Monks have been my favorite class ever since I first started playing DnD. It's a shame that they've often been lacking a lot in terms of martial power.
5e felt like it came very, very close to making the monk an effective front-line fighter, but it feels like the designers suddenly got afraid that they'd be overpowered if they suddenly weren't a completely MAD class with lack of access to magic weapons and armor. Most of the abilities they get do a great job of selling the idea of them as spiritually enlightened, but don't do a lot to help them keep up with the other warrior classes.
And make no mistake, monks are, or at least should be, warriors. People play them because they want to be kung fu bad-asses. Not because they want to be a rogue variant who's worse at all the things rogues do and also do less damage in melee.
So this is my home-brewed rules for a monk. This isn't a straight up class re-work. Just a few modifications to the base class to make it more apparently a front-line fighter.
1. Monks get a d10 hit die, rather than a d8. If this seems op, remember this statistically works out to one extra hit point every level. It's mainly meant to reinforce the idea of the monk as a martial class.
2. Increase the damage die for the monk's unarmed by 1 step. They begin at d6 and end up at d12. If this seems op, remember that they begin the game with access to quarterstaves and shortswords and that all this does is allow them to begin the game fighting unarmed... You know... that thing half the people playing a monk want to do.
3. Perhaps most potentially controversial. The monk gains extra attacks as per a fighter. As in 3 attacks at level 11 and 4 at 20. And this is before any extra attacks from their class. Meaning that the thing that has iconically defined what makes a monk effective, that they get more attacks per round than anyone, is actually the case in 5e and that they don't have to spend a limited resource to do something that another class can do for free. Especially when that thing, I repeat, is their signature ability. If this seems op, remember that that fighter is potentially swinging a greatsword.
3a. An optional addendum: At every level where the monk gains an extra attack, he gains the option to make an extra attack in his flurry of blows by spending an additional point of ki. So at level 5, the monk can spend 1 ki point for 2 extra attacks or 2 for 3. If this seems op... it might be? I haven't actually play-tested it yet. Hence why I say optional.
The overall effect, I feel, is a monk who is a close-combatant on the level of the fighter, the barbarian, and the paladin.
This is mostly theory thus far, so I'm more than open to respectful debate and criticism. All I ask is the respectful part. Don't be a jerk.
I like the 5ed monk a lot as well, and I feel your frustration when looking at it and saying "there's still something wrong/lacking there". Let me have a look at your propositions:
1. Seems legit, but remember that a good monk can have AC as high as 16 without armor at creation (point buy) or even as high as 18/19 (rolled abilities) , making them already harder to hit than most lvl1 characters. On top of this, they have unrestrained mobility, and should one choose to go for Variant Human and take the Mobile feat, you can become virtually untouchable at lvl1. Nonetheless, some more HP would be nice :P
2. Here is where things get a bit difficult... While I agree that the initial d4 feels a bit underwhelming, keep into consideration that the monk is the only class from which you can't take away their main source of damage output, under any circumstance short of cutting off his arm and legs. Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians Rangers and Rogues are heavily affected by the loss of their weapon/armor, and to render a spellcaster useless you just have to tie and gag them. A monk is able to keep on dishing out damage whatever situation he's in, again short of cutting off their limbs. They can also be the character that can most easily pass unnoticed, due to not needing any visible weapon or protection that could alert enemies to how dangerous they really are. In the end, initially at least, they do not do less damage than a Rogue equipped with a dagger (sneak attack not withstanding) and have, on average, better protection. So, yeah, I'd tend to like the idea, but I can see this becoming too powerful and overshadow other classes too much.
3. While I could agree on a base line, I feel this as well would not be balanced, because you seem to basically want the monk to become a fighter+. A fighter doesn't get its second attack until level 5, same as monk, with the difference that from level 1, so for the past 4 levels, the monk had the possibility to dish out 3 times the normal amount of attacks 3 times every short rest, while the fighter only gets access to a potential additional attack, once per short rest, from level 2. Once the second attack at 5th level comes in, the playfield is a little bit more even, but the warrior still only gets the "double attacks" only once per short rest, while a monk is able to use its flurry of blows 5 times before needing to rest, making the total number of possible attacks each combat way in favor of the monk. The fighter gets its second extra attack at level 11, the same level where a monk gets a damage dice increase, and can dish out flurry of blows making 4 attacks in a turn potentially 11 times per short rest, while the fighter still gets 3 attacks per turn, but can double that only one every short rest. In a usual combat (considering a hard fight lasting 10 rounds), the monk could do 40 attacks, with one ki point to spare, and the fighter would do 30+3. Here as well it seems the scale is in favor of the monk, number and utility-wise. The third extra attack the fighter gets at 20th level seems a bit silly to take into consideration, as at 20th level most balancing goes out the window anyway. The fighter indeed takes a second use of action surge at 17th level, though, so let's see how the monk fares then: at 17th level the monk gets yet another damage dice increase (1d10) and has 17 ki points; following the previous 10 round fight, the monk is still able to dish out 40 attacks, with 7 ki points to spare, and the fighter can attack a baseline of 30 times, with another possible 6 with double use of action surge. Here again math is in favor of the monk.
