalent of 1d10 silvered weapons isn't all that impressive. It just scales far too slowly to be something to write home about.
These spells do not need to specify the use of insight because skill checks are a core part of the rules; if someone asks you to do something you are allowed to wonder why, or to try to determine if they're lying and so-on. You may notice that the spell also does not state that your character continues to breathe, yet you can do that to.
Yet again, this is why these kinds of features and rules need to be better clarified, because people struggle with combining the rules of the game with other rules in the game. And I don't want to keep going in circles on this; I said clarify it, if you don't want it clarified then whatever.
And dual wielding has a feat that not only keeps the damage competitive (by allowing non-light weapons) but boosts your defence while you're at it; if you're going to compare no feat to a feat then at least compare like for like.
It also doesn't have to be a first turn difference, and there are similar effects that require no bonus action on your part at all. I can't help but notice that you only ever cherry pick the bits you can mash onto an argument while ignoring the rest entirely, but thanks for reminding me that as always I'm wasting my time trying to be comprehensive because you don't read posts for what they say, only what you can twist.
I was discussing dual wielding in general in response to you whining about dual wielding in general, FFS. Again, please try reading.
And? One of these is to already have a bonus action attack (or two) as others have pointed out (and you've also ignored). What is even your point anymore? You don't listen and you don't actually seem to want to say anything either?
Except that I literally showed both, both with and without attack bonuses and showed that they're both broadly the same in both cases, so I don't have to admit shit because you haven't got the winning argument you seem to think you do. But thanks for reminding me why it's pointless replying to you; you don't actually read anything.
Which might why in my post to the thread I covered changing the scaling on the martial arts dice; you know, because it's a thread about Monk changes we might like to see? FFS, is it seriously too much to ask you to read the thread you're posting in? Why post in this thread (or this forum for that matter) when you care so little about reading what you reply to?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Great Weapon Master can add a +10 to hits while Dual Wielder lets you up your damage by and average of 1. One feat is clearly far more powerful.
So far the only such effect you've mentioned is Divine Favor. Which is arguably not even worth it when it only averages an additional 2 damage to each attack, and requires multiclassing to get if you aren't a Paladin or war cleric.
Then you weren't reading, because I wasn't talking about Dual Wielding in general, I was mentioning that martial arts is just having the dual wielding mechanic built into monks.
I don't get what you are trying to say. I pointed out they already have too many priorities for their bonus action, so you say "Yeah" and insult me? My clearly stated point is that hex/hunters mark doesn't do much to improve 2 weapon fighting or martial arts.
Not in the context of a monk multiclassing/picking up a feat to get hex/hunters mark, which was the whole point of bringing up two weapon fighting in the first place.
If you agree it advances too slowly, then FFS, why would you use that slow advancement to argue the monk's version of 2 weapon fighting will keep up in damage over time with another martial using a Greatsword? You're projecting the level 5 results would continue on the same despite heavy weapon martials getting access to more feats and class abilities to benefit from.
Ok, so quite a few interesting ideas people have. Clarifying Stillness of Mind/Charm would be helpful. Or just changing it to advantage on saves against charm/frightened effects so you don’t have to figure out if someone is aware they are charmed or not.
What would people think if Monk was made a WIS based class? Save DC based on WIS, martial arts can use WIS instead of STR so if you want a STR build you can. AC is a scaling flat number + WIS modifier. Take DEX out if the picture so it’s less MAD. Or go DEX and no WIS.
@Haravikk, I like the counter strike idea as well as the offhand attack you added as well. Anything to give more variety.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
And what, pray tell, would the DC on that check be?
Eh I overextragrated Stillness of Mind, but my point still stands. Relies too much on DM interpretation. Your interpretation is cool but cause it's unsupported by anything in the game so I can't call it RAI.
But it doesn't matter, because I'd like to remind everyone this isn't a thread about what monks can do, but a thread about what monks should do.
