And sure you can totally play D&D without thinking about these things and have loads of fun (I have done this many times since most of the groups I play with aren't optimizers - honestly the don't-care-about-power play style is more fun IME than playing with optimizers), but then why are you complaining about the power level of a class or a build? You're playing to RP and tell a story rather than have optimal performance in combat so what does it matter how well your character performs in combat? Choose flavourful feats, and suboptimal race-class combos just have fun without worrying about it. If you feel like your character isn't doing what you wanted them to do just talk to the DM about getting some magic items to help them out to do what you want to do with them. It's shockingly easy to Homebrew absolutely anything so a monk can use it... want +3 AC? Sure thing, this monk order invites you to join them and if you earn their respect they give you a set of monk robes that give you +3 AC.
Thing is, you're not playing alone, DnD is a team game. And more than once, I ran into an issue of dissatisfaction when there's a paladin that steamrolls almost everything that stands in the party's path while being pretty much unbreakable with paladin's saving throws aura and all that healing, a GWM fighter/barbarian that one-shots lesser enemies routinely, and monk that punches for like 1d6+4 damage. Needless to say, one of the three felt underperforming. I was playing a mastermind rogue, being the fourth of the group, but I at least contributed in social situations, scouting and other rogue business, so even though the damage and survivability didn't measure up to the two main powerhouses, I got other aspects covered and that was enough. The guy who played a monk... well, he happened to land a killing blow on Strahd, so at least that saved the situation somewhat.
Handing out crutches to PCs is just an act of pity and everyone will know that.
I'd argue the class here isn't the problem. The problem is you have 2 optimizers and 2 non-optimizers in the same party, and either the players didn't communicate or the optimizers weren't self-aware enough to realize the non-optimizers weren't having fun when the optimizers utterly dominated combat. It is the responsibility of everyone at the table to consider the fun of everyone else because this is a social game. It's why I find some optimizer channels utterly destructive to the game because they advocate builds that can "do everything" which is utterly toxic to the teamwork aspect of the game. In my campaign, I built a rogue with expertise in Athletics because they were a pirate / swashbuckler so some physical skills would make sense, but then I noticed out paladin was choosing to focus on creative uses of their proficiency in Athletics in play, so I deliberately chose to mainly help them out if they needed it rather than using my Athletics (which was just as high as theirs) much myself.
Why is the DM giving magic items to balance party members a shameful pitty party? The DM is doing their job to facilitate everyone at the table having fun. Just because you don't optimize your character and instead rely on magic items to keep up doesn't make your play style less worthy than anyone else's. This is a game! If you are having fun, then you are playing the game right. Whether that's taking RP flavourful options that give you an interesting character if not mechanically powerful and enjoying magic items the DM gives you, or if it is using every trick in the book to build a powerful character without relying on magic items. If you're having fun then you are playing the game right. If you're the DM and your players are having fun, then you're a great DM.
Why is the DM giving magic items to balance party members a shameful pitty party? The DM is doing their job to facilitate everyone at the table having fun. Just because you don't optimize your character and instead rely on magic items to keep up doesn't make your play style less worthy than anyone else's. This is a game! If you are having fun, then you are playing the game right. Whether that's taking RP flavourful options that give you an interesting character if not mechanically powerful and enjoying magic items the DM gives you, or if it is using every trick in the book to build a powerful character without relying on magic items. If you're having fun then you are playing the game right. If you're the DM and your players are having fun, then you're a great DM.
1.) You're telling the 'Power Players' at your table that they're nasty ******** who don't deserve any magical gear 2.) You're telling the 'Story Players' at your table that they're too dumb to play the game properly and need overpowered homebrew crutches just to contribute. 3.) You're taking away the players' ability to decide which character gets what loot 4.) You're displaying obvious DM favoritism
It's just not good no matter which way you look at it. Saying "Spike the paladin is super strong and doesn't even need/get a basic +1 sword, but Timmy the 12 Dex 9 Con Pacifist Monk gets bracers that give him +8 Dexterity, robes that grant him a permament Sanctuary effect, a sash that gives him advantage on all Charisma checks because he keeps trying to talk the enemies Spike fights into peacefully parting ways - not surrendering, just going somewhere else to kill and murder someone the party's not responsible for..." is a strong and unmistakable message to Spike that he is not welcome at your table and the only character you actually care about is the janky for-the-lulz meme character.
