That's a good point. Perhaps having Step of the Wind be a free action but cost ki, and Disengage cost a bonus action but not ki makes the most sense mechanically, then monks could mix and match when they just need to avoid AoO vs uber speed or both. Could put BA Disengage in with Unarmoured Movement, or just make it it's own feature.
I completely disagree, fighter (prior to Tasha's) was utterly useless at unarmed fighting and even post-Tasha's is bad at it. Fighter doesn't get any additional attacks beyond other martials until level 11! Almost all of modules end either before or within 3 levels of that so in practice Fighters almost never see their extra attacks. However their extra Feats start coming on line at level 6 which makes them active for ~ 50% of a typical game. Action Surge is not built upon by any subclass feature, and doesn't scale at all until level 18 thus I don't know why you think it is their core class feature. Compare to Monks where ki scales every level, and Flurry of Blows is built upon by half their subclasses.
Stunning Strike is more akin to Action Surge -> no subclass builds upon it. It does scale in uses but not a lot because the chance of monsters to save from it also scales up by level so the net effect of number of Stuns achieved per round of combat stays relatively stable. Stunning Strike is a great feature and I hope it stays with minimal nerfs in One D&D but it is not and should not be the be all and end all of monk. Monk is great because of its versatility to perform strategic strikes in combat, this might be running to the back lines and stunning enemy casters, it might be tanking a swarm of minions, or it might be hit & running focusing on damage.
While the fighter were no more effective than anyone else with unarmed strikes, they were no less effective, either. Whether you think that's suboptimal or not doesn't matter. That's not what I take umbrage with.
Action Surge is built upon by both Eldritch Knight (Arcane Charge at 15th level) and Purple Dragon Knight/Banneret (Inspiring Surge at 10th level). And it's something nobody else has access to. It's as much a core ability of the fighter as Second Wind is.
You're welcome to disagree. Just know you're also objectively wrong.
That's a good point. Perhaps having Step of the Wind be a free action but cost ki, and Disengage cost a bonus action but not ki makes the most sense mechanically, then monks could mix and match when they just need to avoid AoO vs uber speed or both. Could put BA Disengage in with Unarmoured Movement, or just make it it's own feature.
Yeah I really like that. Step of the Wind for increased movement at a KI cost. Disengage as a Bonus Action as part of Unarmored Movement. Then you could do none, either, or both, all with increasing cost.
That's a good point. Perhaps having Step of the Wind be a free action but cost ki, and Disengage cost a bonus action but not ki makes the most sense mechanically, then monks could mix and match when they just need to avoid AoO vs uber speed or both. Could put BA Disengage in with Unarmoured Movement, or just make it it's own feature.
Yeah I really like that. Step of the Wind for increased movement at a KI cost. Disengage as a Bonus Action as part of Unarmored Movement. Then you could do none, either, or both, all with increasing cost.
I had thought maybe disengage could scale with unarmored movement. At 2nd level uses 1 Ki to BA disengage like you currently do. Then at 6th or 9th it costs no Ki to BA disengage. Then at 10th or 14th (depending on if the previous was 6th or 9th) your movement does not provoke OA, period. Maybe a bit much and could come online later but if anyone could do this it would be the monk.
That's a good point. Perhaps having Step of the Wind be a free action but cost ki, and Disengage cost a bonus action but not ki makes the most sense mechanically, then monks could mix and match when they just need to avoid AoO vs uber speed or both. Could put BA Disengage in with Unarmoured Movement, or just make it it's own feature.
Yeah I really like that. Step of the Wind for increased movement at a KI cost. Disengage as a Bonus Action as part of Unarmored Movement. Then you could do none, either, or both, all with increasing cost.
I had thought maybe disengage could scale with unarmored movement. At 2nd level uses 1 Ki to BA disengage like you currently do. Then at 6th or 9th it costs no Ki to BA disengage. Then at 10th or 14th (depending on if the previous was 6th or 9th) your movement does not provoke OA, period. Maybe a bit much and could come online later but if anyone could do this it would be the monk.
That would certainly be a lot of fun to play! It's great flavor for the class. I'm not sure about the balance without a lot of thinking, but I like the idea.
I really want step of the wind to read: As a bonus action you expend 1 ki and may take the dash action or jump action. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity and if you take the jump action you distance is doubled.
