One more vote for "Stop trying to fit a square peg into a round hole." It's a monk class, not a all-the-east-asian-martial-concepts class. Ronin, samurai, & sumo are fighters, not monks. Maybe design a Eldritch Knight-esque subclass? Use magic items to do magic damage like most all martials do?
In a more positive direction, I suggest listing the specific rules & thematic features of the monk class that you want to use.
Why couldn't they be Monks though? Monk is one of the classes that makes the most sense to be those things by both the way it is depicted and the way it emulates a lot of the abilities samurai and those other types of warriors are mechanically. Expanding Monk wouldn't hurt anyone, it would just open up more options and ways to play the class for the people who wanted them. But you could still play the same narrow Monk class concept if you really wanted to.
Also, this isn't about taking other classes concepts. You can still play a Fighter Samurai, but you can also play a Monk Samurai and emulate the same concept with different mechanics too. In the vast majority of cases at least, more options are always better. That is why I am agreement with Golaryn on this.
Couldn't the monk just as well be the unarmored samurai? Take the Kensei subclass and have your Katana (longsword) and augment that with skill/tool proficiencies/feats?
Again, I personally am open to expanding the monk class in some ways (adding light/medium armor proficiencies as long as Unarmored defense is equally balanced without having to spend every single ASI until level 16 to max out DEX/WIS to have a decent AC in late Tier 3 into Tier 4). But I don't agree that the monk needs to be expanded to fit every single playstyle you can possibly imagine into it. There's a reason we have fighters or paladins (which could also fit the samurai role) etc.
Removing the armor restrictions would go a long way to allowing the Monk to do more. Even if you were required to take the Lightly Armored Feat or Multiclass to gain proficiency. You can already get weapons training through Feats and through the Dedicated Weapon feature you can use pretty much anything as a Monk Weapon.
You can't even effectively multiclass with Monk because you can't benefit from martial arts or the movement buffs while in armor so you are just transferring the Wisdom tax to what ever build you are doing. Barbarian's can pick between Unarmored Defense and Armor and I haven't heard a lot of complaints about it.
I don't want it to do everything, but I do want it to do more than 1 thing. The OneDnD UA has opened up two weapon fighting for Monks which is nice. So even a minor tweak could mean a lot more options
Having played my Monk from 1-13 so far and hoping to continue, I would like to see a few changes as well, but nothing like those seeking to move the Samurai to the Monk list or make Strength an option or change the Unarmored defense mechanic. To me, these all add up to making the Monk a Class and not some half-assed twist on another existing class. I think more options should be open to those who can take Unarmed fighting, to scale up the damage in later tiers and make it magical mid-tier.
I don't have issue with the Monk class falling into exactly what it is, a stereotypical version of the studious Shaolin masters from the old, old movies and such. Everything mentions as reasons to change them exists in other classes under different names. Instead of homogenizing the game further, use your imagination to make the current guidelines fit your vision.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
The struggle I have is how similar the Barbarian and the Monk are. Anything else you might want to do with the Monk starts to feel like a Barbarian.
Take a Sumo Wrestler for instance. Their mechanics and numbers 100% say Barbarian. The titles on each of those numbers / mechanics (like "Rage") do not.
And sometimes the Ranger gets into the struggle too.
The issue is in the fact that Monk and only Monk can be effective unarmed combatants. Barbarian does get close, if you are willing to imagine your claws do bludgeoning damage and you are happy with using that one subclass.
The struggle I have is how similar the Barbarian and the Monk are. Anything else you might want to do with the Monk starts to feel like a Barbarian.
Take a Sumo Wrestler for instance. Their mechanics and numbers 100% say Barbarian. The titles on each of those numbers / mechanics (like "Rage") do not.
And sometimes the Ranger gets into the struggle too.
The issue is in the fact that Monk and only Monk can be effective unarmed combatants. Barbarian does get close, if you are willing to imagine your claws do bludgeoning damage and you are happy with using that one subclass.
In your opinion, what is it that separates monks from everyone else as far as being effective unarmed combatants?
The struggle I have is how similar the Barbarian and the Monk are. Anything else you might want to do with the Monk starts to feel like a Barbarian.
Take a Sumo Wrestler for instance. Their mechanics and numbers 100% say Barbarian. The titles on each of those numbers / mechanics (like "Rage") do not.
And sometimes the Ranger gets into the struggle too.
The issue is in the fact that Monk and only Monk can be effective unarmed combatants. Barbarian does get close, if you are willing to imagine your claws do bludgeoning damage and you are happy with using that one subclass.
In your opinion, what is it that separates monks from everyone else as far as being effective unarmed combatants?
Martial Arts
At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property.
You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield:
You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of your unarmed strikes and monk weapons.
You can roll a d4 in place of the normal damage of your unarmed strike or monk weapon. This die changes as you gain monk levels, as shown in the Martial Arts column of the Monk table.