And it's an equally strong and unmistakable message to Timmy that his character is bad and he needs more help than is remotely fair just to have a chance of keeping up, whilst also setting the unreasonable expectation that DMs will always homebrew absolutely ridiculous gear for him to monkey with if only he keeps making absolutely terrible characters.
The guy who played a monk... well, he happened to land a killing blow on Strahd, so at least that saved the situation somewhat.
I would bet 50 bucks that the DM deliberately tried to make that happen, either by changing Strahd's hit points, or choosing who Strahd targeted, or choosing to keep Strahd at a distance where only the monk could get to him. So that the guy who played the monk got to have a good time, and would remember the game fondly so that the guy would stick with D&D and maybe join the next campaign or find another game after that campaign ended. See DMs generally love D&D and want their players to love D&D too, so they design the game to try to make sure the players have a good time.
I'd argue the class here isn't the problem. The problem is you have 2 optimizers and 2 non-optimizers in the same party, and either the players didn't communicate or the optimizers weren't self-aware enough to realize the non-optimizers weren't having fun when the optimizers utterly dominated combat. It is the responsibility of everyone at the table to consider the fun of everyone else because this is a social game. It's why I find some optimizer channels utterly destructive to the game because they advocate builds that can "do everything" which is utterly toxic to the teamwork aspect of the game.
Nah, we're all optimizers to some extent, everyone in our company of friends is an RPG geek with hundreds of hours of life sunk into games where making optimal builds matters, from Baldur's Gate and Diablo to Nioh 2 and PoE. But none of us would play a game-breaking build from youtube for the sake of breaking the game and pwning everything, we try to marry the fantasy with efficiency to the best of our mathematical ability and system's limitations. And that's it - system limitations sometimes are the bottleneck. For the player who likes to play as a knight, there is a way to play efficiently, in a variety of flavors. For a player who wanted to play as a soldier with a heavy case of PTSD that caused his character to sometimes have uncontrollable fits of rage, there was fighter/barbarian, which fit his fantasy and also was deadly as hell. For me, who wanted to play as a sleuth and schemer, there was mastermind rogue - not super powerful, but fine, I had more or less what I asked for. But for someone who wanted to play a wise sensei that could gently and gracefully put enemies into KO or make them change their ways with a koan... things just can't work out fine. The system doesn't offer a way to realize that fantasy efficiently. Being an unbreakable, impenetrable paladin - ok, a devastatingly powerful fighter/barbarian that cleaves ghouls in half in one hit - sure, but a powerful monk - nope.
I would bet 50 bucks that the DM deliberately tried to make that happen, either by changing Strahd's hit points, or choosing who Strahd targeted, or choosing to keep Strahd at a distance where only the monk could get to him. So that the guy who played the monk got to have a good time, and would remember the game fondly so that the guy would stick with D&D and maybe join the next campaign or find another game after that campaign ended. See DMs generally love D&D and want their players to love D&D too, so they design the game to try to make sure the players have a good time.
Actually, no, handouts is the last thing any of us would do at the table. The only exception was when we went through Tyranny of Dragons as a party of two, that clearly had to be adjusted at some points. We're not opposed to hardcore challenges and bad endings - Trail of Cthulhu taught us to appreciate character death and worse.
Hey, what was wrong with post #253? If anything deserves to be deleted, it's the post that it was replying to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Why is the DM giving magic items to balance party members a shameful pitty party? The DM is doing their job to facilitate everyone at the table having fun. Just because you don't optimize your character and instead rely on magic items to keep up doesn't make your play style less worthy than anyone else's. This is a game! If you are having fun, then you are playing the game right. Whether that's taking RP flavourful options that give you an interesting character if not mechanically powerful and enjoying magic items the DM gives you, or if it is using every trick in the book to build a powerful character without relying on magic items. If you're having fun then you are playing the game right. If you're the DM and your players are having fun, then you're a great DM.
