There has been a general view that a monk's starting martial arts dice should change from d4 to d6 and end at d12. I'll try to make an argument against this view.
First, with Magic Initiate any class can easily get Hex or Hunter's Mark to add a d6 to each attack. With light weapons now being moved from the Bonus Action to the Attack Action, casting Hex/Hunter's Mark as a bonus action and then attacking with two light weapons will be up to 2*(3 + 1d6 + 1d6) = 20 points of damage a round for levels 1-3 (ignoring chance to hit). If the Monk Flurry of Blows is also moved to the Attack Action (which it likely will be), that becomes 3*(3 + 1d6 + 1d6) = 30 points of damage a round starting at level 2 (assuming short sword + two unarmed strikes). That may be the maximum reliable damage in tier 1. Switching the martial arts dice to a d4 drops it down to (3+1d6) + 2*(3+1d6) = 28 points assuming a short sword and two unarmed strikes. Not much different, but it cools off the arms race (pun intended).
If the martial arts dice starts at a d4 and increases at levels 5, 9, 13, and 17, it still ends at a d12. Interestingly, an average roll of the martial arts dice is 2.5 for levels 1-4, averages 3.5 for levels 5-8, etc, and always is 0.5 more than the proficiency bonus. Thus a roll of the martial arts dice can be balanced similarly to proficiency. Monk features can be given at an earlier level, grow with Monk levels, and not be unbalanced for multiclassing.
Theoretically a monk could spend 1 ki to add a martial arts roll to a DEX or WIS skill check. This could stack with proficiency or even expertise.
Deflect Attack could reduce damage by a roll of the martial arts dice, comparable to the UA Heavy Armor Master.
Instead of proficiency in saving throws, a monk could add their martial arts dice to a WIS, INT, CHA, CON, or death saving throw. This could stack with the Resilient feat. Multiclassing with a start of Fighter or Druid would be peculiar, but could be worked out.
I know there is a school of thought that Damage Output is king, but I personally prefer a more well rounded character. I'd trade away more damage to get the ability to roll the Martial Arts Die more times.
Under 5e rules, increasing the martial arts die by one level as a pretty simple fix. I've used it in games and it worked well. But there is no reason to think it will be the same in 1DnD. We have no idea how they will change the monk in the future. We can't really assume anything. But I do like the idea of letting the martial arts die work for more things using ki. And that's a nice observation for scaling at the same rate as proficiency bonus.
Balancing based on the presence of a specific out-of-class spell is not how the game works. Monks have to be functional as monks without the assistance of hex, Hunter's Mark, or other such tools. As well, Flurry of Blows is twice per day when it comes online, and only gets one additional use per day per level. It's not a reliable source of damage, but rather more like Action Surge i.e. an option to pour on extra damage at need.
Rolling a d4 for your damage sucks. Everybody else gets to start with a d6 or a d8, or even a d10 or d12 - why does the monk have to suffer through four levels of d4? And if the monk is just using the damage of its weapon instead to get the same d6/8/10 as everybody else, why bother with Martial Arts? Nothing about using MA for nondamage abilities needs the die to start as a d4. Monks are not so overpowered that they cannot tolerate a non-d4 start. Rather the opposite, in fact. Monks are only good in the early game, level 4 and below, because they get a second attack before anybody else does. Once the other classes get their second strike, they catapult ahead of monks and the fistpuncher takes anywhere from five to ten more levels just to catch up.
If you want to offset the monk's godawful d8 hit die, complete and utter lack of armor class, extreme physical frailty, and inability to survive more than a round and a half of melee combat with a buttload of active abilities, sure. We can try that. But they have to actually be worth using, and since they'll all be fighting for the same once-a-turn reaction, they won't work unless they're punchy. A d4 is by definition Not Punchy.
Balancing based on the presence of a specific out-of-class spell is not how the game works. Monks have to be functional as monks without the assistance of hex, Hunter's Mark, or other such tools. As well, Flurry of Blows is twice per day when it comes online, and only gets one additional use per day per level. It's not a reliable source of damage, but rather more like Action Surge i.e. an option to pour on extra damage at need.
Rolling a d4 for your damage sucks. Everybody else gets to start with a d6 or a d8, or even a d10 or d12 - why does the monk have to suffer through four levels of d4? And if the monk is just using the damage of its weapon instead to get the same d6/8/10 as everybody else, why bother with Martial Arts? Nothing about using MA for nondamage abilities needs the die to start as a d4. Monks are not so overpowered that they cannot tolerate a non-d4 start. Rather the opposite, in fact. Monks are only good in the early game, level 4 and below, because they get a second attack before anybody else does. Once the other classes get their second strike, they catapult ahead of monks and the fistpuncher takes anywhere from five to ten more levels just to catch up.
If you want to offset the monk's godawful d8 hit die, complete and utter lack of armor class, extreme physical frailty, and inability to survive more than a round and a half of melee combat with a buttload of active abilities, sure. We can try that. But they have to actually be worth using, and since they'll all be fighting for the same once-a-turn reaction, they won't work unless they're punchy. A d4 is by definition Not Punchy.
Just because you don't use short rests still doesn't make KI a pool that only refreshes once per day. XD
But I agree with you. Short Rest or not, Flurry is not consistent. It's mostly used just to get Stunning Strike off currently.
And I really don't want to balance classes based on the idea that someone will take Hunter's Mark or Hex. I hate the thought that all Monks in 1DnD might start off as Rangers. Blech.
And the biggest reason I let my Monk player start with a d6 was exactly what you are saying. He wanted to punch things. Using a staff for 4 levels just because it's a d6 and punches are a d4 was lame. If a Monk wants to use weapons because it fits their character concept, then great. But if a Monk wants to punch, let them punch. It hurts nothing to make the punch do the same as a short sword. And it really helped him keep up with everyone in damage. It's not too much. It felt just right.