So, for all the above, I feel the idea is a curious one, but not something that is strictly needed, imho, as the math of combat is always in favor of the monk, precisely due to its capacity of getting two extra attack each turn by expending a resource that has undoubtedly in abundance. Aside from that, the other things one could do with ki points are comparable to sacrificing 2 attacks, depending on the situation, so it would still be balanced, and becomes a matter of how you want to use your resources.
3a. Considering the above, this would make things even "worse", making the fighter basically useless in comparison.
So, in my opinion, your heart is in the right place, but your ideas run the risk of making other classes what you feel the monk is right now. A more interesting way to make the monk more relevant could be to create one or more homebrew subclasses that can improve on what the monk does or add new mechanics currently not available to improve the flavor and effectiveness, imho.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Honestly I think monks should be able to do the most attacks in the game, not fighter. Either their extra attack gets buffed OR you can spend extra ki on flurry of blows. When you think about it, the extra attacks from Flurry of blows or Martial Arts are only the d4/d6 damage early on. But a two-weapon fighter can do a d6/d8 at lvl 1 (if they took twf feat). And the monk's flurry of blows is a limited resource. I'm really not sure how exactly, but I feel the monk should be able to do more attacks than what it can right now. Or maybe redo the Way of the Open Hand (the pure martial arts archetype) or make a new archetype, maybe a strength based one; make it to where there's a subclass of monk that focuses on doing a lot of attacks and damage rather than hit n run/control.
Honestly I think monks should be able to do the most attacks in the game, not fighter. Either their extra attack gets buffed OR you can spend extra ki on flurry of blows. When you think about it, the extra attacks from Flurry of blows or Martial Arts are only the d4/d6 damage early on. But a two-weapon fighter can do a d6/d8 at lvl 1 (if they took twf feat). And the monk's flurry of blows is a limited resource. I'm really not sure how exactly, but I feel the monk should be able to do more attacks than what it can right now. Or maybe redo the Way of the Open Hand (the pure martial arts archetype) or make a new archetype, maybe a strength based one; make it to where there's a subclass of monk that focuses on doing a lot of attacks and damage rather than hit n run/control.
As per my analysis in my previous reply, the impression that Monk gets less attacks than a Fighter is erroneous, as at every level the Monk is able to out-number the amount of attacks a Fighter can perform between short rests. They have to use Ki to do so, but that's the whole point of the class: unless you go subtle with Way of Shadows or spellcasting with Four Elements, there's not much else you would use your Ki for, imho.
I have to say that I do like point 1 and 2, because of how a monk can feel underwelming and very fragile at low levels.
I still don't understand how the Ranger does get 1d10, given that it is not a frontlaner and can cast spells. The monk is almost always in the front, despite the fact they get good AC for a class that doesn't use armor, well, it falls short as the game progresses.
I like point 2 just because I like the idea of making more damage with a monk, but overall, the difference between a d4 and a d6 is not that much, I prefer more the idea of getting a d12 at lv 20 or so. The reason monks start with low damage with fists is because they can make 3 frikin attacks at lvl 2. dealing about 2 to 3d6 almost every fight in two turns at lvl 2, it's like having a 2nd level spell.
Regarding point 3, just don't... No... mostly because giving the monk that feature means you have to get rid of every other feature it gets at those levels. That's a big sacrifice, you would kill the class almost entirely, because you are taking away what is unique to them. If you wish to apply this point so badly, then go ahead, but consider that condition. Also to make it somewhat more balanced, monks can only make an unarmed strike as a bonus action by spending ki and please, for the sake of everyone else, keep it at one additional attack.
I have to say I greatly agree with LeK
P.D.: How do you highlight a name from another user?
One thing I forgot to add, is that I consider it would be better giving the Monk better combat survivality features than focusing in raw power (which the monk already has a decent one). For instance: healing, damage reduction, counterattacks, etc.
I still don't understand how the Ranger does get 1d10, given that it is not a frontlaner and can cast spells.