1.) You're telling the 'Power Players' at your table that they're nasty ******** who don't deserve any magical gear 2.) You're telling the 'Story Players' at your table that they're too dumb to play the game properly and need overpowered homebrew crutches just to contribute. 3.) You're taking away the players' ability to decide which character gets what loot 4.) You're displaying obvious DM favoritism
It's just not good no matter which way you look at it. Saying "Spike the paladin is super strong and doesn't even need/get a basic +1 sword, but Timmy the 12 Dex 9 Con Pacifist Monk gets bracers that give him +8 Dexterity, robes that grant him a permament Sanctuary effect, a sash that gives him advantage on all Charisma checks because he keeps trying to talk the enemies Spike fights into peacefully parting ways - not surrendering, just going somewhere else to kill and murder someone the party's not responsible for..." is a strong and unmistakable message to Spike that he is not welcome at your table and the only character you actually care about is the janky for-the-lulz meme character.
And it's an equally strong and unmistakable message to Timmy that his character is bad and he needs more help than is remotely fair just to have a chance of keeping up, whilst also setting the unreasonable expectation that DMs will always homebrew absolutely ridiculous gear for him to monkey with if only he keeps making absolutely terrible characters.
I shall count my blessings that I don’t play at your table. I'm a moderator on a WM server with a mix of optimizers and non-optimizers. And we routinely get complaints whenever a "power gamer" is grouped together with players who design their characters for fun and theme rather than power that the game is not fun because Mr.-I-can-do-100-DPR-at-level6 utterly destroys the combat encounters before anyone else gets to do anything, or Ms.-let-me-cast-20-utility-spells-that-make-your-creative-solution-redundant instantly solves every non-combat challenge and cancels combat by CCing all the enemies or keeps insisting everyone else use their battlefield control to cheese the combat in the most unexciting and uninteresting way.
I would never play with a group that believes a player should be punished for "building a bad character". Because this is not a competitive game, it is a cooperative one. The only way to lose at D&D is to make the people you are playing with not want to play with you. Which means those hyper optimizers I mentioned above - they are the worst players at the game because nobody wants to DM them and nobody wants to play with them.
Lots of people play monks as they are and have fun doing so. We don't need to have the whole class rewritten to just be a fighter that uses unarmed strikes just because 'people' think a +1 increase in AC from being able to wear armour is some how crucial to making a monk 'viable' as a melee combatant - it isn't. There are plenty of magic items that DMs can give to a monk of the player is unhappy with how their monk is playing. But those players who want to enjoy the fantasy of a shaolin fighting monk, or bare-chested kung fu master should have a class that serves that fantasy. If you want to play a super high damage STR-based armour-wearing melee character that using unarmed strikes and can stand toe-to-toe with enemies in combat then play a Barbarian with the unarmed fighting style.
This discussion is not germane to improving the monk as a baseline class in 1DD. With all due respect to some of you, this isn't the place for a long-winded "discussion" on whether so-called optimizers are evil cheating baby-eating tryhard ******** or not.
You want to discuss improving the base monk? Okay.
* 5e monk came off as the "dual wield fists" class. I'm going to imagine that we're going to be keeping that going forwards. So, at the most basic, the monk needs to be competitive with dual wielding short swords at level 1, or the class will feel bad. I don't see any way around this. So, base monk damage needs to be 1d6, and the extra attack has to be part of the Attack Action, which frees up their bonus action for monk shenanigans. We might automatically get the Fighting Style for dual wielding, or a choice, and just have the monks fists be outright Light, Finesse weapons instead of their own special thing. This will allow for more interactions with other feats, classes, etc.
* Monk shenanigans will likely include Flurry of Blows, Step of the Wind, and Patient Defense, as usual. I would like to see these three traits built upon instead of just left as is. Especially with subclasses. Maybe make the wall-walking ability part of Step of the Wind. I also expect the Tasha's additions to be front and center, including healing. Which brings me to... Weapons. No more Martial Arts relying on unarmed attacks. If I want to use a whip and reflavor it as a meteor hammer, I don't want to have to stop using it for half my attacks. That sucks. I want to use it for all my attacks.
* 5e classes seem to be moving in a direction to make classes less MAD. So, less dependency on WIS (or DEX). Make Unarmed Defense DEX (or WIS) + Proficiency Bonus, monk needs its unarmored defense to be competitive with regular armor wearers. One stat. Monk saves can be DEX or WIS based, especially if Fighter does the same with their maneuvers. Speaking of, Stunning Strike needs to be weakened in base class - too much of the monk power budget is caught up in that one feature. Need more options. A subclass (Open Hand?) can focus on making it crazy good again.