Of course everything could change in the next version. Fists might be light weapons for them. KI might go away entirely. Flurry might be free. But if none of that is different, then at least let Monks punch harder than tavern brawlers.
Yeah, being a martial artist and using a quarterstaff until level 5 because your punch is weaker than that of tavern brawler sucks immensely. It's not like monks were OP... on any level. IMO unarmed damage scaling should take into account the existence of magic weapons up to +3, it should be a viable alternative to those.
Yeah, being a martial artist and using a quarterstaff until level 5 because your punch is weaker than that of tavern brawler sucks immensely. It's not like monks were OP... on any level. IMO unarmed damage scaling should take into account the existence of magic weapons up to +3, it should be a viable alternative to those.
It really should start at normal one handed weapon damage, so at least 1d6 but probably 1d8 as they are a warrior class and warriors will have access to one handed 1d8 weapons. And yeah scale up from there to accommodate up to a +3 weapon. Which could mean something as simple as the scaling is magical pluses.
Balancing based on the presence of a specific out-of-class spell is not how the game works. Monks have to be functional as monks without the assistance of hex, Hunter's Mark, or other such tools. As well, Flurry of Blows is twice per day when it comes online, and only gets one additional use per day per level. It's not a reliable source of damage, but rather more like Action Surge i.e. an option to pour on extra damage at need.
Rolling a d4 for your damage sucks. Everybody else gets to start with a d6 or a d8, or even a d10 or d12 - why does the monk have to suffer through four levels of d4? And if the monk is just using the damage of its weapon instead to get the same d6/8/10 as everybody else, why bother with Martial Arts? Nothing about using MA for nondamage abilities needs the die to start as a d4. Monks are not so overpowered that they cannot tolerate a non-d4 start. Rather the opposite, in fact. Monks are only good in the early game, level 4 and below, because they get a second attack before anybody else does. Once the other classes get their second strike, they catapult ahead of monks and the fistpuncher takes anywhere from five to ten more levels just to catch up.
If you want to offset the monk's godawful d8 hit die, complete and utter lack of armor class, extreme physical frailty, and inability to survive more than a round and a half of melee combat with a buttload of active abilities, sure. We can try that. But they have to actually be worth using, and since they'll all be fighting for the same once-a-turn reaction, they won't work unless they're punchy. A d4 is by definition Not Punchy.
Just because you don't use short rests still doesn't make KI a pool that only refreshes once per day. XD
But I agree with you. Short Rest or not, Flurry is not consistent. It's mostly used just to get Stunning Strike off currently.
And I really don't want to balance classes based on the idea that someone will take Hunter's Mark or Hex. I hate the thought that all Monks in 1DnD might start off as Rangers. Blech.
And the biggest reason I let my Monk player start with a d6 was exactly what you are saying. He wanted to punch things. Using a staff for 4 levels just because it's a d6 and punches are a d4 was lame. If a Monk wants to use weapons because it fits their character concept, then great. But if a Monk wants to punch, let them punch. It hurts nothing to make the punch do the same as a short sword. And it really helped him keep up with everyone in damage. It's not too much. It felt just right.
Of course everything could change in the next version. Fists might be light weapons for them. KI might go away entirely. Flurry might be free. But if none of that is different, then at least let Monks punch harder than tavern brawlers.
Current version of Ranger in One D&D makes it guaranteed that nearly every martial optimized build will take a 1 level dip in Ranger. The only viable STR-build based on the UA is PAM+GWM and that's really only for paladins and maybe barbarians, everyone else will be two-weapon fighting with concentration-free Hunter's Mark from a 1-level Ranger dip.
The psychology of monk hate is so interesting, absolutely everyone ignores their multiple attacks from level 1, ignoring that it DOUBLES their DPR compared to unarmed fighters or tavern brawlers. On pure DPR terms monk is consistently above average until level 6-7.
In terms of survivability Monks have the same AC and hit die as a Rogue and are designed around a similar playstyle. So I don't know what everyone complains about. IMO WotC would be better off making a punch-y Barbarian subclass since that seems to be the fantasy the most vocal critics of monk seem to want.
Balancing based on the presence of a specific out-of-class spell is not how the game works. Monks have to be functional as monks without the assistance of hex, Hunter's Mark, or other such tools. As well, Flurry of Blows is twice per day when it comes online, and only gets one additional use per day per level. It's not a reliable source of damage, but rather more like Action Surge i.e. an option to pour on extra damage at need.
Rolling a d4 for your damage sucks. Everybody else gets to start with a d6 or a d8, or even a d10 or d12 - why does the monk have to suffer through four levels of d4? And if the monk is just using the damage of its weapon instead to get the same d6/8/10 as everybody else, why bother with Martial Arts? Nothing about using MA for nondamage abilities needs the die to start as a d4. Monks are not so overpowered that they cannot tolerate a non-d4 start. Rather the opposite, in fact. Monks are only good in the early game, level 4 and below, because they get a second attack before anybody else does. Once the other classes get their second strike, they catapult ahead of monks and the fistpuncher takes anywhere from five to ten more levels just to catch up.
If you want to offset the monk's godawful d8 hit die, complete and utter lack of armor class, extreme physical frailty, and inability to survive more than a round and a half of melee combat with a buttload of active abilities, sure. We can try that. But they have to actually be worth using, and since they'll all be fighting for the same once-a-turn reaction, they won't work unless they're punchy. A d4 is by definition Not Punchy.
Just because you don't use short rests still doesn't make KI a pool that only refreshes once per day. XD
But I agree with you. Short Rest or not, Flurry is not consistent. It's mostly used just to get Stunning Strike off currently.
And I really don't want to balance classes based on the idea that someone will take Hunter's Mark or Hex. I hate the thought that all Monks in 1DnD might start off as Rangers. Blech.