... I swear, it sometimes feels like some people are actively hating martial artists and strive to make this fantasy's practical implementation inferior to other playstyles for reasons beyond my understanding. Why bother making unarmored fighting viable, just give them armor. Why bother making martial arts competitive, just give them weapons. Why bother making martial artist an efficient playstyle, just play a reflavored fighter. Just... why? Is it because making monks just like every other martial is an easier way out? Is it because designing a class that works differently so unimaginable?
Because otherwise the monk is a one-note one-trick chump that can only do ONE thing, ever. Saying "monks must be unarmored martial artists that hate weapons, protectives, and every other means of combat and are required to fight with their bare fists in their bathrobe and anyone who wants to do anything else can **** off and die forever" doesn't further the conversation, ne? Monks have been weapon-users for the entirety of R5e; they can use their fists, or they can make effective use of monk weapons. Many, many martial arts integrate weapons into their techniques, mingling armed blows with unarmed strikes and grapples.
Building a monk that actively sabotages weapon combat in order to inordinately favor unarmed blows just means the monk will be worse than it already was, even more niche and unpalatable, and quite possibly lose its place as a core class in future editions/revisions. Monks have to be more flexible than that or they won't get to live past "Two D&D" in the future.
Flexibility isn't what makes a class stick around. It is class identity. Barbarian is more one-note than Monk is, since it MUST use melee STR-based attacks, and the only thing it really shines at is tanking. Monk has a surprising diversity of combat options, and has the most distinctive subclasses of any martial. Wearing armour does not significantly alter play style mainly just aesthetics, nor does using a shortsword vs a bare fist. Monks do and should continue to have ranged options as a Dex-based class in addition to weapons and in addition to unarmed strikes.
Because otherwise the monk is a one-note one-trick chump that can only do ONE thing, ever. Saying "monks must be unarmored martial artists that hate weapons, protectives, and every other means of combat and are required to fight with their bare fists in their bathrobe and anyone who wants to do anything else can **** off and die forever" doesn't further the conversation, ne? Monks have been weapon-users for the entirety of R5e; they can use their fists, or they can make effective use of monk weapons. Many, many martial arts integrate weapons into their techniques, mingling armed blows with unarmed strikes and grapples.
Building a monk that actively sabotages weapon combat in order to inordinately favor unarmed blows just means the monk will be worse than it already was, even more niche and unpalatable, and quite possibly lose its place as a core class in future editions/revisions. Monks have to be more flexible than that or they won't get to live past "Two D&D" in the future.
Saying that monk would become a one-trick chump if unarmed fighting is a competitive alternative to weapons is... strange. I never said that unarmed combat should be the only option available, only that it should be significantly buffed to compete with dual wielding shortswords+3.
Besides, aren't fighters, barbarians, and rogues three identical one-trick classes that can only do one thing without variations? Because all they have is weapons. Monk already has wildly different subclasses, and I consider monk to be the best example of subclass variety - ninja, healer, avatar, hadouken cannon, and an almost SAD Stand user. If you still think monk is a one trick pony, you could watch - Cthulhu forgive me - Naruto and see just how much stuff those ninja kids do without weapons and armor (though a few of them do use weapons and armor) in a wuxia setting. I think you're limiting your imagination, thinking in terms set by might vs magic dichotomy, where monk has to fit the mold and be like the rest in the camp of might, functioning exactly like the other martials.
Monks can be - and should be - their own thing. They are alien to begin with. A class rooted in Eastern fantasy in a game that originally developed around European myths. They are not magicians, but they are magical. They do incredible, supernatural things with their body and spirit. They stand in between martials and spellcasters, with their fists essentially being melee Eldritch Blast. Try to think of monk as a sort of warlock that casts knuckle sandwitch as a cantrip. It's okay if they have a subclass emulating traditional martial (kensei) or a traditional spellcaster (four elements, though ancient Chinese cosmology has a different system, with five elements: earth, water, fire, metal, and wood). But at their core, monks are their own thing and deserve their own design - of a combatant who can magically fight unarmed and unarmored and be as good at it as a fully equipped warrior.
A Monk's Martial Arts =/= 'Fists as weapons', because unarmed Martial Arts attacks (and unarmed attacks in general) encompasses more than just punches. It also involves kicks, headbutts, knee- and elbow strikes, arm bars and lots of other attacks made with the body rather than a weapon.
Because that's what Monks are:
They are people who train their bodies (and spirit) to be their weapon so that they can defend themselves no matter the circumstances.