* The four main subclasses should be Open Hand (shaolin monk archetype, simple), Elemental (Bender, ala Avatar, but NOT with spells, more like dragon monk), Shadow (ninja!) and Kensei (wandering ronin type).
* Deflect Missiles should be competitive with the Shield spell. If wizards get +AC for an entire turn, then monks should for their Deflect Missiles ability too. I say the same for the Rogue's Uncanny Dodge and the Defensive Duelist feat. At least an entire turn - it kind of sucks to deflect one arrow, then have the same archer hit you with the next two arrows.
* Better scaling of abilities in tier 3 and 4. That's a problem that WotC has always had with its martials versus casters.
At the most basic, the monk base damage has to be 1d6. Right now, anyone can use short swords and dual wield for 1d6. So, comparatively, its got to increase or it'll feel bad. There's no way around it.
* Again, compared to short sword dual wielding, Martial Arts needs to work as part of the Attack Action, not bonus action, or it will feel bad. This frees up the bonus action for doing more things. HOWEVER.
I'm fine with Martial Arts being a d4 if it scales up more quickly. If it scaled with proficiency bonus, for example, like proficiency dice in the DM. That way it can grow to d6 (5th), d8 (9th), d10 (13th), and d12 (17th). Or if it can scale more rapidly with Fighting Style: Unarmed Fighting and/or Tavern Brawler. Simple weapons are cheap. Two handaxes are the price of one shortsword.
I'm also fine with Martial Arts staying on the Bonus Action. It gives them one that doesn't cost anything, and that's potentially 4 attacks at 5th level. And it makes Flurry of Blows seem more special since it's an upgrade of this baseline ability.
I don't think the bonus punch needs to be bundled with the Attack action. I honestly think it's more valuable as a "Martial Arts" multi-use bonus action similar to Cunning Action, as it means the monk can gain at least one full-powered* strike regardless of what they do with their action. Flurry of Blows, if it remains at all, could be an upgrade to the Attack action instead, bolting an extra strike onto the action TWF style. Cunning Action works very well for letting rogues feel more slippery and nimble than regular plodding warriors; why not borrow the framework for the other class that wants to feel nimble and evasive, ne?
In 5e, there's two ways to make bonus action attacks with the Monk. The first is through the Martial Arts ability that you get at level 1, and effectively acts like Two Weapon Fighting rules. The second is Flurry of Blows, which effectively provides a second bonus action attack on top of the one from Martial Arts, but at the cost of 1 ki. You get this one at level 2.
If you are talking about keeping the former, Martial Arts attack as a bonus action, then using two short swords with the new Light property is going to be an objectively better option in 1D&D. You'll be able to have all the damage of Martial Arts, but keeping your bonus action free for SotW or PD. No matter how you look at it, that's going to feel bad for lots of people. Or, worse, be open to funky rules lawyering shenanigans. I mean, this is supposed to be about improving the monk, and having them be worse than a rogue with two short swords at level 1 is not the way to do that.
If you're just talking about Flurry of Blows, then yes, you could likely keep that as a bonus action. Two attacks during Attack action, then the third as a bonus action attack.
Why would MA punch as a bonus action conflict with two-weapon fighting? That's rather the point - the monk would get TWF and an unarmed strike if they opted for it. Which would be a little much for lower levels, but eh. Individual monk attacks do poor damage anyways, it may balance out fine in the end.
Why would MA punch as a bonus action conflict with two-weapon fighting? That's rather the point - the monk would get TWF and an unarmed strike if they opted for it. Which would be a little much for lower levels, but eh. Individual monk attacks do poor damage anyways, it may balance out fine in the end.
Why would MA punch as a bonus action conflict with two-weapon fighting? That's rather the point - the monk would get TWF and an unarmed strike if they opted for it. Which would be a little much for lower levels, but eh. Individual monk attacks do poor damage anyways, it may balance out fine in the end.
What is the point? Please clarify. Are you saying that monks should, by default, get TWF with short swords and a free BA attack from level 1 martial arts and no ki? And you feel that's the point of the class?