I'm sorry, but allow me to comment on this part before giving my two cents. I don't mean to be rude, but as a long time D&D player I have to get this out.
Excuse me? Did everyone forget about Dual Wielding Ranger? or that Paladins are a d10, Heavy Armor, Spellcasters, with better Combat Spells than Ranger, and Some of the Best Unique Spells in the Game, that can also use Martial Ranged Weapons? or that the Ranger has the worst starting Features in the Game with the possible exception of Druid? or that Fighters actually make better Archers than Rangers, which is why Arcane Archer is a Fighter subclass? or that Kensei Monks are better Archers than Rangers? Honestly, sometimes I think Rangers are completely unplayable. I assume that this is a case of people that are used to Video Game Rangers, or that they think it's called Ranger because "Range Weapons", when it's actually "On the Range". "You Kids Today!"
Back to the important topic.
Yes, the difference between a d8 and a d10 may only be a few HP, but that's also exactly why it shouldn't be a problem when compared to the fact that the Monk gains Proficiency in All Saves combined with Unarmored Defense, Patient Defense (Dodge), Step of the Wind (Disengage), Deflect Missiles, Slow Fall (maybe that one doesn't count), Evasion, Stillness of Mind, Purity of Body, and the rest of Diamond Soul's Effect. The Monk has perhaps the most Defensive power of any class, isn't the penalty of a few HP worth that?
I don't mind the increase of Damage Die, in 3.5 Monks went up to 2d6 at level 12 and ended up with 2d10, so modern Monks do seem a little short on damage, just don't do the 2d10 thing. However, I usually deal with that problem by saying that Unarmed Strikes without any weapon is Dual Wielding, so Monks with Extra Attack and Flurry of Blows hit 5 Times by my standards (5d10 with Ki, 4d10 without Ki but with Bonus Action, 3d10 without Bonus Action or Ki, no special situation needed). As such, I don't really see much of a need for more Extra Attacks either.
I suggest increasing the Monk's Maximum Ki Points by the character's Wisdom Modifier. This makes the player have more investment in their Wisdom Ability and increases the amount of access that the Monk has to abilities.
For reference, when I make a modified version of Fighter, I always remove Extra Attack (2) and Extra Attack (3) and replace them with Weapon Specialization and an active Feature I call Perfect Moment. I also loathe the Champion Archetype. So my aversion to additional Extra Attacks isn't just limited by it being Monk, I feel that it limits creativity and strategy. D&D should not be about damage dice, but using your brain. Maybe the previous things I said don't match up for you, but it shouldn't be about the numbers, those should be guides. I strongly feel that a campaign that is more about creativity, strategy, and role playing will always be a better campaign regardless of what it is about. Don't let numbers dictate your play style, let your character do that.
I really liked your reply. You are indeed correct, not gonna argue with that. I do think there are some things I would like to add.
First of all, I have played DnD 5e for about one year or more, and it's the only tabletop rpg I have played in my life (yes, I am not a very experienced player, but I try to improve and do some research from time to time).
(I am having a hard time trying to explain this point, in the end I couldn't make it as effective as I wanted) Is it really fair to compare classes by using a subclass? Ok, yes, it kind of is if you want to compare certain aspects. But in this case we were comparing core classes, adding subclasses would make this a mess since we would have to compare what every subclass adds to the core of the class. They improve your abilities in certain ways, but that doesn't make it a better class than others.
On the other hand, not everyone is going to pick that subclass. For instance, a monk is not a better archer than fighter or a ranger, kensei monk may give you the tools to be a good archer, but open hand monk, 4 elements monk and shadow monk do not.
What I am trying to say is. You cannot rely on a class to fill a certain role just because a subclass can, the class itself could lack the abilities to do that job and will end doing a mediocre job.
... (This is where this point ends)
One thing for sure when it comes to monks, although they do have some tools to defend in combat, most of them require ki points, and at low levels they are very limited. Purity of Body and Stillness of Mind are aquired in higher levels, they are good, yes, but I'm not sure if there are many situation that they are used. Diamond Soul is also aquired at a really high level. The other thing is AC, yeah, they have a really good AC at low levels, but let's be honest, it stays most of the game the same, it has little changes. Your AC only changes when you reach an ASI, and only if you increase your DEX or WIS.