This makes them the polar opposite, from a philosophical and game standpoint, of the Fighter class.
Because Fighters are people who train to become proficient in a wide range of weapons and armour so that they can always use the right tools for the job.
Fighter = Can fight effectively with any weapons or armours available to them. Monk = Can fight effectively without any weapons or armours available to them.
And sure, Monks in 5e become less effective combatants at higher levels because 5e attempts to use equipment (particularly weapons and armour) to balance out the Martial-Caster power gap a little and Monks, being the class that's not supposed to need equipment to be competent combatants, don't share in that...
But the way to make Monks better as a class is not and never will be to make them more reliant on equipment.
Especially when you take into account that the 'Shaolin Warriors' mentioned on the first page weren't (pure) Monks, in D&D terms. They were young monks conscripted from monasteries and given the same training and equipment as all other conscripts of the Chinese Imperial army. They had something that made them better than average soldiers, but it wasn't their martial arts training, because, much like European conscript armies, they fought with spears in regimented ranks and breaking rank to go kick and punch enemy soldiers would've been a good way to get not just themselves but everyone else around them killed.
So in D&D terms they were pretty much Multi-Classed Fighters with at best an early dip in Monk. (And since the start of Kung Fu training as part of meditative practice at Shaolin Monastery didn't start until after the practice of conscripting monks became popular, the earliest 'Shaolin Warriors' were straight up single class Fighters who happened to have the Acolyte Background.)
They were good soldiers because, being small-m monks, they were already used to a regimented life in spartan conditions and in obeying their superiors, which made them adapt to military life faster and with fewer morale issues than the average peasant.
What about all the monks that want to use a simple wooden quarterstaff to lay low their foes?
What about all the monks that use a single shortsword as a jian, ninjato, or other short, handy blade to pierce their foes' defenses?
What about monks that want to use a club (or even a pair of clubs) as escrima sticks or other fighting rods?
What about monks that use a dagger and play their character up as a Philipino-style knife master?
Why are all of those concepts all right to shove aside and abandon in favor of making monks capable solely and exclusively of Fist Punching?
They aren't? Making Monk equally effective whether using a weapon or using fists is the goal, so people can flavour it however they want. Flurry should be limited to unarmed strikes because weapon-wielding monks can use Fighting Styles to get higher damage with their main attacks and then do one of the many other options for their BA.
What about all the monks that want to use a simple wooden quarterstaff to lay low their foes?
What about all the monks that use a single shortsword as a jian, ninjato, or other short, handy blade to pierce their foes' defenses?
What about monks that want to use a club (or even a pair of clubs) as escrima sticks or other fighting rods?
What about monks that use a dagger and play their character up as a Philipino-style knife master?
Why are all of those concepts all right to shove aside and abandon in favor of making monks capable solely and exclusively of Fist Punching?
I don’t think anyone is trying to push all of them aside. Even now in 5E you can be a dagger wielding monk with damage that scales with MA die.
If they make it so that with MA when wielding only one weapon or unarmed when you take the attack action you can make an additional unarmed strike as part of that action it wouldn’t conflict or stack with light property (ilight requires you start attack action with two weapons, I believe they changed it to and I stated MA wielding only one weapon). So you can use one short sword and still unarmed strike, wield a quarter staff and unarmed strike, wield two short swords and use light property and it should all equal out, especially if unarmed strikes start at d6 (which would benefit a one or two wielding dagger monk as well). FoB can be the BA attack if you want to spend Ki.
Another way to allow Monks to sorta benefit from magical items is if they had a feature that allowed them to use Ki to copy an item's numeric bonus or magic effects while still retaining their unarmoured defense and martial arts. You'd have to make some caveats to it, like it removes the effects from the item, or they need to renew it every long rest or something, or they can have only one armor or weapon bonus at one time. Then, if they equip something that has a magic effect to it while having copied one already, then their copied effects doesn't work, like the magic interferes with their Ki or some other reason to prevent stacking bonuses.
i mean, it'd just be easier to allow Monks to use the items directly, but this could be a compromise.
In 5e if you dual-wield monk weapons or use the two-handed strike on a versatile monk weapon or use a two-handed Kensei weapon (which counts as a monk weapon for you), in other words: if you have both hands full, you can still make an unarmed strike as a bonus action (granted, you can't if you're dual-wielding and use your bonus action to strike with the off-hand weapon, but that's a result of only getting one bonus action per round, not of having your hands full). Because Unarmed Strikes are not limited to punches.