And the biggest reason I let my Monk player start with a d6 was exactly what you are saying. He wanted to punch things. Using a staff for 4 levels just because it's a d6 and punches are a d4 was lame. If a Monk wants to use weapons because it fits their character concept, then great. But if a Monk wants to punch, let them punch. It hurts nothing to make the punch do the same as a short sword. And it really helped him keep up with everyone in damage. It's not too much. It felt just right.
Of course everything could change in the next version. Fists might be light weapons for them. KI might go away entirely. Flurry might be free. But if none of that is different, then at least let Monks punch harder than tavern brawlers.
Current version of Ranger in One D&D makes it guaranteed that nearly every martial optimized build will take a 1 level dip in Ranger. The only viable STR-build based on the UA is PAM+GWM and that's really only for paladins and maybe barbarians, everyone else will be two-weapon fighting with concentration-free Hunter's Mark from a 1-level Ranger dip.
The psychology of monk hate is so interesting, absolutely everyone ignores their multiple attacks from level 1, ignoring that it DOUBLES their DPR compared to unarmed fighters or tavern brawlers. On pure DPR terms monk is consistently above average until level 6-7.
In terms of survivability Monks have the same AC and hit die as a Rogue and are designed around a similar playstyle. So I don't know what everyone complains about. IMO WotC would be better off making a punch-y Barbarian subclass since that seems to be the fantasy the most vocal critics of monk seem to want.
People have pointed out many times that at low level, Tier 1, monks are fine because of the extra BA attack. I don’t necessarily think that plays into the “hate” but more so, for a martial, the lack of staying power. Patient Defense is fine but it uses Ki like everything else so not consistent.
And I’m not as well versed in Kung fu movies post 70’s when I watched them as a kid, but I don’t remember a lot of run in, hit, run away in those movies. So I understand the skirmisher play style mentioned, and probably due to Step of the Wind considered the monks “primary” play style, but I don’t think it should be considered the “default”. You should be able to play the monk as a melee combatant without all the running around.
People have pointed out many times that at low level, Tier 1, monks are fine because of the extra BA attack. I don’t necessarily think that plays into the “hate” but more so, for a martial, the lack of staying power. Patient Defense is fine but it uses Ki like everything else so not consistent.
And I’m not as well versed in Kung fu movies post 70’s when I watched them as a kid, but I don’t remember a lot of run in, hit, run away in those movies. So I understand the skirmisher play style mentioned, and probably due to Step of the Wind considered the monks “primary” play style, but I don’t think it should be considered the “default”. You should be able to play the monk as a melee combatant without all the running around.
And they can. With the update to TWF, a monk can accomplish roughly the damage of a greatsword before factoring in their bonus action. They're splitting it across two attacks, but they can do it. If they also have the accompanying fighting style─courtesy of the new 1st-level feats from backgrounds─they can deal even more. Once they have Extra Attack, they're likely dealing around 22.5 (3d6+12)─if everything hits. For comparison, two greatsword attacks comes to roughly 24.66 under the same circumstances.
By the time a fighter gets three attacks, they're potentially hitting for 39 (6d6+15) while the monk might only reach 28.5 (3d8+15). With their Bonus Action, that becomes 38 (4d8+20) with just their Martial Arts feature. And I think we can safely lowball a barbarian around 32.66 (2d12+16). This would put the monk in a nice flex position. It can go between the lower and higher ends; depending on its needs round-to-round.
Balancing based on the presence of a specific out-of-class spell is not how the game works. Monks have to be functional as monks without the assistance of hex, Hunter's Mark, or other such tools. As well, Flurry of Blows is twice per day when it comes online, and only gets one additional use per day per level. It's not a reliable source of damage, but rather more like Action Surge i.e. an option to pour on extra damage at need.
Rolling a d4 for your damage sucks. Everybody else gets to start with a d6 or a d8, or even a d10 or d12 - why does the monk have to suffer through four levels of d4? And if the monk is just using the damage of its weapon instead to get the same d6/8/10 as everybody else, why bother with Martial Arts? Nothing about using MA for nondamage abilities needs the die to start as a d4. Monks are not so overpowered that they cannot tolerate a non-d4 start. Rather the opposite, in fact. Monks are only good in the early game, level 4 and below, because they get a second attack before anybody else does. Once the other classes get their second strike, they catapult ahead of monks and the fistpuncher takes anywhere from five to ten more levels just to catch up.
If you want to offset the monk's godawful d8 hit die, complete and utter lack of armor class, extreme physical frailty, and inability to survive more than a round and a half of melee combat with a buttload of active abilities, sure. We can try that. But they have to actually be worth using, and since they'll all be fighting for the same once-a-turn reaction, they won't work unless they're punchy. A d4 is by definition Not Punchy.
Just because you don't use short rests still doesn't make KI a pool that only refreshes once per day. XD
But I agree with you. Short Rest or not, Flurry is not consistent. It's mostly used just to get Stunning Strike off currently.
And I really don't want to balance classes based on the idea that someone will take Hunter's Mark or Hex. I hate the thought that all Monks in 1DnD might start off as Rangers. Blech.
And the biggest reason I let my Monk player start with a d6 was exactly what you are saying. He wanted to punch things. Using a staff for 4 levels just because it's a d6 and punches are a d4 was lame. If a Monk wants to use weapons because it fits their character concept, then great. But if a Monk wants to punch, let them punch. It hurts nothing to make the punch do the same as a short sword. And it really helped him keep up with everyone in damage. It's not too much. It felt just right.
Of course everything could change in the next version. Fists might be light weapons for them. KI might go away entirely. Flurry might be free. But if none of that is different, then at least let Monks punch harder than tavern brawlers.