I think the ideal situation would be for a Monk at any level to function as well as it does in 5e with regards to extra attacks. Since 6e is giving a dual light weapon user an extra attack without using a bonus action, then the monk needs that too. But it can't stack with the 2 weapon fighting or it would always be the best option. And the Monk attack damage will eventually scale much better than the 1d6 maximum you can get with the off hand weapon. That might be okay, but it's worth considering.
So the thing we are really trying to do, to keep the balance, is give the Monk an extra 1d6 attack for free only in situations where they could get one from 2 weapons.
So I think maybe the way to write it is -
If you are making an unarmed attack, or a weapon attack with a light monk weapon in only one hand, you can make an additional unarmed attack for free.
Then keep Flurry of Blows as a bonus action.
That extra attack will eventually scale higher than a second weapon would, but at that level it might be fine. Sadly it does prevent using a staff with both hands for the higher versatile damage. The trade off is still probably worth it.
It wouldn't force monks to dual-wield any more than other classes arer 'forced' to dual-wield. The extra TWF attack is a max of 1d6 with no Dex unless you burn your starter feat on TWF-the-style, which is the same bonus everybody else gets for TWF. Nobody else is feeling 'forced' to dual-wield, ne? Why should monks? If they want to they can, but it shouldn't affect their class features.
It wouldn't force monks to dual-wield any more than other classes arer 'forced' to dual-wield. The extra TWF attack is a max of 1d6 with no Dex unless you burn your starter feat on TWF-the-style, which is the same bonus everybody else gets for TWF. Nobody else is feeling 'forced' to dual-wield, ne? Why should monks? If they want to they can, but it shouldn't affect their class features.
So... you either go bare-handed and deal 1d6+Dex fist + 1d6+Dex bonus action, or dual wield and deal 1d6+Dex main hand + 1d6 off-hand + 1d6+Dex bonus action. Why would I not want to make an extra attack for 1d6 damage that by the way scales with martial arts just like bare fists (because monk weapons), and can be a magic weapon+3, unlike fists? Correct me if I'm getting that wrong...
It wouldn't force monks to dual-wield any more than other classes arer 'forced' to dual-wield. The extra TWF attack is a max of 1d6 with no Dex unless you burn your starter feat on TWF-the-style, which is the same bonus everybody else gets for TWF. Nobody else is feeling 'forced' to dual-wield, ne? Why should monks? If they want to they can, but it shouldn't affect their class features.
So... you either go bare-handed and deal 1d6+Dex fist + 1d6+Dex bonus action, or dual wield and deal 1d6+Dex main hand + 1d6 off-hand + 1d6+Dex bonus action. Why would I not want to make an extra attack for 1d6 damage that by the way scales with martial arts just like bare fists (because monk weapons), and can be a magic weapon+3, unlike fists? Correct me if I'm getting that wrong...
No, I think that's accurate. Maybe 'forced' isn't exactly the word. But the benefits of 3 attacks over 2 are so great that you would basically see every Monk with 2 Short Swords and two weapon fighting style, which would be pretty sad from a variety point of view.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'd argue the class here isn't the problem. The problem is you have 2 optimizers and 2 non-optimizers in the same party, and either the players didn't communicate or the optimizers weren't self-aware enough to realize the non-optimizers weren't having fun when the optimizers utterly dominated combat. It is the responsibility of everyone at the table to consider the fun of everyone else because this is a social game. It's why I find some optimizer channels utterly destructive to the game because they advocate builds that can "do everything" which is utterly toxic to the teamwork aspect of the game. In my campaign, I built a rogue with expertise in Athletics because they were a pirate / swashbuckler so some physical skills would make sense, but then I noticed out paladin was choosing to focus on creative uses of their proficiency in Athletics in play, so I deliberately chose to mainly help them out if they needed it rather than using my Athletics (which was just as high as theirs) much myself.
Why is the DM giving magic items to balance party members a shameful pitty party? The DM is doing their job to facilitate everyone at the table having fun. Just because you don't optimize your character and instead rely on magic items to keep up doesn't make your play style less worthy than anyone else's. This is a game! If you are having fun, then you are playing the game right. Whether that's taking RP flavourful options that give you an interesting character if not mechanically powerful and enjoying magic items the DM gives you, or if it is using every trick in the book to build a powerful character without relying on magic items. If you're having fun then you are playing the game right. If you're the DM and your players are having fun, then you're a great DM.