You might be right that if we do add on a bunch of monk buffs stuff like Stillness of Mind doesn't need to that powerful. I would add that there is precedence for basically completely deleting charm and fear effects, see Berserker who doesn't even need a action, but I will concede that that's a barbarian not a monk, and that barbarians aren't the ones getting massively buffed in this forum.
I think you could actually just have Stillness of Mind be your version of Diamond Soul, move it to level 9 and have it grant INT WIS CHA saving throw proficiencies, would certainly fit the name.
Duel-wielder change works. To be fair, I'd allow any monk who doesn't want to use unarmed strikes to reflavor their unarmed strikes as weapon attacks, and I'd even allow them to change the damage type. That's just my preferred solution though. I'd also allow them to benefit from any magical weapon like this (as long as it's 2 with one weapon 2 with the other), cause if I granted them two magic weapons, then chances are I could have granted them 1 magical weapon and 1 magical unarmed strike improvement (see Eldritch Claw tattoo, the thousand different HB magical monk gloves/wraps/armbands/whatever).
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Except that it doesn't really, does it? It only adds +10 damage at a cost of -5 to hit, making it less likely that you will deal any damage in the first place if you have no means to counteract it.
[REDACTED]
To stick with my 5th level example earlier (which I set the level at for simplicity btw, not some grand conspiracy) then that -5 to hit penalty takes you from a 50% chance to hit (11 or better on the d20 hits) to 25% chance (only 16 or better hits) which actually reduces the average damage to 10.667 (from 11.333) meanwhile the two weapon fighting with Dual Wielder has increased their average to 11.25, and gained some extra defence.
Of course the balance changes depending upon the target AC, but there isn't really a tipping point where GWM becomes guaranteed extra damage; to take advantage of that part of GWM requires you to have ways to gain advantage, but these aren't usually free (a Samurai only gets it so many times per long rest, a Barbarian takes more damage in return, Faerie Fire requires multiclassing and an action or an ally using it for you etc.). The real damage benefit of GWM is when you can roll the extra bonus action attack, but this is only reliable against weak hordes to put them to 0 hp, as you can't really rely on rolling critical hits.
I've mentioned far more than that. [REDACTED]
Incorrect. [REDACTED]
Except that it does; I showed that both do broadly the same damage without being boosted, and both are boosted around the same amount by using it, both with and without bonus action considerations. The difference is even more noticeable if you compare a pure greatsword Fighter at 6th with a multiclassed dual wielder (5th in something + single level dip in something else) and that's ignoring feats, or the possibility of getting bonuses from allies instead; [REDACTED]
The dual wielder or Monk benefits more simply by virtue of having more attacks, and because as modifiers and bonus damage increase, the base weapon damage matters less and less (especially on a Monk where they become equal), and for a high attacks build you're more likely to want to take these bonuses. I've shown all of these things; [REDACTED]
Because tweaking the progression is a valid point in a thread about changes to the core Monk class; [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Are you really asking me to explain to you how ability checks work?
If you're being lied to then opposed deception vs. insight is the obvious one, if you're trying to see if your allies can convince you that something is wrong then your DM can either set a flat DC, or adjust it based upon allied persuasion rolls (e.g- the more allies roll 15+ the easier your insight check becomes).
These are all basic tools that exist in the core rules; a spell being cast does not mean that suddenly none of the other rules of the game exist. But this is precisely the kind of thing that could do with being clarified; currently we just have a throwaway line in spellcasting targets about how spells are not automatically perceptible, but there are ways to perceive things in D&D. Either for you as the affected character, or for your allies who are not powerless to just watch as you do whatever you're told to do.
Actually it's in the rules, as I've said to ChoirOfFire; skill checks are a core part of the game, the charm effects/spells do not need to specify their use because they are always a part of D&D. This is a big part of what needs clarified though, because some people are of a mind that if a spell doesn't say something it can never be done, but that actually introduces enormous problems with the rules as they are simply not written to be used that way.