And since the only real effect of using a Monk Weapon over using an Unarmed Attack once your MA die exceeds the weapon die is the type of damage you do, I don't really see a reason why you shouldn't be able to do a Flurry of Blows with a Monk Weapon if we all agree that MA dice should start higher, which I think we do. (Yes, yes, I know that I'm the one that said that Monks being reliant on equipment is bad flavour, but then again the whole reason I think that this is okay is that the Monk isn't reliant on the weapon, because the Monk would do just as much damage with a punch, a kick or a headbutt as they do with the weapon).
The original DnD Monk was definitely based on eastern philosophy (think Shaolin Monks) and the class even had limited numbers of high level. The Grandmaster was 17th level and there was only one of them. To advance in level player had to beat out the monk currently in that seat. It was different. The fights were more sparing matches than to the death and might even be a dance contest depending on how the DM set up the monastery but it was what it was.
That said while the Tibetan & Shaolin Monks are Buddhists and are devoutly religious in history the nature of Bushism and what the Monk represents is not really the same as a religious western convent of Monks. The ascetics are supposedly trying to divorce themselves from the karma of the material world to prepare for enlightenment. This is somewhat different meaning the monks would not be preachers teaching religious philosophy, others would do that. They were cutting themselves off from the world and honing their bodies was a way of meeting that end, meditating etc,
I don't fully understand it but while it is of the religion it is not religious in the way I would think of it. Theoretically, Jainism is a religion that teaches there are reincarnation and souls but no Gods so is a religion but is atheistic depending on how you define that term. They are Indian but I believe have monasteries and gurus that follow traditions like the monks do.
It really is more about a dedication to that way of life, removing oneself from the material world, meditation, etc. to prepare the soul to ascend so it is different.
In the DnD world you could easily have Monastaries devoted to all lawful gods or the lawful alignment or a philosophy etc. and it would still work. It gets confused because many DM's and players combine elements of Eastern and Western monasteries into something new but that is OK.
What about all the monks that want to use a simple wooden quarterstaff to lay low their foes?
What about all the monks that use a single shortsword as a jian, ninjato, or other short, handy blade to pierce their foes' defenses?
What about monks that want to use a club (or even a pair of clubs) as escrima sticks or other fighting rods?
What about monks that use a dagger and play their character up as a Philipino-style knife master?
Why are all of those concepts all right to shove aside and abandon in favor of making monks capable solely and exclusively of Fist Punching?
No one said anything about banning weapons for monks altogether. Just that fists have to be equally powerful, because monks are the only class that is really designed for those who want to play as martial artists.
In 5e if you dual-wield monk weapons or use the two-handed strike on a versatile monk weapon or use a two-handed Kensei weapon (which counts as a monk weapon for you), in other words: if you have both hands full, you can still make an unarmed strike as a bonus action (granted, you can't if you're dual-wielding and use your bonus action to strike with the off-hand weapon, but that's a result of only getting one bonus action per round, not of having your hands full). Because Unarmed Strikes are not limited to punches.
And since the only real effect of using a Monk Weapon over using an Unarmed Attack once your MA die exceeds the weapon die is the type of damage you do, I don't really see a reason why you shouldn't be able to do a Flurry of Blows with a Monk Weapon if we all agree that MA dice should start higher, which I think we do. (Yes, yes, I know that I'm the one that said that Monks being reliant on equipment is bad flavour, but then again the whole reason I think that this is okay is that the Monk isn't reliant on the weapon, because the Monk would do just as much damage with a punch, a kick or a headbutt as they do with the weapon).
Actually, it is a part of the problem. The way monk weapons work, it makes no sense to fight unarmed when there's quarterstaff that deals 1d8 damage. And considering that monk weapons scale with martial arts die, magic weapons are always superior to unarmed fighting. Now, there is a couple of magic items in the entire game that can give a +1 or +2 bonus to your unarmed attacks, but making exclusive crutches for monks to let them function like other martials is not an optimal, universal solution in my opinion.
Which is why I believe that martial arts die should not apply to monk weapons.