1.) You're telling the 'Power Players' at your table that they're nasty ******** who don't deserve any magical gear
2.) You're telling the 'Story Players' at your table that they're too dumb to play the game properly and need overpowered homebrew crutches just to contribute.
3.) You're taking away the players' ability to decide which character gets what loot
4.) You're displaying obvious DM favoritism
It's just not good no matter which way you look at it. Saying "Spike the paladin is super strong and doesn't even need/get a basic +1 sword, but Timmy the 12 Dex 9 Con Pacifist Monk gets bracers that give him +8 Dexterity, robes that grant him a permament Sanctuary effect, a sash that gives him advantage on all Charisma checks because he keeps trying to talk the enemies Spike fights into peacefully parting ways - not surrendering, just going somewhere else to kill and murder someone the party's not responsible for..." is a strong and unmistakable message to Spike that he is not welcome at your table and the only character you actually care about is the janky for-the-lulz meme character.
And it's an equally strong and unmistakable message to Timmy that his character is bad and he needs more help than is remotely fair just to have a chance of keeping up, whilst also setting the unreasonable expectation that DMs will always homebrew absolutely ridiculous gear for him to monkey with if only he keeps making absolutely terrible characters.
Please do not contact or message me.
I would bet 50 bucks that the DM deliberately tried to make that happen, either by changing Strahd's hit points, or choosing who Strahd targeted, or choosing to keep Strahd at a distance where only the monk could get to him. So that the guy who played the monk got to have a good time, and would remember the game fondly so that the guy would stick with D&D and maybe join the next campaign or find another game after that campaign ended. See DMs generally love D&D and want their players to love D&D too, so they design the game to try to make sure the players have a good time.
Nah, we're all optimizers to some extent, everyone in our company of friends is an RPG geek with hundreds of hours of life sunk into games where making optimal builds matters, from Baldur's Gate and Diablo to Nioh 2 and PoE. But none of us would play a game-breaking build from youtube for the sake of breaking the game and pwning everything, we try to marry the fantasy with efficiency to the best of our mathematical ability and system's limitations. And that's it - system limitations sometimes are the bottleneck. For the player who likes to play as a knight, there is a way to play efficiently, in a variety of flavors. For a player who wanted to play as a soldier with a heavy case of PTSD that caused his character to sometimes have uncontrollable fits of rage, there was fighter/barbarian, which fit his fantasy and also was deadly as hell. For me, who wanted to play as a sleuth and schemer, there was mastermind rogue - not super powerful, but fine, I had more or less what I asked for. But for someone who wanted to play a wise sensei that could gently and gracefully put enemies into KO or make them change their ways with a koan... things just can't work out fine. The system doesn't offer a way to realize that fantasy efficiently. Being an unbreakable, impenetrable paladin - ok, a devastatingly powerful fighter/barbarian that cleaves ghouls in half in one hit - sure, but a powerful monk - nope.
Actually, no, handouts is the last thing any of us would do at the table. The only exception was when we went through Tyranny of Dragons as a party of two, that clearly had to be adjusted at some points. We're not opposed to hardcore challenges and bad endings - Trail of Cthulhu taught us to appreciate character death and worse.
Look. I just want to run up walls at an earlier level than what turns out to be end of the game for most people. Is that so much to ask for?
I sure don't think so!
Hey, what was wrong with post #253? If anything deserves to be deleted, it's the post that it was replying to.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I shall count my blessings that I don’t play at your table. I'm a moderator on a WM server with a mix of optimizers and non-optimizers. And we routinely get complaints whenever a "power gamer" is grouped together with players who design their characters for fun and theme rather than power that the game is not fun because Mr.-I-can-do-100-DPR-at-level6 utterly destroys the combat encounters before anyone else gets to do anything, or Ms.-let-me-cast-20-utility-spells-that-make-your-creative-solution-redundant instantly solves every non-combat challenge and cancels combat by CCing all the enemies or keeps insisting everyone else use their battlefield control to cheese the combat in the most unexciting and uninteresting way.