Current version of Ranger in One D&D makes it guaranteed that nearly every martial optimized build will take a 1 level dip in Ranger. The only viable STR-build based on the UA is PAM+GWM and that's really only for paladins and maybe barbarians, everyone else will be two-weapon fighting with concentration-free Hunter's Mark from a 1-level Ranger dip.
The psychology of monk hate is so interesting, absolutely everyone ignores their multiple attacks from level 1, ignoring that it DOUBLES their DPR compared to unarmed fighters or tavern brawlers. On pure DPR terms monk is consistently above average until level 6-7.
In terms of survivability Monks have the same AC and hit die as a Rogue and are designed around a similar playstyle. So I don't know what everyone complains about. IMO WotC would be better off making a punch-y Barbarian subclass since that seems to be the fantasy the most vocal critics of monk seem to want.
People have pointed out many times that at low level, Tier 1, monks are fine because of the extra BA attack. I don’t necessarily think that plays into the “hate” but more so, for a martial, the lack of staying power. Patient Defense is fine but it uses Ki like everything else so not consistent.
And I’m not as well versed in Kung fu movies post 70’s when I watched them as a kid, but I don’t remember a lot of run in, hit, run away in those movies. So I understand the skirmisher play style mentioned, and probably due to Step of the Wind considered the monks “primary” play style, but I don’t think it should be considered the “default”. You should be able to play the monk as a melee combatant without all the running around.
Kung Fu movies absolutely have tons of hit & run in them, martial artists are jumping up onto rooves, sliding down banisters, running up / along walls etc... There is absolutely a huge amount of movement in them - otherwise the action would get incredibly boring. There isn't a lot of "run away to avoid getting hit" because most of the time Kung Fu movies have Martial artists fighting other martial artists so when guy X does a back flip onto a moving train to get away their opponent Y does the exact same thing to follow them. I would note that Kung Fu movies are also almost always human vs human (i.e. PvP combat) where monks absolutely kick a**. They can stun-lock and obliterate pretty much any other class in 1-v-1 if they win initiative. Beyond just hit & run in Kung Fu movies, the "monk" uses many different defensive options rather than just standing there waiting to get hit, including: (1) take a defensive stance to deflect or dodge incoming blows = Patient Defense (2) dodge away and jump onto a roof = Step of the Wind (3) they cripple / stun their opponent = Stunning Strike
Note that EVERY SINGLE monk subclass give them a unique way to avoid getting hit. Open Hand -> Flurry of Blows takes away the enemy's reaction letting you escape with your super fast movement. Drunken Master -> Flurry of Blows gives you a free Disengage letting you escape with your super fast movement. 4 Elements / Astral -> increased reach lets you avoid entering melee to begin with Sun Soul -> ranged option allows you to strafe from a distance. Shadow -> BA teleport out of reach.
Except that nobody plays "skirmisher" because it's silly. Kung Fu movies don't have a lot of hit-and-run; I grew up watching Jackie Chan's entire filmography, and some more. Yes, combatants use environment and move around location as they fight, but they don't run towards the enemy, hit them twice then dash away to "stay out of reach". It's just stupid, it's a waste of energy, and it's completely unrealistic. Which is why no one plays monk that way. You can do all that Step of the Wind stuff. Like, five or maybe even ten times if it's all you do - and then you're out of ki and you're a weaker version of fighter because you don't have a greatsword+2 with GWM which is free.
It's Dungeons & Dragons, dude. Nobody cares about realism. If we did, there wouldn't be magic, or dragons, or even a gold standard.
Ah, the never-aging classic argument. Explain to me then, why can't fighters jump ten stories, dual wield two-handed weapons, deal thunder damage by shouting, throw infinite axes, cleave walls? 'Cause, you know, magic, dragons, and stuff. Maybe verisimilitude has something to do with it?
It's Dungeons & Dragons, dude. Nobody cares about realism. If we did, there wouldn't be magic, or dragons, or even a gold standard.
Ah, the never-aging classic argument. Explain to me then, why can't fighters jump ten stories, dual wield two-handed weapons, deal thunder damage by shouting, throw infinite axes, cleave walls? 'Cause, you know, magic, dragons, and stuff. Maybe verisimilitude has something to do with it?
Verisimilitude is not realism. It's commitment. You can have the most absurdist fantasy imaginable. So long as everything still adheres to some internal logic, it can maintain verisimilitude.
You think monks as "skirmishers" is silly, when it's just hit-and-run tactics. It's best employed when (a) the sheer numbers would quickly overwhelm them or (b) when they're kiting a slower enemy. And it's something virtually anyone can do, so it's not exclusively the domain of the monk. Most skirmishers actually rely on ranged attacks, so─if you think that's what a melee monk should be doing─you're not using your head. Just give them a shortbow.
Step of the Wind is for playing Rebel Blockade Runner and getting past enemies to a position where the monk's strengths can better be utilized. Monks, when properly commanded, are a scalpel.
Verisimilitude is not realism. It's commitment. You can have the most absurdist fantasy imaginable. So long as everything still adheres to some internal logic, it can maintain verisimilitude.
You think monks as "skirmishers" is silly, when it's just hit-and-run tactics. It's best employed when (a) the sheer numbers would quickly overwhelm them or (b) when they're kiting a slower enemy. And it's something virtually anyone can do, so it's not exclusively the domain of the monk. Most skirmishers actually rely on ranged attacks, so─if you think that's what a melee monk should be doing─you're not using your head. Just give them a shortbow.
Step of the Wind is for playing Rebel Blockade Runner and getting past enemies to a position where the monk's strengths can better be utilized. Monks, when properly commanded, are a scalpel.