Rangers are bad archers, not gonna argue with that, I have little knowledge about that class since I haven't played it, but they can do insane amount of damage at low levels, have seen it with my own eyes. One player with a ranger made an attack with 3 different kind of damages and with 4 dies, and it wasn't even a critical hit (would have loved to see that tho) and I don't remember very well this, but I believe another player with an archer dealt like above 30 (or close to 50 i don't remember) with a single attack against a dragon, and he was lvl 3 or 4. But yes, ranger are supposed to be explorers rather than fighters.
Ranger is stated to be a bad class, but it got a rework which I think made it a pretty good class, what do you think about the Ranger (Revised)?.
Monk isn't a very good class either, everyone finds that it doesn't do anything espectacular or that it doesn't stand out in anything (except for stunning strike and it's absurd movility). What the monk does anyone can do it better. I love playing monks and I agree with that people.
Anyway, thanks for your reply, wish you a good day.
I don't mind the increase of Damage Die, in 3.5 Monks went up to 2d6 at level 12 and ended up with 2d10, so modern Monks do seem a little short on damage, just don't do the 2d10 thing. However, I usually deal with that problem by saying that Unarmed Strikes without any weapon is Dual Wielding, so Monks with Extra Attack and Flurry of Blows hit 5 Times by my standards (5d10 with Ki, 4d10 without Ki but with Bonus Action, 3d10 without Bonus Action or Ki, no special situation needed). As such, I don't really see much of a need for more Extra Attacks either.
This feels a little off, I don't know why you day they can hit 5 times, monks can only reach a maximum of 4 attacks (with Action + Flurry of Blows), unless you are a Drunken Master that is, then yes with flurry you can make 5 attacks.
I don't really like the Unearthed Arcana revision of Ranger. It still has you start with Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer at 1st Level, which is most of my problem with Ranger. Low Levels are the most important part to balance as Magic Items tend to make the difference in power significantly less painful. I have my own version of revised Ranger I tend to use a personal revision that just swaps the level of the first Ranger Archetype Feature and Favored Enemy. It's a simple change that makes early levels more fun.
As for the for the idea of Duel Wielding Unarmed Strikes, partially it just seems more logical to allow the idea than not. If your not wielding any weapons it seems reasonable to me that anyone could punch/kick twice within 3 seconds (1 turn), and an expert could do so faster.
Both of these are affected by my time with 3rd Edition. I'm used to Rangers that start with Animal Companions and Monks that Flurry of Blows 5 times. It's not a requirement for balance in my opinion, I mostly just prefer them that way.
Is it really fair to compare classes by using a subclass? Ok, yes, it kind of is if you want to compare certain aspects. But in this case we were comparing core classes, adding subclasses would make this a mess since we would have to compare what every subclass adds to the core of the class. They improve your abilities in certain ways, but that doesn't make it a better class than others.
You can't compare core classes to each other without taking subclass features into account, because some classes push more of their functionality into their core, and some push more into their subclasses. For example, the meat of any sorcerer's functionality is in its subclasses, but the 8 school-based wizard subclasses only provide minor tweaks to how wizards play. If you compare those two classes only looking at the core features, sorcerer is always going to look terrible, but the fact is every sorcerer subclass brings a big improvement over the base package. Comparing classes by averaging their subclasses is much better than comparing classes without taking their subclasses into consideration at all.
Anyways here's my 2 cents:
Ranger has some issues with Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain often not coming into play at all which can be disappointing and unsatisfying. Despite that it still keeps up with other martial classes in combat and it's still a very versatile class.
A monk's low HP pool is offset by great defensive class features and their somewhat lower damage is offset by the incredibly powerful ability to stun monsters and great mobility to make use of it. If you want a monk that's all about defense and offense, go Kensei or make a new subclass that revolves around that instead of stacking more buffs on top of a base class that's already loaded with a ton of features.
As for the for the idea of Duel Wielding Unarmed Strikes, partially it just seems more logical to allow the idea than not. If your not wielding any weapons it seems reasonable to me that anyone could punch/kick twice within 3 seconds (1 turn), and an expert could do so faster.
I'm really confused with what you're trying to solve here. Martial Arts is already on par with two-weapon fighting.
Minor nitpick but a round is 6 seconds and a turn has no defined length.
I think the first three of the original modifications seem pretty fair. Some seem unnecessary, but there's nothing game breaking. 3a, though, I think could get way too powerful. If I'm not mistaken, once monks get to tier two or so, the'll just start spending all their ki points on attacks and start doing four or five attacks per turn, which will end a lot of fights very quickly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Halt your wagging and wag your halters, for I am mastercryomancer!"
A monk's low HP pool is offset by great defensive class features and their somewhat lower damage is offset by the incredibly powerful ability to stun monsters and great mobility to make use of it. If you want a monk that's all about defense and offense, go Kensei or make a new subclass that revolves around that instead of stacking more buffs on top of a base class that's already loaded with a ton of features.