I would never play with a group that believes a player should be punished for "building a bad character". Because this is not a competitive game, it is a cooperative one. The only way to lose at D&D is to make the people you are playing with not want to play with you. Which means those hyper optimizers I mentioned above - they are the worst players at the game because nobody wants to DM them and nobody wants to play with them.
Lots of people play monks as they are and have fun doing so. We don't need to have the whole class rewritten to just be a fighter that uses unarmed strikes just because 'people' think a +1 increase in AC from being able to wear armour is some how crucial to making a monk 'viable' as a melee combatant - it isn't. There are plenty of magic items that DMs can give to a monk of the player is unhappy with how their monk is playing. But those players who want to enjoy the fantasy of a shaolin fighting monk, or bare-chested kung fu master should have a class that serves that fantasy. If you want to play a super high damage STR-based armour-wearing melee character that using unarmed strikes and can stand toe-to-toe with enemies in combat then play a Barbarian with the unarmed fighting style.
This discussion is not germane to improving the monk as a baseline class in 1DD. With all due respect to some of you, this isn't the place for a long-winded "discussion" on whether so-called optimizers are evil cheating baby-eating tryhard ******** or not.
Please do not contact or message me.
You want to discuss improving the base monk? Okay.
* 5e monk came off as the "dual wield fists" class. I'm going to imagine that we're going to be keeping that going forwards. So, at the most basic, the monk needs to be competitive with dual wielding short swords at level 1, or the class will feel bad. I don't see any way around this. So, base monk damage needs to be 1d6, and the extra attack has to be part of the Attack Action, which frees up their bonus action for monk shenanigans. We might automatically get the Fighting Style for dual wielding, or a choice, and just have the monks fists be outright Light, Finesse weapons instead of their own special thing. This will allow for more interactions with other feats, classes, etc.
* Monk shenanigans will likely include Flurry of Blows, Step of the Wind, and Patient Defense, as usual. I would like to see these three traits built upon instead of just left as is. Especially with subclasses. Maybe make the wall-walking ability part of Step of the Wind. I also expect the Tasha's additions to be front and center, including healing. Which brings me to... Weapons. No more Martial Arts relying on unarmed attacks. If I want to use a whip and reflavor it as a meteor hammer, I don't want to have to stop using it for half my attacks. That sucks. I want to use it for all my attacks.
* 5e classes seem to be moving in a direction to make classes less MAD. So, less dependency on WIS (or DEX). Make Unarmed Defense DEX (or WIS) + Proficiency Bonus, monk needs its unarmored defense to be competitive with regular armor wearers. One stat. Monk saves can be DEX or WIS based, especially if Fighter does the same with their maneuvers. Speaking of, Stunning Strike needs to be weakened in base class - too much of the monk power budget is caught up in that one feature. Need more options. A subclass (Open Hand?) can focus on making it crazy good again.
* The four main subclasses should be Open Hand (shaolin monk archetype, simple), Elemental (Bender, ala Avatar, but NOT with spells, more like dragon monk), Shadow (ninja!) and Kensei (wandering ronin type).
* Deflect Missiles should be competitive with the Shield spell. If wizards get +AC for an entire turn, then monks should for their Deflect Missiles ability too. I say the same for the Rogue's Uncanny Dodge and the Defensive Duelist feat. At least an entire turn - it kind of sucks to deflect one arrow, then have the same archer hit you with the next two arrows.
* Better scaling of abilities in tier 3 and 4. That's a problem that WotC has always had with its martials versus casters.
At the most basic, the monk base damage has to be 1d6. Right now, anyone can use short swords and dual wield for 1d6. So, comparatively, its got to increase or it'll feel bad. There's no way around it.
* Again, compared to short sword dual wielding, Martial Arts needs to work as part of the Attack Action, not bonus action, or it will feel bad. This frees up the bonus action for doing more things. HOWEVER.
I'm fine with Martial Arts being a d4 if it scales up more quickly. If it scaled with proficiency bonus, for example, like proficiency dice in the DM. That way it can grow to d6 (5th), d8 (9th), d10 (13th), and d12 (17th). Or if it can scale more rapidly with Fighting Style: Unarmed Fighting and/or Tavern Brawler. Simple weapons are cheap. Two handaxes are the price of one shortsword.