Hit-and-run tactics have never ever been part of melee in history. The very idea doesn't make sense. Turning your back to an active and fighting enemy to run away is a certain way to get your ass kicked. I mean, it's common sense - if you want to run away as soon as you can after striking, you'd want to strike from distance to begin with, preferrably on horseback, unless you're an adrenaline junkie or a masochist. And what stops the enemy from chasing you immediately aside from turn-based reality? And then you run right back at them to be met with a punch to the face - oh wait, turn-based reality. You just do ZA WARUDO, stop time, run up to enemy, punch them, and run back as they stand helplessly for 6 seconds waiting for their turn - and it's a skirmisher playstyle. It reminds me how I played Arcanum with a backstabber build solo. In turn-based combat, I could just run around an enemy's back and kill them in two hits as they stood still waiting for their turn. In realtime combat... Yeah, I had to change the way I played and recruit a henchman to distract the enemies. Then there's the sheer amount of stamina it takes to run around... Nobody runs in melee. Morale of the story: if something only works in turn-based reality, it's nonsensical to begin with.
Shortbow is not a monk weapon, it's ranged.
If nobody but a small handful of special ones know how to "use their head" to play the class on a basic level, then there's something wrong with the class.
Verisimilitude is not realism. It's commitment. You can have the most absurdist fantasy imaginable. So long as everything still adheres to some internal logic, it can maintain verisimilitude.
You think monks as "skirmishers" is silly, when it's just hit-and-run tactics. It's best employed when (a) the sheer numbers would quickly overwhelm them or (b) when they're kiting a slower enemy. And it's something virtually anyone can do, so it's not exclusively the domain of the monk. Most skirmishers actually rely on ranged attacks, so─if you think that's what a melee monk should be doing─you're not using your head. Just give them a shortbow.
Step of the Wind is for playing Rebel Blockade Runner and getting past enemies to a position where the monk's strengths can better be utilized. Monks, when properly commanded, are a scalpel.
Hit-and-run tactics have never ever been part of melee in history. The very idea doesn't make sense. Turning your back to an active and fighting enemy to run away is a certain way to get your ass kicked. I mean, it's common sense - if you want to run away as soon as you can after striking, you'd want to strike from distance to begin with, preferrably on horseback, unless you're an adrenaline junkie or a masochist. And what stops the enemy from chasing you immediately aside from turn-based reality? And then you run right back at them to be met with a punch to the face - oh wait, turn-based reality. You just do ZA WARUDO, stop time, run up to enemy, punch them, and run back as they stand helplessly for 6 seconds waiting for their turn - and it's a skirmisher playstyle. It reminds me how I played Arcanum with a backstabber build solo. In turn-based combat, I could just run around an enemy's back and kill them in two hits as they stood still waiting for their turn. In realtime combat... Yeah, I had to change the way I played and recruit a henchman to distract the enemies. Then there's the sheer amount of stamina it takes to run around... Nobody runs in melee. Morale of the story: if something only works in turn-based reality, it's nonsensical to begin with.
Shortbow is not a monk weapon, it's ranged.
If nobody but a small handful of special ones know how to "use their head" to play the class on a basic level, then there's something wrong with the class.
Have you ever taken boxing classes or martial arts classes? Spacing is a huge thing in a fight. Out boxing is an entire style of boxing that is about keeping the opponent at a reach. It may not be literal hit and run away, but spacing and keeping out of retaliation range is a factor.
Have you ever taken boxing classes or martial arts classes? Spacing is a huge thing in a fight. Out boxing is an entire style of boxing that is about keeping the opponent at a reach. It may not be literal hit and run away, but spacing and keeping out of retaliation range is a factor.
I have. And while reach is meaningful, real fights that don't happen on a ring begin and end within seconds, and within a punch's range or closer, usually with one side knocking the other to the ground as soon as possible and then just beating and kicking the shit out of a downed opponent. And even if you consider boxing in a reglamented environment, you never fully break the distance and run around the ring, and that's literally what we're talking about here, running in and out up to 60 damn feet, delivering a punch, turning around and running away so that the enemy can't catch you. The monk class was created to captivate the image of a martial artist from kung fu movies, not Road Runner harassing Willy the Coyote.
Isn’t the “reach” you are talking about in boxing or martial arts kind of covered by the 5’ grid space that a creature controls? Sure, in a boxing match you might move in to throw a punch and step back to get out of your opponent’s reach (and they will probably move to close the gap) but that’s exactly what the 5’ grid is about.
Yes and no. 5' grid is actually a lot smaller range than you'd think. Like, I took Olympic style fencing in high school (which shares a lot of similarities to Errol Flynn style swashbuckling we associate with the rogue). I was basically taught that, if I was in 5 feet of someone, I should be attacking and hitting, or getting the hell away, because my opponent was attacking me - an adult fencing sword is about 3 feet long, and my arm is definitely longer than two feet.
So, yeah, if a fencing match used the d&d grid system, I definitely was moving in and out of 5' and 10' ranged squares.
Verisimilitude is not realism. It's commitment. You can have the most absurdist fantasy imaginable. So long as everything still adheres to some internal logic, it can maintain verisimilitude.
You think monks as "skirmishers" is silly, when it's just hit-and-run tactics. It's best employed when (a) the sheer numbers would quickly overwhelm them or (b) when they're kiting a slower enemy. And it's something virtually anyone can do, so it's not exclusively the domain of the monk. Most skirmishers actually rely on ranged attacks, so─if you think that's what a melee monk should be doing─you're not using your head. Just give them a shortbow.
Step of the Wind is for playing Rebel Blockade Runner and getting past enemies to a position where the monk's strengths can better be utilized. Monks, when properly commanded, are a scalpel.
Hit-and-run tactics have never ever been part of melee in history. The very idea doesn't make sense. Turning your back to an active and fighting enemy to run away is a certain way to get your ass kicked.