But how should martial arts scale for unarmed damage? At the beginning, a martial can start with dual wielding d6+Str/Dex weapons with TWF fighting style. A logical starting point for unarmed damage. Two unarmed attacks for 1d6+Dex. But where to end? If we measure monks against other fast hitters, namely the fighter, we have to compete against four attacks for 2d6+3+Str at level 17 (assuming that fighters keep their Extra Attack (3) feature and it gets moved to level 17 like the other class capstones). So I would say that unarmed scaling should end at at least three attacks for 2d8+Dex by level 17, four with Flurry of Blows. If martial arts die starts at 1d6 and increases every fourth level, 1d8 at lvl4, 1d10 at lvl8, 2d6 at lvl12 (that's when fighter gains third attack, almost equal though still behind magic greatsword), and 2d8 at lvl16, that would be in the competitive martial ballpark. Though we'll have to factor in flurry of blows. Monk can equal fighter's output if FoB becomes free at some point, maybe around lvl11.
A 1d8+3 quarterstaff is roughly as good as 2d8 fist, given that said magical quarterstaff may have additional effects.
What about all the monks that want to use a simple wooden quarterstaff to lay low their foes?
What about all the monks that use a single shortsword as a jian, ninjato, or other short, handy blade to pierce their foes' defenses?
What about monks that want to use a club (or even a pair of clubs) as escrima sticks or other fighting rods?
What about monks that use a dagger and play their character up as a Philipino-style knife master?
Why are all of those concepts all right to shove aside and abandon in favor of making monks capable solely and exclusively of Fist Punching?
No one said anything about banning weapons for monks altogether. Just that fists have to be equally powerful, because monks are the only class that is really designed for those who want to play as martial artists.
In 5e if you dual-wield monk weapons or use the two-handed strike on a versatile monk weapon or use a two-handed Kensei weapon (which counts as a monk weapon for you), in other words: if you have both hands full, you can still make an unarmed strike as a bonus action (granted, you can't if you're dual-wielding and use your bonus action to strike with the off-hand weapon, but that's a result of only getting one bonus action per round, not of having your hands full). Because Unarmed Strikes are not limited to punches.
And since the only real effect of using a Monk Weapon over using an Unarmed Attack once your MA die exceeds the weapon die is the type of damage you do, I don't really see a reason why you shouldn't be able to do a Flurry of Blows with a Monk Weapon if we all agree that MA dice should start higher, which I think we do. (Yes, yes, I know that I'm the one that said that Monks being reliant on equipment is bad flavour, but then again the whole reason I think that this is okay is that the Monk isn't reliant on the weapon, because the Monk would do just as much damage with a punch, a kick or a headbutt as they do with the weapon).
Actually, it is a part of the problem. The way monk weapons work, it makes no sense to fight unarmed when there's quarterstaff that deals 1d8 damage. And considering that monk weapons scale with martial arts die, magic weapons are always superior to unarmed fighting. Now, there is a couple of magic items in the entire game that can give a +1 or +2 bonus to your unarmed attacks, but making exclusive crutches for monks to let them function like other martials is not an optimal, universal solution in my opinion.
Which is why I believe that martial arts die should not apply to monk weapons.
But how should martial arts scale for unarmed damage? At the beginning, a martial can start with dual wielding d6+Str/Dex weapons with TWF fighting style. A logical starting point for unarmed damage. Two unarmed attacks for 1d6+Dex. But where to end? If we measure monks against other fast hitters, namely the fighter, we have to compete against four attacks for 2d6+3+Str at level 17 (assuming that fighters keep their Extra Attack (3) feature and it gets moved to level 17 like the other class capstones). So I would say that unarmed scaling should end at at least three attacks for 2d8+Dex by level 17, four with Flurry of Blows. If martial arts die starts at 1d6 and increases every fourth level, 1d8 at lvl4, 1d10 at lvl8, 2d6 at lvl12 (that's when fighter gains third attack, almost equal though still behind magic greatsword), and 2d8 at lvl16, that would be in the competitive martial ballpark. Though we'll have to factor in flurry of blows. Monk can equal fighter's output if FoB becomes free at some point, maybe around lvl11.
A 1d8+3 quarterstaff is roughly as good as 2d8 fist, given that said magical quarterstaff may have additional effects.
I’m fine with weapons scaling with MA die. If they start at d6 you’re just 1 point of damage on average behind quarterstaff d8 versatile until 5th level. Yes magic weapons would always be better but they are magic and if you are building to a theme then it shouldn’t matter that much. Or give minks who fight completely unarmed a bonus that scales +1 to +3 at appropriate levels, kind of like rage bonus damage.