I'm also fine with Martial Arts staying on the Bonus Action. It gives them one that doesn't cost anything, and that's potentially 4 attacks at 5th level. And it makes Flurry of Blows seem more special since it's an upgrade of this baseline ability.
I don't think the bonus punch needs to be bundled with the Attack action. I honestly think it's more valuable as a "Martial Arts" multi-use bonus action similar to Cunning Action, as it means the monk can gain at least one full-powered* strike regardless of what they do with their action. Flurry of Blows, if it remains at all, could be an upgrade to the Attack action instead, bolting an extra strike onto the action TWF style. Cunning Action works very well for letting rogues feel more slippery and nimble than regular plodding warriors; why not borrow the framework for the other class that wants to feel nimble and evasive, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
In 5e, there's two ways to make bonus action attacks with the Monk. The first is through the Martial Arts ability that you get at level 1, and effectively acts like Two Weapon Fighting rules. The second is Flurry of Blows, which effectively provides a second bonus action attack on top of the one from Martial Arts, but at the cost of 1 ki. You get this one at level 2.
If you are talking about keeping the former, Martial Arts attack as a bonus action, then using two short swords with the new Light property is going to be an objectively better option in 1D&D. You'll be able to have all the damage of Martial Arts, but keeping your bonus action free for SotW or PD. No matter how you look at it, that's going to feel bad for lots of people. Or, worse, be open to funky rules lawyering shenanigans. I mean, this is supposed to be about improving the monk, and having them be worse than a rogue with two short swords at level 1 is not the way to do that.
If you're just talking about Flurry of Blows, then yes, you could likely keep that as a bonus action. Two attacks during Attack action, then the third as a bonus action attack.
Why would MA punch as a bonus action conflict with two-weapon fighting? That's rather the point - the monk would get TWF and an unarmed strike if they opted for it. Which would be a little much for lower levels, but eh. Individual monk attacks do poor damage anyways, it may balance out fine in the end.
Please do not contact or message me.
That would force the monks to dual wield.
What is the point? Please clarify. Are you saying that monks should, by default, get TWF with short swords and a free BA attack from level 1 martial arts and no ki? And you feel that's the point of the class?
It is a bit tricky.
I think the ideal situation would be for a Monk at any level to function as well as it does in 5e with regards to extra attacks. Since 6e is giving a dual light weapon user an extra attack without using a bonus action, then the monk needs that too. But it can't stack with the 2 weapon fighting or it would always be the best option. And the Monk attack damage will eventually scale much better than the 1d6 maximum you can get with the off hand weapon. That might be okay, but it's worth considering.
So the thing we are really trying to do, to keep the balance, is give the Monk an extra 1d6 attack for free only in situations where they could get one from 2 weapons.
So I think maybe the way to write it is -
If you are making an unarmed attack, or a weapon attack with a light monk weapon in only one hand, you can make an additional unarmed attack for free.
Then keep Flurry of Blows as a bonus action.
That extra attack will eventually scale higher than a second weapon would, but at that level it might be fine. Sadly it does prevent using a staff with both hands for the higher versatile damage. The trade off is still probably worth it.
It wouldn't force monks to dual-wield any more than other classes arer 'forced' to dual-wield. The extra TWF attack is a max of 1d6 with no Dex unless you burn your starter feat on TWF-the-style, which is the same bonus everybody else gets for TWF. Nobody else is feeling 'forced' to dual-wield, ne? Why should monks? If they want to they can, but it shouldn't affect their class features.
Please do not contact or message me.
So... you either go bare-handed and deal 1d6+Dex fist + 1d6+Dex bonus action, or dual wield and deal 1d6+Dex main hand + 1d6 off-hand + 1d6+Dex bonus action. Why would I not want to make an extra attack for 1d6 damage that by the way scales with martial arts just like bare fists (because monk weapons), and can be a magic weapon+3, unlike fists? Correct me if I'm getting that wrong...
No, I think that's accurate. Maybe 'forced' isn't exactly the word. But the benefits of 3 attacks over 2 are so great that you would basically see every Monk with 2 Short Swords and two weapon fighting style, which would be pretty sad from a variety point of view.