I also did fencing at University an absolutely everything we did was hit & run. Unless you have plate armour or a gigantic shield then you DO NOT stay within reach of your opponent or you are going to die. Because IRL it usually only takes 1 hit to kill or cripple an opponent, in 1 vs 1 duels both opponents keep just out of reach of each other until they see an opportunity to dart in and strike if the opponent parries or dodges you get out again ASAP before they hit you back. Same goes even for animals : wolves taking down a bison chase it and circle around it keeping out of the range of its horns until they can get behind it to dart in and bite its rear or legs, Lions pounce to knock their prey to the ground then grapple them to stop them fighting back before risking staying within striking range of their prey, Hawks either do the same or grapple and lift up to deny their prey the mobility to strike back at them.
In medieval wars hit and run wasn't as common because of formation fighting, essentially there were 3 options: (1) Shield wall - this is the formation-based defensive move that is incompatible with hit & run because all soldiers must stay close together and not move too much independently for the shield wall to work. (2) Mass charge - this is the formation-based offensive move that you would hope causes the enemy to break and run because if they didn't you're going to get slaughtered (see: dominance of Roman shield walls against celtic wild infantry charges). (3) mass melees - this is your tactic-less just throw two sides of men against each other and hope your numbers or technology are superior and allow you to overrun the enemy at the cost of high casualty rates.
D&D is NOT a war game though (at least not anymore), party size it tiny making army-style tactics completely useless. You'd need combatants on the scale of Warhammer to have any chance of simulating the tactics of armies. It is a small party skirmish / duel game. The main awkwardness of D&D in simulating duels is the turn-based nature, so instead of having character A moving back simultaneously with enemy B moving forwards so that character A keeps out of reach of enemy B, we have character A moving back first then enemy B following.
Kung Fu movies employ a mix of hit & run (usually following a stagger or stun -like strike) and defensive stances (Patient Defense). As I said before monks should not be using Step of the Wind regularly because they don't need to because their subclass gives them a much better alternative to avoiding getting trapped in melee combat, also one would hope that a monk manages to KO their target at least 1/3 turns so they only need to spend ki 2/3 of the time which means a level 5 monk can last 9 rounds without running out of ki which TBH is plenty unless your combats are pathetically easy in which case why would the monk spend ki at all?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There has been a general view that a monk's starting martial arts dice should change from d4 to d6 and end at d12. I'll try to make an argument against this view.
First, with Magic Initiate any class can easily get Hex or Hunter's Mark to add a d6 to each attack. With light weapons now being moved from the Bonus Action to the Attack Action, casting Hex/Hunter's Mark as a bonus action and then attacking with two light weapons will be up to 2*(3 + 1d6 + 1d6) = 20 points of damage a round for levels 1-3 (ignoring chance to hit). If the Monk Flurry of Blows is also moved to the Attack Action (which it likely will be), that becomes 3*(3 + 1d6 + 1d6) = 30 points of damage a round starting at level 2 (assuming short sword + two unarmed strikes). That may be the maximum reliable damage in tier 1. Switching the martial arts dice to a d4 drops it down to (3+1d6) + 2*(3+1d6) = 28 points assuming a short sword and two unarmed strikes. Not much different, but it cools off the arms race (pun intended).
If the martial arts dice starts at a d4 and increases at levels 5, 9, 13, and 17, it still ends at a d12. Interestingly, an average roll of the martial arts dice is 2.5 for levels 1-4, averages 3.5 for levels 5-8, etc, and always is 0.5 more than the proficiency bonus. Thus a roll of the martial arts dice can be balanced similarly to proficiency. Monk features can be given at an earlier level, grow with Monk levels, and not be unbalanced for multiclassing.
I know there is a school of thought that Damage Output is king, but I personally prefer a more well rounded character. I'd trade away more damage to get the ability to roll the Martial Arts Die more times.
Under 5e rules, increasing the martial arts die by one level as a pretty simple fix. I've used it in games and it worked well. But there is no reason to think it will be the same in 1DnD. We have no idea how they will change the monk in the future. We can't really assume anything. But I do like the idea of letting the martial arts die work for more things using ki. And that's a nice observation for scaling at the same rate as proficiency bonus.
Balancing based on the presence of a specific out-of-class spell is not how the game works. Monks have to be functional as monks without the assistance of hex, Hunter's Mark, or other such tools. As well, Flurry of Blows is twice per day when it comes online, and only gets one additional use per day per level. It's not a reliable source of damage, but rather more like Action Surge i.e. an option to pour on extra damage at need.
Rolling a d4 for your damage sucks. Everybody else gets to start with a d6 or a d8, or even a d10 or d12 - why does the monk have to suffer through four levels of d4? And if the monk is just using the damage of its weapon instead to get the same d6/8/10 as everybody else, why bother with Martial Arts? Nothing about using MA for nondamage abilities needs the die to start as a d4. Monks are not so overpowered that they cannot tolerate a non-d4 start. Rather the opposite, in fact. Monks are only good in the early game, level 4 and below, because they get a second attack before anybody else does. Once the other classes get their second strike, they catapult ahead of monks and the fistpuncher takes anywhere from five to ten more levels just to catch up.
If you want to offset the monk's godawful d8 hit die, complete and utter lack of armor class, extreme physical frailty, and inability to survive more than a round and a half of melee combat with a buttload of active abilities, sure. We can try that. But they have to actually be worth using, and since they'll all be fighting for the same once-a-turn reaction, they won't work unless they're punchy. A d4 is by definition Not Punchy.
Please do not contact or message me.
Just because you don't use short rests still doesn't make KI a pool that only refreshes once per day. XD
But I agree with you. Short Rest or not, Flurry is not consistent. It's mostly used just to get Stunning Strike off currently.
And I really don't want to balance classes based on the idea that someone will take Hunter's Mark or Hex. I hate the thought that all Monks in 1DnD might start off as Rangers. Blech.