When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action. For example, if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, assuming you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn.
Ki-Empowered Strikes
Starting at 6th level, your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
While Martial Art can be partially replaced with Unarmed Fighting Style. Monks are never at the whims of the DM when it comes to overcoming damage resistance to their primary attacks.
But I don't agree that the monk needs to be expanded to fit every single playstyle you can possibly imagine into it. There's a reason we have fighters or paladins (which could also fit the samurai role) etc.
I don't see anyone saying that "monk needs to be expanded to fit every single playstyle you can possibly imagine". I do see people saying that Monks current concept is too limiting, and it could do to be expanded on somewhat. Expanding something to fit more playstyles is very different than expanding it to fit every playstyle. And yes, Fighter and Paladin exist for a reason. But that doesn't mean there can't be any overlap or concepts that can be emulated by playing different classes.
The struggle I have is how similar the Barbarian and the Monk are. Anything else you might want to do with the Monk starts to feel like a Barbarian.
Take a Sumo Wrestler for instance. Their mechanics and numbers 100% say Barbarian. The titles on each of those numbers / mechanics (like "Rage") do not.
And sometimes the Ranger gets into the struggle too.
The issue is in the fact that Monk and only Monk can be effective unarmed combatants. Barbarian does get close, if you are willing to imagine your claws do bludgeoning damage and you are happy with using that one subclass.
In your opinion, what is it that separates monks from everyone else as far as being effective unarmed combatants?
Martial Arts
At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property.
You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield:
You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of your unarmed strikes and monk weapons.
You can roll a d4 in place of the normal damage of your unarmed strike or monk weapon. This die changes as you gain monk levels, as shown in the Martial Arts column of the Monk table.
When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action. For example, if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, assuming you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn.
Ki-Empowered Strikes
Starting at 6th level, your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
While Martial Art can be partially replaced with Unarmed Fighting Style. Monks are never at the whims of the DM when it comes to overcoming damage resistance to their primary attacks.
Homebrew a feat that more or less replicates Ki Strikes. Play a fighter with Unarmed Fighting Style & take said feat at level 6. Next issue?
But I don't agree that the monk needs to be expanded to fit every single playstyle you can possibly imagine into it. There's a reason we have fighters or paladins (which could also fit the samurai role) etc.
I don't see anyone saying that "monk needs to be expanded to fit every single playstyle you can possibly imagine". I do see people saying that Monks current concept is too limiting, and it could do to be expanded on somewhat. Expanding something to fit more playstyles is very different than expanding it to fit every playstyle. And yes, Fighter and Paladin exist for a reason. But that doesn't mean there can't be any overlap or concepts that can be emulated by playing different classes.
Other than the brawler, the ronin, the sumo, the samurai of the OP I might be confusing some comments from another monk 1DD thread. Im fine with allowing armor, though I would prefer a better unarmored defense option(or both) to reduce the MADness of monk. And the option for a STR monk, which a better UAD option could allow without armor, probably. The unarmed fighting style can help with other builds outside of monk. Sure only monks can bypass resistance without magic, but no other class can do this without a magic weapon anyway. It’s not like the other classes get to bypass resistance via a class feature with their mundane weapon but lose out unarmed. They always need magic to bypass resistance. So if getting magic items for magical unarmed strikes is less ubiquitous than magic weapons that’s not the fault of the monk, but of WotC and the DM who can make unarmed magic items more readily available so your unarmed brawler fighter attacking 3-4 times a round and get around resistance at later levels.
your Brawler description is a Barbarian, to a tee. your Ronin sounds like a Swashbuckler Rogue. your Samurai sounds like... a Samurai. and I'm not sure that someone skilled in theatrically pushing someone else out of a circle would try to transfer those skills to fighting orcs and dragons, they'd probably train to fight with some other skill.
Kung fu and karate are just as unsuited for fighting dragons and orcs as sumo wrestling is. D&D monks could survive having their options expanded to include something like sumo or boxing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
But I believe OP specifically objects to the requirement that monks be "mystical" (and thereby have to invest in Wisdom over Strength.) It's that mystic nature that in a fantasy setting invests those punches with the power to knock out dragons. We could invest a Sumo with mystic powers and make their ability to Shove magical, but then we're back to the drawing board with the whole Wisdom thing.
Kung fu and karate are just as unsuited for fighting dragons and orcs as sumo wrestling is. D&D monks could survive having their options expanded to include something like sumo or boxing.
Isn’t that kind of what the changes to unarmed strikes and grappling/shoving in 1DD is doing? Boxing doesn’t necessarily have to be STR based but many of us are asking for monks to less reliant on multiple stats to open up the options for STR builds if you want.