I think this stems from the sage advice about how spells "only do as they say", but I feel like people mistakenly take this to mean that spells exist in a little bubble where no other rules apply to them, but that's not what that sage advice was addressing, which is whether a spell can be used to do things that they don't state, but which a player might think should be possible. For example, lighting an area of Grease on fire; this is not what the spell is for (it's for knocking enemies prone) which is why it doesn't talk about setting it alight. DM fiat always allows it to happen anyway, but that's adding rules on top of what the spell states. However spells do not take away or override rules that they do not specifically address, and that includes using skill checks to perceive things.
It's an extreme example, but if a charm effect does not say that you can continue to breathe, would you assume your charmed character is now starting to suffocate? I hope not, because you shouldn't, but hopefully it makes the point.
With the exception of the charm effects that very specifically rob you of all free agency (like Dominate Person can) there is always wiggle room that can and should be used, otherwise charm effects would become massively overpowered. But by the same token, ending them should not be too easy either, some kind of check should almost always be involved, otherwise they become largely pointless, and they're one of the most fun challenges the game can present. A charm effect can turn an otherwise easy fight into a dramatic and desperate battle when one of your party members if forced to turn against you, or is effectively taken out of the fight etc. This is why you're not supposed to be aware of them.
The Berserker's Mindless Rage is a full class feature (not a secondary feature on top of Evasion), it's also not actually completely deleting these effects; a Berserker is only immune while raging, if they are not raging they are affected by these conditions as normal. Just as with using an action for Stillness of Mind, a Berserker needs to use a bonus action to Rage and gain their immunity, but why would they Rage if due to being charmed they no longer perceive any threats to Rage against?
It's a bit easier for the Berserker because they only need an excuse to get angry, they don't need to know or suspect that they are charmed, but that's in keeping with it being a full feature, whereas Stillness of Mind is not; it can grant full preemptive protection, and is easier to use as a counter.
I've thought before about whether Stillness of Mind should just become advantage against charm effects, but Monks are already likely to have a decent Wisdom save, and Diamond Soul makes them basically impossible to charm eventually anyway. It would also devalue the feature right away for races that already have re-rolls such as Elves and Gnomes.
Good point! Actually you reminded me of something which I meant to put in my list, which was to swap STR save proficiency for WIS; while this does mean Monk would be the only class with the two most common proficiencies (rather than one common and one less common as other classes do) I don't think DEX/WIS save proficiency would particularly unbalance them. This would give them more inbuilt resistance to charm/fear from level one, and at that point adding INT/CHA proficiency would be fine as a minor initial boost, while leaving STR and CON for later. I might edit that into my first post.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
- free disengage as a bonus action is needed for survivability at low levels. I agree if rogues can do it for free so should monks.
-some type of reaction parry maneuver to reduce damage or deflect attacks. I think this makes more sense to provide a sense of durability then increasing the monk hit die.
-monks are good until level 10 or so and then they drop off the cliff. Stunning strike becomes less effective and damage does not scale properly. an extra unarmed strike at 11 and 17th level either though the attack action or flurry of blows. This makes the monks seem faster and i think is a better option then increasing the damage of the martial arts die.
-stunning strike i think needs a revamp. Maybe you can do it once per turn when you use flurry of blows and even if they make their save, they have disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks until the end of your next turn. That way its useful all the time. I am not a fan of stun locking opponents or spending ki for potentially zero results.
- more subclass abilities that are not chi dependent. Certain monk subclasses like astral monk and 4 elements are 100% chi dependent. If you have no chi then you are just generic monk. This is a terrible design flaw. Less dependence on chi for subclass skills and abilities i think is key.
- specific monk combat maneuvers similar to battle master. like flying leg kick, riposte, roundhouse kick etc.. that have combat effects and provide more flavor. Riposte i a very monkish maneuver.