I forgot to mention this, but what I wanted to say with adding combat survivavlity features, was that you should replace those features you don't like with survivality features, or make a homebrew subclass with them.
3a, though, I think could get way too powerful. If I'm not mistaken, once monks get to tier two or so, the'll just start spending all their ki points on attacks and start doing four or five attacks per turn, which will end a lot of fights very quickly.
It's definitely overkill. It'd give them yet another chance to stun, grapple or shove every round. All three are really strong options that synergize with each other, since Stunning Strike lasts until the end of your next turn and benefits every single attack that comes after it, including grapples and shoves. Having more attacks also makes almost every Kensei feature stronger. It's one more swing to make up for the drawback of Agile Parry, one more chance to apply the +1 to +3 bonus from Sharpen the Blade and the +1d4 from Kensei's Shot, and one more chance to turn a miss into a hit with Unerring Accuracy.
I suggest increasing the Monk's Maximum Ki Points by the character's Wisdom Modifier. This makes the player have more investment in their Wisdom Ability and increases the amount of access that the Monk has to abilities.
To add nothing to a post from well over a year ago:
That's it, that's the effing solution, omfg. It's so simple. That fixes SO MUCH about early game monk actually.
Monks have been my favorite class ever since I first started playing DnD. It's a shame that they've often been lacking a lot in terms of martial power.
5e felt like it came very, very close to making the monk an effective front-line fighter, but it feels like the designers suddenly got afraid that they'd be overpowered if they suddenly weren't a completely MAD class with lack of access to magic weapons and armor. Most of the abilities they get do a great job of selling the idea of them as spiritually enlightened, but don't do a lot to help them keep up with the other warrior classes.
And make no mistake, monks are, or at least should be, warriors. People play them because they want to be kung fu bad-asses. Not because they want to be a rogue variant who's worse at all the things rogues do and also do less damage in melee.
So this is my home-brewed rules for a monk. This isn't a straight up class re-work. Just a few modifications to the base class to make it more apparently a front-line fighter.
1. Monks get a d10 hit die, rather than a d8. If this seems op, remember this statistically works out to one extra hit point every level. It's mainly meant to reinforce the idea of the monk as a martial class.
2. Increase the damage die for the monk's unarmed by 1 step. They begin at d6 and end up at d12. If this seems op, remember that they begin the game with access to quarterstaves and shortswords and that all this does is allow them to begin the game fighting unarmed... You know... that thing half the people playing a monk want to do.
3. Perhaps most potentially controversial. The monk gains extra attacks as per a fighter. As in 3 attacks at level 11 and 4 at 20. And this is before any extra attacks from their class. Meaning that the thing that has iconically defined what makes a monk effective, that they get more attacks per round than anyone, is actually the case in 5e and that they don't have to spend a limited resource to do something that another class can do for free. Especially when that thing, I repeat, is their signature ability. If this seems op, remember that that fighter is potentially swinging a greatsword.
3a. An optional addendum: At every level where the monk gains an extra attack, he gains the option to make an extra attack in his flurry of blows by spending an additional point of ki. So at level 5, the monk can spend 1 ki point for 2 extra attacks or 2 for 3. If this seems op... it might be? I haven't actually play-tested it yet. Hence why I say optional.
The overall effect, I feel, is a monk who is a close-combatant on the level of the fighter, the barbarian, and the paladin.
This is mostly theory thus far, so I'm more than open to respectful debate and criticism. All I ask is the respectful part. Don't be a jerk.
Hi someguywithakatana! o/
I like the 5ed monk a lot as well, and I feel your frustration when looking at it and saying "there's still something wrong/lacking there".
Let me have a look at your propositions:
1. Seems legit, but remember that a good monk can have AC as high as 16 without armor at creation (point buy) or even as high as 18/19 (rolled abilities) , making them already harder to hit than most lvl1 characters. On top of this, they have unrestrained mobility, and should one choose to go for Variant Human and take the Mobile feat, you can become virtually untouchable at lvl1.
Nonetheless, some more HP would be nice :P
2. Here is where things get a bit difficult... While I agree that the initial d4 feels a bit underwhelming, keep into consideration that the monk is the only class from which you can't take away their main source of damage output, under any circumstance short of cutting off his arm and legs. Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians Rangers and Rogues are heavily affected by the loss of their weapon/armor, and to render a spellcaster useless you just have to tie and gag them.