But I believe OP specifically objects to the requirement that monks be "mystical" (and thereby have to invest in Wisdom over Strength.) It's that mystic nature that in a fantasy setting invests those punches with the power to knock out dragons. We could invest a Sumo with mystic powers and make their ability to Shove magical, but then we're back to the drawing board with the whole Wisdom thing.
"Mystical" does not need to mean "wisdom". The Barbarian's ability to resist damage appears "mystical" but is tied to their Constitution for example. Ki could be tied to a physical stat just as easily. Path of the Zealot has "Mystical" Abilities yet no ties to an extra stats. Path of the Beast physically transforms the character and allows them to over come resistance to non-magical damage yet again no ties to Wisdom or other stats beyond Con.
Edit: Good example of what I feel would work for Monk is how Battle Masters pick either Dex or Str for the DC to resist their abilities.
But I believe OP specifically objects to the requirement that monks be "mystical" (and thereby have to invest in Wisdom over Strength.) It's that mystic nature that in a fantasy setting invests those punches with the power to knock out dragons. We could invest a Sumo with mystic powers and make their ability to Shove magical, but then we're back to the drawing board with the whole Wisdom thing.
You believe wrong.
But "mystical" does not need to mean "wisdom". The Barbarian's ability to resist damage appears "mystical" but is tied to their Constitution for example. Ki could be tied to a physical stat just as easily. Path of the Zealot has "Mystical" Abilities yet no ties to an extra stats. Path of the Beast physically transforms the character and allows them to over come resistance to non-magical damage yet again no ties to Wisdom or other stats beyond Con.
Edit: Good example of what I feel would work for Monk is how Battle Masters pick either Dex or Str for the DC to resist their abilities.
You can already build a pretty solid STR-based unarmed brawler though thanks to Tasha's, using a barb/fighter chassis and those Battle Master maneuvers -- if that's what you're looking for
I feel like "monks are hard to flavor as anything other than a character in a Shaw Brothers movie" is actually a different conversation than "monks are too MAD". Changing the need for a high WIS isn't going to impact the former -- that's hard-wired into the various features and subclasses
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
But I believe OP specifically objects to the requirement that monks be "mystical" (and thereby have to invest in Wisdom over Strength.) It's that mystic nature that in a fantasy setting invests those punches with the power to knock out dragons. We could invest a Sumo with mystic powers and make their ability to Shove magical, but then we're back to the drawing board with the whole Wisdom thing.
You believe wrong.
But "mystical" does not need to mean "wisdom". The Barbarian's ability to resist damage appears "mystical" but is tied to their Constitution for example. Ki could be tied to a physical stat just as easily. Path of the Zealot has "Mystical" Abilities yet no ties to an extra stats. Path of the Beast physically transforms the character and allows them to over come resistance to non-magical damage yet again no ties to Wisdom or other stats beyond Con.
Edit: Good example of what I feel would work for Monk is how Battle Masters pick either Dex or Str for the DC to resist their abilities.
You can already build a pretty solid STR-based unarmed brawler though thanks to Tasha's, using a barb/fighter chassis and those Battle Master maneuvers -- if that's what you're looking for
I feel like "monks are hard to flavor as anything other than a character in a Shaw Brothers movie" is actually a different conversation than "monks are too MAD". Changing the need for a high WIS isn't going to impact the former -- that's hard-wired into the various features and subclasses
Considering we are looking at classes being rewired in the coming future, I don't see why tackling the MAD issue can't be done along side the Flavor issue. I think the Warrior UA is the one I am most interested in seeing at this point.
Considering we are looking at classes being rewired in the coming future, I don't see why tackling the MAD issue can't be done along side the Flavor issue. I think the Warrior UA is the one I am most interested in seeing at this point.
You never know, they might only address one or the other and declare them both "fixed"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Considering we are looking at classes being rewired in the coming future, I don't see why tackling the MAD issue can't be done along side the Flavor issue. I think the Warrior UA is the one I am most interested in seeing at this point.
You never know, they might only address one or the other and declare them both "fixed"
No one knows yet. I am just throwing out ideas and seeing what other think about it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Removing the armor restrictions would go a long way to allowing the Monk to do more. Even if you were required to take the Lightly Armored Feat or Multiclass to gain proficiency. You can already get weapons training through Feats and through the Dedicated Weapon feature you can use pretty much anything as a Monk Weapon.
You can't even effectively multiclass with Monk because you can't benefit from martial arts or the movement buffs while in armor so you are just transferring the Wisdom tax to what ever build you are doing. Barbarian's can pick between Unarmored Defense and Armor and I haven't heard a lot of complaints about it.
I don't want it to do everything, but I do want it to do more than 1 thing. The OneDnD UA has opened up two weapon fighting for Monks which is nice. So even a minor tweak could mean a lot more options
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Having played my Monk from 1-13 so far and hoping to continue, I would like to see a few changes as well, but nothing like those seeking to move the Samurai to the Monk list or make Strength an option or change the Unarmored defense mechanic. To me, these all add up to making the Monk a Class and not some half-assed twist on another existing class. I think more options should be open to those who can take Unarmed fighting, to scale up the damage in later tiers and make it magical mid-tier.