And the biggest reason I let my Monk player start with a d6 was exactly what you are saying. He wanted to punch things. Using a staff for 4 levels just because it's a d6 and punches are a d4 was lame. If a Monk wants to use weapons because it fits their character concept, then great. But if a Monk wants to punch, let them punch. It hurts nothing to make the punch do the same as a short sword. And it really helped him keep up with everyone in damage. It's not too much. It felt just right.
Of course everything could change in the next version. Fists might be light weapons for them. KI might go away entirely. Flurry might be free. But if none of that is different, then at least let Monks punch harder than tavern brawlers.
Yeah, being a martial artist and using a quarterstaff until level 5 because your punch is weaker than that of tavern brawler sucks immensely. It's not like monks were OP... on any level. IMO unarmed damage scaling should take into account the existence of magic weapons up to +3, it should be a viable alternative to those.
It really should start at normal one handed weapon damage, so at least 1d6 but probably 1d8 as they are a warrior class and warriors will have access to one handed 1d8 weapons. And yeah scale up from there to accommodate up to a +3 weapon. Which could mean something as simple as the scaling is magical pluses.
Current version of Ranger in One D&D makes it guaranteed that nearly every martial optimized build will take a 1 level dip in Ranger. The only viable STR-build based on the UA is PAM+GWM and that's really only for paladins and maybe barbarians, everyone else will be two-weapon fighting with concentration-free Hunter's Mark from a 1-level Ranger dip.
The psychology of monk hate is so interesting, absolutely everyone ignores their multiple attacks from level 1, ignoring that it DOUBLES their DPR compared to unarmed fighters or tavern brawlers. On pure DPR terms monk is consistently above average until level 6-7.
In terms of survivability Monks have the same AC and hit die as a Rogue and are designed around a similar playstyle. So I don't know what everyone complains about. IMO WotC would be better off making a punch-y Barbarian subclass since that seems to be the fantasy the most vocal critics of monk seem to want.
People have pointed out many times that at low level, Tier 1, monks are fine because of the extra BA attack. I don’t necessarily think that plays into the “hate” but more so, for a martial, the lack of staying power. Patient Defense is fine but it uses Ki like everything else so not consistent.
And I’m not as well versed in Kung fu movies post 70’s when I watched them as a kid, but I don’t remember a lot of run in, hit, run away in those movies. So I understand the skirmisher play style mentioned, and probably due to Step of the Wind considered the monks “primary” play style, but I don’t think it should be considered the “default”. You should be able to play the monk as a melee combatant without all the running around.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
And they can. With the update to TWF, a monk can accomplish roughly the damage of a greatsword before factoring in their bonus action. They're splitting it across two attacks, but they can do it. If they also have the accompanying fighting style─courtesy of the new 1st-level feats from backgrounds─they can deal even more. Once they have Extra Attack, they're likely dealing around 22.5 (3d6+12)─if everything hits. For comparison, two greatsword attacks comes to roughly 24.66 under the same circumstances.
By the time a fighter gets three attacks, they're potentially hitting for 39 (6d6+15) while the monk might only reach 28.5 (3d8+15). With their Bonus Action, that becomes 38 (4d8+20) with just their Martial Arts feature. And I think we can safely lowball a barbarian around 32.66 (2d12+16). This would put the monk in a nice flex position. It can go between the lower and higher ends; depending on its needs round-to-round.
Kung Fu movies absolutely have tons of hit & run in them, martial artists are jumping up onto rooves, sliding down banisters, running up / along walls etc... There is absolutely a huge amount of movement in them - otherwise the action would get incredibly boring. There isn't a lot of "run away to avoid getting hit" because most of the time Kung Fu movies have Martial artists fighting other martial artists so when guy X does a back flip onto a moving train to get away their opponent Y does the exact same thing to follow them. I would note that Kung Fu movies are also almost always human vs human (i.e. PvP combat) where monks absolutely kick a**. They can stun-lock and obliterate pretty much any other class in 1-v-1 if they win initiative. Beyond just hit & run in Kung Fu movies, the "monk" uses many different defensive options rather than just standing there waiting to get hit, including:
(1) take a defensive stance to deflect or dodge incoming blows = Patient Defense
(2) dodge away and jump onto a roof = Step of the Wind
(3) they cripple / stun their opponent = Stunning Strike
Note that EVERY SINGLE monk subclass give them a unique way to avoid getting hit.
Open Hand -> Flurry of Blows takes away the enemy's reaction letting you escape with your super fast movement.
Drunken Master -> Flurry of Blows gives you a free Disengage letting you escape with your super fast movement.
4 Elements / Astral -> increased reach lets you avoid entering melee to begin with
Sun Soul -> ranged option allows you to strafe from a distance.
Shadow -> BA teleport out of reach.
Except that nobody plays "skirmisher" because it's silly. Kung Fu movies don't have a lot of hit-and-run; I grew up watching Jackie Chan's entire filmography, and some more. Yes, combatants use environment and move around location as they fight, but they don't run towards the enemy, hit them twice then dash away to "stay out of reach". It's just stupid, it's a waste of energy, and it's completely unrealistic. Which is why no one plays monk that way. You can do all that Step of the Wind stuff. Like, five or maybe even ten times if it's all you do - and then you're out of ki and you're a weaker version of fighter because you don't have a greatsword+2 with GWM which is free.
It's Dungeons & Dragons, dude. Nobody cares about realism. If we did, there wouldn't be magic, or dragons, or even a gold standard.
Ah, the never-aging classic argument. Explain to me then, why can't fighters jump ten stories, dual wield two-handed weapons, deal thunder damage by shouting, throw infinite axes, cleave walls? 'Cause, you know, magic, dragons, and stuff. Maybe verisimilitude has something to do with it?