A monk is able to keep on dishing out damage whatever situation he's in, again short of cutting off their limbs.
They can also be the character that can most easily pass unnoticed, due to not needing any visible weapon or protection that could alert enemies to how dangerous they really are.
In the end, initially at least, they do not do less damage than a Rogue equipped with a dagger (sneak attack not withstanding) and have, on average, better protection.
So, yeah, I'd tend to like the idea, but I can see this becoming too powerful and overshadow other classes too much.
3. While I could agree on a base line, I feel this as well would not be balanced, because you seem to basically want the monk to become a fighter+. A fighter doesn't get its second attack until level 5, same as monk, with the difference that from level 1, so for the past 4 levels, the monk had the possibility to dish out 3 times the normal amount of attacks 3 times every short rest, while the fighter only gets access to a potential additional attack, once per short rest, from level 2.
Once the second attack at 5th level comes in, the playfield is a little bit more even, but the warrior still only gets the "double attacks" only once per short rest, while a monk is able to use its flurry of blows 5 times before needing to rest, making the total number of possible attacks each combat way in favor of the monk.
The fighter gets its second extra attack at level 11, the same level where a monk gets a damage dice increase, and can dish out flurry of blows making 4 attacks in a turn potentially 11 times per short rest, while the fighter still gets 3 attacks per turn, but can double that only one every short rest. In a usual combat (considering a hard fight lasting 10 rounds), the monk could do 40 attacks, with one ki point to spare, and the fighter would do 30+3. Here as well it seems the scale is in favor of the monk, number and utility-wise.
The third extra attack the fighter gets at 20th level seems a bit silly to take into consideration, as at 20th level most balancing goes out the window anyway.
The fighter indeed takes a second use of action surge at 17th level, though, so let's see how the monk fares then: at 17th level the monk gets yet another damage dice increase (1d10) and has 17 ki points; following the previous 10 round fight, the monk is still able to dish out 40 attacks, with 7 ki points to spare, and the fighter can attack a baseline of 30 times, with another possible 6 with double use of action surge. Here again math is in favor of the monk.
So, for all the above, I feel the idea is a curious one, but not something that is strictly needed, imho, as the math of combat is always in favor of the monk, precisely due to its capacity of getting two extra attack each turn by expending a resource that has undoubtedly in abundance. Aside from that, the other things one could do with ki points are comparable to sacrificing 2 attacks, depending on the situation, so it would still be balanced, and becomes a matter of how you want to use your resources.
3a. Considering the above, this would make things even "worse", making the fighter basically useless in comparison.
So, in my opinion, your heart is in the right place, but your ideas run the risk of making other classes what you feel the monk is right now. A more interesting way to make the monk more relevant could be to create one or more homebrew subclasses that can improve on what the monk does or add new mechanics currently not available to improve the flavor and effectiveness, imho.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Honestly I think monks should be able to do the most attacks in the game, not fighter. Either their extra attack gets buffed OR you can spend extra ki on flurry of blows. When you think about it, the extra attacks from Flurry of blows or Martial Arts are only the d4/d6 damage early on. But a two-weapon fighter can do a d6/d8 at lvl 1 (if they took twf feat). And the monk's flurry of blows is a limited resource. I'm really not sure how exactly, but I feel the monk should be able to do more attacks than what it can right now. Or maybe redo the Way of the Open Hand (the pure martial arts archetype) or make a new archetype, maybe a strength based one; make it to where there's a subclass of monk that focuses on doing a lot of attacks and damage rather than hit n run/control.
As per my analysis in my previous reply, the impression that Monk gets less attacks than a Fighter is erroneous, as at every level the Monk is able to out-number the amount of attacks a Fighter can perform between short rests. They have to use Ki to do so, but that's the whole point of the class: unless you go subtle with Way of Shadows or spellcasting with Four Elements, there's not much else you would use your Ki for, imho.
In any case, if you are interested in a STR-based Monk subclass, I will shamelessly point you to my Way of the Closed Fist or the more streamlined Way of the Direct Closed Fist for your consideration.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
I have to say that I do like point 1 and 2, because of how a monk can feel underwelming and very fragile at low levels.
I still don't understand how the Ranger does get 1d10, given that it is not a frontlaner and can cast spells. The monk is almost always in the front, despite the fact they get good AC for a class that doesn't use armor, well, it falls short as the game progresses.
I like point 2 just because I like the idea of making more damage with a monk, but overall, the difference between a d4 and a d6 is not that much, I prefer more the idea of getting a d12 at lv 20 or so. The reason monks start with low damage with fists is because they can make 3 frikin attacks at lvl 2. dealing about 2 to 3d6 almost every fight in two turns at lvl 2, it's like having a 2nd level spell.