I don't have issue with the Monk class falling into exactly what it is, a stereotypical version of the studious Shaolin masters from the old, old movies and such. Everything mentions as reasons to change them exists in other classes under different names. Instead of homogenizing the game further, use your imagination to make the current guidelines fit your vision.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
The issue is in the fact that Monk and only Monk can be effective unarmed combatants. Barbarian does get close, if you are willing to imagine your claws do bludgeoning damage and you are happy with using that one subclass.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
In your opinion, what is it that separates monks from everyone else as far as being effective unarmed combatants?
While Martial Art can be partially replaced with Unarmed Fighting Style. Monks are never at the whims of the DM when it comes to overcoming damage resistance to their primary attacks.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
A Barbarian with Tavern Brawler will deal the same damage on average or more with unarmed strikes than a Monk.
I don't see anyone saying that "monk needs to be expanded to fit every single playstyle you can possibly imagine". I do see people saying that Monks current concept is too limiting, and it could do to be expanded on somewhat. Expanding something to fit more playstyles is very different than expanding it to fit every playstyle. And yes, Fighter and Paladin exist for a reason. But that doesn't mean there can't be any overlap or concepts that can be emulated by playing different classes.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Homebrew a feat that more or less replicates Ki Strikes. Play a fighter with Unarmed Fighting Style & take said feat at level 6. Next issue?
Only for a couple of levels.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Other than the brawler, the ronin, the sumo, the samurai of the OP I might be confusing some comments from another monk 1DD thread.
Im fine with allowing armor, though I would prefer a better unarmored defense option(or both) to reduce the MADness of monk. And the option for a STR monk, which a better UAD option could allow without armor, probably.
The unarmed fighting style can help with other builds outside of monk. Sure only monks can bypass resistance without magic, but no other class can do this without a magic weapon anyway. It’s not like the other classes get to bypass resistance via a class feature with their mundane weapon but lose out unarmed. They always need magic to bypass resistance. So if getting magic items for magical unarmed strikes is less ubiquitous than magic weapons that’s not the fault of the monk, but of WotC and the DM who can make unarmed magic items more readily available so your unarmed brawler fighter attacking 3-4 times a round and get around resistance at later levels.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
your Brawler description is a Barbarian, to a tee. your Ronin sounds like a Swashbuckler Rogue. your Samurai sounds like... a Samurai. and I'm not sure that someone skilled in theatrically pushing someone else out of a circle would try to transfer those skills to fighting orcs and dragons, they'd probably train to fight with some other skill.
Kung fu and karate are just as unsuited for fighting dragons and orcs as sumo wrestling is. D&D monks could survive having their options expanded to include something like sumo or boxing.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
But I believe OP specifically objects to the requirement that monks be "mystical" (and thereby have to invest in Wisdom over Strength.) It's that mystic nature that in a fantasy setting invests those punches with the power to knock out dragons. We could invest a Sumo with mystic powers and make their ability to Shove magical, but then we're back to the drawing board with the whole Wisdom thing.
Isn’t that kind of what the changes to unarmed strikes and grappling/shoving in 1DD is doing? Boxing doesn’t necessarily have to be STR based but many of us are asking for monks to less reliant on multiple stats to open up the options for STR builds if you want.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
"Mystical" does not need to mean "wisdom". The Barbarian's ability to resist damage appears "mystical" but is tied to their Constitution for example. Ki could be tied to a physical stat just as easily. Path of the Zealot has "Mystical" Abilities yet no ties to an extra stats. Path of the Beast physically transforms the character and allows them to over come resistance to non-magical damage yet again no ties to Wisdom or other stats beyond Con.
Edit: Good example of what I feel would work for Monk is how Battle Masters pick either Dex or Str for the DC to resist their abilities.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Other than Quivering Palm, Way of the Open Hand is basically Sumo, but trying to do a Strength monk is MAD+
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
You can already build a pretty solid STR-based unarmed brawler though thanks to Tasha's, using a barb/fighter chassis and those Battle Master maneuvers -- if that's what you're looking for
I feel like "monks are hard to flavor as anything other than a character in a Shaw Brothers movie" is actually a different conversation than "monks are too MAD". Changing the need for a high WIS isn't going to impact the former -- that's hard-wired into the various features and subclasses
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Considering we are looking at classes being rewired in the coming future, I don't see why tackling the MAD issue can't be done along side the Flavor issue. I think the Warrior UA is the one I am most interested in seeing at this point.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
You never know, they might only address one or the other and declare them both "fixed"
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
No one knows yet. I am just throwing out ideas and seeing what other think about it.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master