-a monk should be able to knock people out .i.e apply the unconscious condition. Maybe that belongs in a subclass like open hand but knocking people out is classic monk.
-I am fine with unarmored defense. Patient defense is incredible and i don't think people use it enough. But since monks are so MAD i think another A.S.I. at 10th level like rogues is necessary.
-i am fine with monk weapons as is but a few specific monk weapons in the players handbook like katana or numb chucks would be nice
- more monk specific magic items and feats
-the 20th level capstone is underwhelming at best. Maybe if you start your round with less then 10 ki, you regain all your ki points Or +4 to dex and wisdom.
-in general, monks in 5e mechanically dont live up to the fantasy of what you imagine they could do. This is a fantasy game after all.
Good points. I especially like the idea of adding a better blocking mechanic to the monk. If we think of martial arts as mechanically similar to two weapon fighting, it makes sense to bake in a feat like Defensive Duelist.
Changing up stunning strike for a Battle Master Maneuver like system would be fun too.
I feel like Stunning Strike works well as it is; keep in mind that the more Ki a Monk has, the more they can burn on forcing it to work. With a Flurry of Blows most Monks can spend 5 Ki to force four saves (and you only need the flurry and all four strikes if the target beats the first two/three) which gives you a good chance of forcing a failure even on high CON enemies, and a single round stunned is a huge force multiplier, especially on a lone boss. This is a lot of Ki for a lower level Monk, but for a higher level Monk it's not such a big deal, so it's a part of how Monks scale.
I actually think that the feature itself is a good one; it works well with the fact that Monks want to be burning Ki at higher levels, but you can't always guarantee a short rest. It's the short rest part that actually is a bit of a mechanical issue with 5e, as I've played with so many groups that hardly ever take short rests, so that penalises classes that rely on them like Fighters, Monks and Warlocks, I usually have to fight the group to take short rests, even when it's not actually my own character that benefits.
This makes a Ki on Initiative feature quite good. I would however probably change it to something more like "if you roll initiative and have less than 5 Ki points remaining then your Ki point total is increased to 5". This solves annoying cases where you have only 1 left or such.
It could however probably use a secondary feature to go with it, as not every Monk will run that low on Ki often enough to really benefit.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I wonder if it would really be that broken to just give monks unlimited ki at level 20? I mean, by that time Fighters are making at least 4 attacks with enchanted weapons, casters are changing reality, and Barbarians straight up break the strength and con limits.
Any serious enemies they face will probably have immunity to paralysis and crazy con bonuses, so no spamming stunning strike.
Thanks for the response. Knocking people out for one round is more potent then stunning strike for sure but does not bring them to zero hit points. The hit points remain wherever they are at. The unconscious condition is:
Its not too much different from the effects of a hold person spell (except for the falling prone part) but only lasts a round.
As a higher level monk feature ....why not?
I think it wouldn't be broken at all for the monk class, but it might be broken for some subclasses. Then again, depends of what you consider broken at 20th level. If you say "Anything that can't be done by anyone else" then yeah, the four elements running away spamming Wall of Fire without a cost or the Mercy healing and resurrecting everyone might seem a bit overpowered.
Monks should be aware of the charm effect to use stillness of mind?
What you're saying makes no sense. Stillness of Mind is like the Lucky feat, it's an ability that the player is using, not the character. From a flavor standpoint it is the character's mind being stilled thanks to their training to resist mind altering effects, but from a meta perspective it is the player's choice. Just like how a DnD character can't just trigger their own luck, but a player can still use a luck point, this ability shouldn't be nerfed by implying that the monk needs to be aware of the effect on them. That would just make it easier for DMs to have excuses for a player to not use the ability as intended, which is to resist mind control. It's not supposed to be super hard for monks to negate because that is literally the point of the ability. It would be like making it harder for Rogues to use their blindsense because invisible creatures are supposed to be hard to detect.