Regarding point 3, just don't... No... mostly because giving the monk that feature means you have to get rid of every other feature it gets at those levels. That's a big sacrifice, you would kill the class almost entirely, because you are taking away what is unique to them. If you wish to apply this point so badly, then go ahead, but consider that condition. Also to make it somewhat more balanced, monks can only make an unarmed strike as a bonus action by spending ki and please, for the sake of everyone else, keep it at one additional attack.
I have to say I greatly agree with LeK
P.D.: How do you highlight a name from another user?
One thing I forgot to add, is that I consider it would be better giving the Monk better combat survivality features than focusing in raw power (which the monk already has a decent one). For instance: healing, damage reduction, counterattacks, etc.
I'm sorry, but allow me to comment on this part before giving my two cents. I don't mean to be rude, but as a long time D&D player I have to get this out.
Excuse me? Did everyone forget about Dual Wielding Ranger? or that Paladins are a d10, Heavy Armor, Spellcasters, with better Combat Spells than Ranger, and Some of the Best Unique Spells in the Game, that can also use Martial Ranged Weapons? or that the Ranger has the worst starting Features in the Game with the possible exception of Druid? or that Fighters actually make better Archers than Rangers, which is why Arcane Archer is a Fighter subclass? or that Kensei Monks are better Archers than Rangers? Honestly, sometimes I think Rangers are completely unplayable. I assume that this is a case of people that are used to Video Game Rangers, or that they think it's called Ranger because "Range Weapons", when it's actually "On the Range". "You Kids Today!"
Back to the important topic.
Yes, the difference between a d8 and a d10 may only be a few HP, but that's also exactly why it shouldn't be a problem when compared to the fact that the Monk gains Proficiency in All Saves combined with Unarmored Defense, Patient Defense (Dodge), Step of the Wind (Disengage), Deflect Missiles, Slow Fall (maybe that one doesn't count), Evasion, Stillness of Mind, Purity of Body, and the rest of Diamond Soul's Effect. The Monk has perhaps the most Defensive power of any class, isn't the penalty of a few HP worth that?
I don't mind the increase of Damage Die, in 3.5 Monks went up to 2d6 at level 12 and ended up with 2d10, so modern Monks do seem a little short on damage, just don't do the 2d10 thing. However, I usually deal with that problem by saying that Unarmed Strikes without any weapon is Dual Wielding, so Monks with Extra Attack and Flurry of Blows hit 5 Times by my standards (5d10 with Ki, 4d10 without Ki but with Bonus Action, 3d10 without Bonus Action or Ki, no special situation needed). As such, I don't really see much of a need for more Extra Attacks either.
I suggest increasing the Monk's Maximum Ki Points by the character's Wisdom Modifier. This makes the player have more investment in their Wisdom Ability and increases the amount of access that the Monk has to abilities.
For reference, when I make a modified version of Fighter, I always remove Extra Attack (2) and Extra Attack (3) and replace them with Weapon Specialization and an active Feature I call Perfect Moment. I also loathe the Champion Archetype. So my aversion to additional Extra Attacks isn't just limited by it being Monk, I feel that it limits creativity and strategy. D&D should not be about damage dice, but using your brain. Maybe the previous things I said don't match up for you, but it shouldn't be about the numbers, those should be guides. I strongly feel that a campaign that is more about creativity, strategy, and role playing will always be a better campaign regardless of what it is about. Don't let numbers dictate your play style, let your character do that.
I really liked your reply. You are indeed correct, not gonna argue with that. I do think there are some things I would like to add.
First of all, I have played DnD 5e for about one year or more, and it's the only tabletop rpg I have played in my life (yes, I am not a very experienced player, but I try to improve and do some research from time to time).
(I am having a hard time trying to explain this point, in the end I couldn't make it as effective as I wanted) Is it really fair to compare classes by using a subclass? Ok, yes, it kind of is if you want to compare certain aspects. But in this case we were comparing core classes, adding subclasses would make this a mess since we would have to compare what every subclass adds to the core of the class. They improve your abilities in certain ways, but that doesn't make it a better class than others.
On the other hand, not everyone is going to pick that subclass. For instance, a monk is not a better archer than fighter or a ranger, kensei monk may give you the tools to be a good archer, but open hand monk, 4 elements monk and shadow monk do not.
What I am trying to say is. You cannot rely on a class to fill a certain role just because a subclass can, the class itself could lack the abilities to do that job and will end doing a mediocre job.