At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are any simple melee weapons that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property and one martial weapon of your choice that does not have the two-handed or heavy property.
You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield:
You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of your unarmed strikes and monk weapons.
You can roll a d6 in place of the normal damage of your unarmed strike or monk weapon. This die changes as you gain monk levels, as shown in the Martial Arts column of the Monk table.
When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one additional unarmed strike or attack with a monk weapon with the light property as part of the same action. This additional attack uses the same attack and damage modifiers. For example, if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike or a shortsword you are holding as a part of the same action, or if you take the attack action with a short sword you can also make an unarmed strike or another shortsword attack with the same action. If the attack is made with a monk weapon that has the light property the additional attack can be made with the same or another light property monk weapon you are holding. In either case both attacks would add your modifier to damage.
This makes it so monks don’t have to worry about the two weapon fighting style or dual wielder feat. I would then make flurry of blows:
Flurry of Blows
Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make one unarmed strike or attack with monk weapon that has light property as a bonus action. Starting at 11th you can make two attacks as a bonus action with this feature.
I would also change ki empowered strikes:
Ki-Empowered Strikes
Starting at 6th level, your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage. At 10th level you gain the ability to augment your unarmed strikes further with your ki. As a bonus action, you can expend up to 3 ki points to grant your unarmed strikes a bonus to attack and damage rolls. The bonus equals the number of ki points you spent. This bonus lasts for 1 minute.
I stole that second part from the Kensei monk and modified it for all monks unarmed damage. I believe this makes the monk fair whether they want to use weapons or fight unarmed. Some sub classes will lean toward unarmed and others toward weapon use so this allows players to pick their flavor without feeling self nerfed.
I’m fine with weapons scaling with MA die. If they start at d6 you’re just 1 point of damage on average behind quarterstaff d8 versatile until 5th level. Yes magic weapons would always be better but they are magic and if you are building to a theme then it shouldn’t matter that much. Or give minks who fight completely unarmed a bonus that scales +1 to +3 at appropriate levels, kind of like rage bonus damage.
Thing is, spellcasters can have full damage potential without relying on magic weapons. Why can't monks? I'm trying to step outside of logic of shoehorning monks into the same mold as other martials. Am I trying to make it different for the aske of it being different? As a matter of fact, it's partly true, because making fists into just another weapon is boring. What about developing a way of fighting that feels like you're becoming as powerful as monsters the party faces, transcending human limits without relying on equipment? I mean, it's what spellcasters do; monk just does it in a physical way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's a good point. Perhaps having Step of the Wind be a free action but cost ki, and Disengage cost a bonus action but not ki makes the most sense mechanically, then monks could mix and match when they just need to avoid AoO vs uber speed or both. Could put BA Disengage in with Unarmoured Movement, or just make it it's own feature.
While the fighter were no more effective than anyone else with unarmed strikes, they were no less effective, either. Whether you think that's suboptimal or not doesn't matter. That's not what I take umbrage with.
Action Surge is built upon by both Eldritch Knight (Arcane Charge at 15th level) and Purple Dragon Knight/Banneret (Inspiring Surge at 10th level). And it's something nobody else has access to. It's as much a core ability of the fighter as Second Wind is.
You're welcome to disagree. Just know you're also objectively wrong.
Yeah I really like that. Step of the Wind for increased movement at a KI cost. Disengage as a Bonus Action as part of Unarmored Movement. Then you could do none, either, or both, all with increasing cost.
I had thought maybe disengage could scale with unarmored movement. At 2nd level uses 1 Ki to BA disengage like you currently do. Then at 6th or 9th it costs no Ki to BA disengage. Then at 10th or 14th (depending on if the previous was 6th or 9th) your movement does not provoke OA, period. Maybe a bit much and could come online later but if anyone could do this it would be the monk.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
That would certainly be a lot of fun to play! It's great flavor for the class. I'm not sure about the balance without a lot of thinking, but I like the idea.
I really want step of the wind to read: As a bonus action you expend 1 ki and may take the dash action or jump action. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity and if you take the jump action you distance is doubled.