Verisimilitude is not realism. It's commitment. You can have the most absurdist fantasy imaginable. So long as everything still adheres to some internal logic, it can maintain verisimilitude.
You think monks as "skirmishers" is silly, when it's just hit-and-run tactics. It's best employed when (a) the sheer numbers would quickly overwhelm them or (b) when they're kiting a slower enemy. And it's something virtually anyone can do, so it's not exclusively the domain of the monk. Most skirmishers actually rely on ranged attacks, so─if you think that's what a melee monk should be doing─you're not using your head. Just give them a shortbow.
Step of the Wind is for playing Rebel Blockade Runner and getting past enemies to a position where the monk's strengths can better be utilized. Monks, when properly commanded, are a scalpel.
Hit-and-run tactics have never ever been part of melee in history. The very idea doesn't make sense. Turning your back to an active and fighting enemy to run away is a certain way to get your ass kicked. I mean, it's common sense - if you want to run away as soon as you can after striking, you'd want to strike from distance to begin with, preferrably on horseback, unless you're an adrenaline junkie or a masochist. And what stops the enemy from chasing you immediately aside from turn-based reality? And then you run right back at them to be met with a punch to the face - oh wait, turn-based reality. You just do ZA WARUDO, stop time, run up to enemy, punch them, and run back as they stand helplessly for 6 seconds waiting for their turn - and it's a skirmisher playstyle. It reminds me how I played Arcanum with a backstabber build solo. In turn-based combat, I could just run around an enemy's back and kill them in two hits as they stood still waiting for their turn. In realtime combat... Yeah, I had to change the way I played and recruit a henchman to distract the enemies. Then there's the sheer amount of stamina it takes to run around... Nobody runs in melee. Morale of the story: if something only works in turn-based reality, it's nonsensical to begin with.
Shortbow is not a monk weapon, it's ranged.
If nobody but a small handful of special ones know how to "use their head" to play the class on a basic level, then there's something wrong with the class.
Have you ever taken boxing classes or martial arts classes? Spacing is a huge thing in a fight. Out boxing is an entire style of boxing that is about keeping the opponent at a reach. It may not be literal hit and run away, but spacing and keeping out of retaliation range is a factor.
I have. And while reach is meaningful, real fights that don't happen on a ring begin and end within seconds, and within a punch's range or closer, usually with one side knocking the other to the ground as soon as possible and then just beating and kicking the shit out of a downed opponent. And even if you consider boxing in a reglamented environment, you never fully break the distance and run around the ring, and that's literally what we're talking about here, running in and out up to 60 damn feet, delivering a punch, turning around and running away so that the enemy can't catch you. The monk class was created to captivate the image of a martial artist from kung fu movies, not Road Runner harassing Willy the Coyote.
Isn’t the “reach” you are talking about in boxing or martial arts kind of covered by the 5’ grid space that a creature controls? Sure, in a boxing match you might move in to throw a punch and step back to get out of your opponent’s reach (and they will probably move to close the gap) but that’s exactly what the 5’ grid is about.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Yes and no. 5' grid is actually a lot smaller range than you'd think. Like, I took Olympic style fencing in high school (which shares a lot of similarities to Errol Flynn style swashbuckling we associate with the rogue). I was basically taught that, if I was in 5 feet of someone, I should be attacking and hitting, or getting the hell away, because my opponent was attacking me - an adult fencing sword is about 3 feet long, and my arm is definitely longer than two feet.
So, yeah, if a fencing match used the d&d grid system, I definitely was moving in and out of 5' and 10' ranged squares.
I also did fencing at University an absolutely everything we did was hit & run. Unless you have plate armour or a gigantic shield then you DO NOT stay within reach of your opponent or you are going to die. Because IRL it usually only takes 1 hit to kill or cripple an opponent, in 1 vs 1 duels both opponents keep just out of reach of each other until they see an opportunity to dart in and strike if the opponent parries or dodges you get out again ASAP before they hit you back. Same goes even for animals : wolves taking down a bison chase it and circle around it keeping out of the range of its horns until they can get behind it to dart in and bite its rear or legs, Lions pounce to knock their prey to the ground then grapple them to stop them fighting back before risking staying within striking range of their prey, Hawks either do the same or grapple and lift up to deny their prey the mobility to strike back at them.
In medieval wars hit and run wasn't as common because of formation fighting, essentially there were 3 options: (1) Shield wall - this is the formation-based defensive move that is incompatible with hit & run because all soldiers must stay close together and not move too much independently for the shield wall to work. (2) Mass charge - this is the formation-based offensive move that you would hope causes the enemy to break and run because if they didn't you're going to get slaughtered (see: dominance of Roman shield walls against celtic wild infantry charges). (3) mass melees - this is your tactic-less just throw two sides of men against each other and hope your numbers or technology are superior and allow you to overrun the enemy at the cost of high casualty rates.
D&D is NOT a war game though (at least not anymore), party size it tiny making army-style tactics completely useless. You'd need combatants on the scale of Warhammer to have any chance of simulating the tactics of armies. It is a small party skirmish / duel game. The main awkwardness of D&D in simulating duels is the turn-based nature, so instead of having character A moving back simultaneously with enemy B moving forwards so that character A keeps out of reach of enemy B, we have character A moving back first then enemy B following.
Kung Fu movies employ a mix of hit & run (usually following a stagger or stun -like strike) and defensive stances (Patient Defense). As I said before monks should not be using Step of the Wind regularly because they don't need to because their subclass gives them a much better alternative to avoiding getting trapped in melee combat, also one would hope that a monk manages to KO their target at least 1/3 turns so they only need to spend ki 2/3 of the time which means a level 5 monk can last 9 rounds without running out of ki which TBH is plenty unless your combats are pathetically easy in which case why would the monk spend ki at all?