... (This is where this point ends)
One thing for sure when it comes to monks, although they do have some tools to defend in combat, most of them require ki points, and at low levels they are very limited. Purity of Body and Stillness of Mind are aquired in higher levels, they are good, yes, but I'm not sure if there are many situation that they are used. Diamond Soul is also aquired at a really high level. The other thing is AC, yeah, they have a really good AC at low levels, but let's be honest, it stays most of the game the same, it has little changes. Your AC only changes when you reach an ASI, and only if you increase your DEX or WIS.
Rangers are bad archers, not gonna argue with that, I have little knowledge about that class since I haven't played it, but they can do insane amount of damage at low levels, have seen it with my own eyes. One player with a ranger made an attack with 3 different kind of damages and with 4 dies, and it wasn't even a critical hit (would have loved to see that tho) and I don't remember very well this, but I believe another player with an archer dealt like above 30 (or close to 50 i don't remember) with a single attack against a dragon, and he was lvl 3 or 4. But yes, ranger are supposed to be explorers rather than fighters.
Ranger is stated to be a bad class, but it got a rework which I think made it a pretty good class, what do you think about the Ranger (Revised)?.
Monk isn't a very good class either, everyone finds that it doesn't do anything espectacular or that it doesn't stand out in anything (except for stunning strike and it's absurd movility). What the monk does anyone can do it better. I love playing monks and I agree with that people.
Anyway, thanks for your reply, wish you a good day.
This feels a little off, I don't know why you day they can hit 5 times, monks can only reach a maximum of 4 attacks (with Action + Flurry of Blows), unless you are a Drunken Master that is, then yes with flurry you can make 5 attacks.
I don't really like the Unearthed Arcana revision of Ranger. It still has you start with Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer at 1st Level, which is most of my problem with Ranger. Low Levels are the most important part to balance as Magic Items tend to make the difference in power significantly less painful. I have my own version of revised Ranger I tend to use a personal revision that just swaps the level of the first Ranger Archetype Feature and Favored Enemy. It's a simple change that makes early levels more fun.
As for the for the idea of Duel Wielding Unarmed Strikes, partially it just seems more logical to allow the idea than not. If your not wielding any weapons it seems reasonable to me that anyone could punch/kick twice within 3 seconds (1 turn), and an expert could do so faster.
Both of these are affected by my time with 3rd Edition. I'm used to Rangers that start with Animal Companions and Monks that Flurry of Blows 5 times. It's not a requirement for balance in my opinion, I mostly just prefer them that way.
You can't compare core classes to each other without taking subclass features into account, because some classes push more of their functionality into their core, and some push more into their subclasses. For example, the meat of any sorcerer's functionality is in its subclasses, but the 8 school-based wizard subclasses only provide minor tweaks to how wizards play. If you compare those two classes only looking at the core features, sorcerer is always going to look terrible, but the fact is every sorcerer subclass brings a big improvement over the base package. Comparing classes by averaging their subclasses is much better than comparing classes without taking their subclasses into consideration at all.
Anyways here's my 2 cents:
I'm really confused with what you're trying to solve here. Martial Arts is already on par with two-weapon fighting.
Minor nitpick but a round is 6 seconds and a turn has no defined length.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I think the first three of the original modifications seem pretty fair. Some seem unnecessary, but there's nothing game breaking. 3a, though, I think could get way too powerful. If I'm not mistaken, once monks get to tier two or so, the'll just start spending all their ki points on attacks and start doing four or five attacks per turn, which will end a lot of fights very quickly.
"Halt your wagging and wag your halters, for I am mastercryomancer!"
Check out my Expanded Signature
I forgot to mention this, but what I wanted to say with adding combat survivavlity features, was that you should replace those features you don't like with survivality features, or make a homebrew subclass with them.
It's definitely overkill. It'd give them yet another chance to stun, grapple or shove every round. All three are really strong options that synergize with each other, since Stunning Strike lasts until the end of your next turn and benefits every single attack that comes after it, including grapples and shoves. Having more attacks also makes almost every Kensei feature stronger. It's one more swing to make up for the drawback of Agile Parry, one more chance to apply the +1 to +3 bonus from Sharpen the Blade and the +1d4 from Kensei's Shot, and one more chance to turn a miss into a hit with Unerring Accuracy.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Monk's Ki is generally used efficiently only to stun foes, every other use is sub-standard.
To add nothing to a post from well over a year ago:
That's it, that's the effing solution, omfg. It's so simple. That fixes SO MUCH about early game monk actually.