Because otherwise the monk is a one-note one-trick chump that can only do ONE thing, ever. Saying "monks must be unarmored martial artists that hate weapons, protectives, and every other means of combat and are required to fight with their bare fists in their bathrobe and anyone who wants to do anything else can **** off and die forever" doesn't further the conversation, ne? Monks have been weapon-users for the entirety of R5e; they can use their fists, or they can make effective use of monk weapons. Many, many martial arts integrate weapons into their techniques, mingling armed blows with unarmed strikes and grapples.
Building a monk that actively sabotages weapon combat in order to inordinately favor unarmed blows just means the monk will be worse than it already was, even more niche and unpalatable, and quite possibly lose its place as a core class in future editions/revisions. Monks have to be more flexible than that or they won't get to live past "Two D&D" in the future.
Please do not contact or message me.
Flexibility isn't what makes a class stick around. It is class identity. Barbarian is more one-note than Monk is, since it MUST use melee STR-based attacks, and the only thing it really shines at is tanking. Monk has a surprising diversity of combat options, and has the most distinctive subclasses of any martial. Wearing armour does not significantly alter play style mainly just aesthetics, nor does using a shortsword vs a bare fist. Monks do and should continue to have ranged options as a Dex-based class in addition to weapons and in addition to unarmed strikes.
Saying that monk would become a one-trick chump if unarmed fighting is a competitive alternative to weapons is... strange. I never said that unarmed combat should be the only option available, only that it should be significantly buffed to compete with dual wielding shortswords+3.
Besides, aren't fighters, barbarians, and rogues three identical one-trick classes that can only do one thing without variations? Because all they have is weapons. Monk already has wildly different subclasses, and I consider monk to be the best example of subclass variety - ninja, healer, avatar, hadouken cannon, and an almost SAD Stand user. If you still think monk is a one trick pony, you could watch - Cthulhu forgive me - Naruto and see just how much stuff those ninja kids do without weapons and armor (though a few of them do use weapons and armor) in a wuxia setting. I think you're limiting your imagination, thinking in terms set by might vs magic dichotomy, where monk has to fit the mold and be like the rest in the camp of might, functioning exactly like the other martials.
Monks can be - and should be - their own thing. They are alien to begin with. A class rooted in Eastern fantasy in a game that originally developed around European myths. They are not magicians, but they are magical. They do incredible, supernatural things with their body and spirit. They stand in between martials and spellcasters, with their fists essentially being melee Eldritch Blast. Try to think of monk as a sort of warlock that casts knuckle sandwitch as a cantrip. It's okay if they have a subclass emulating traditional martial (kensei) or a traditional spellcaster (four elements, though ancient Chinese cosmology has a different system, with five elements: earth, water, fire, metal, and wood). But at their core, monks are their own thing and deserve their own design - of a combatant who can magically fight unarmed and unarmored and be as good at it as a fully equipped warrior.
Ok, so...
Couple of things:
A Monk's Martial Arts =/= 'Fists as weapons', because unarmed Martial Arts attacks (and unarmed attacks in general) encompasses more than just punches. It also involves kicks, headbutts, knee- and elbow strikes, arm bars and lots of other attacks made with the body rather than a weapon.
Because that's what Monks are:
They are people who train their bodies (and spirit) to be their weapon so that they can defend themselves no matter the circumstances.
This makes them the polar opposite, from a philosophical and game standpoint, of the Fighter class.
Because Fighters are people who train to become proficient in a wide range of weapons and armour so that they can always use the right tools for the job.
Fighter = Can fight effectively with any weapons or armours available to them.
Monk = Can fight effectively without any weapons or armours available to them.
And sure, Monks in 5e become less effective combatants at higher levels because 5e attempts to use equipment (particularly weapons and armour) to balance out the Martial-Caster power gap a little and Monks, being the class that's not supposed to need equipment to be competent combatants, don't share in that...
But the way to make Monks better as a class is not and never will be to make them more reliant on equipment.
Especially when you take into account that the 'Shaolin Warriors' mentioned on the first page weren't (pure) Monks, in D&D terms. They were young monks conscripted from monasteries and given the same training and equipment as all other conscripts of the Chinese Imperial army. They had something that made them better than average soldiers, but it wasn't their martial arts training, because, much like European conscript armies, they fought with spears in regimented ranks and breaking rank to go kick and punch enemy soldiers would've been a good way to get not just themselves but everyone else around them killed.
So in D&D terms they were pretty much Multi-Classed Fighters with at best an early dip in Monk. (And since the start of Kung Fu training as part of meditative practice at Shaolin Monastery didn't start until after the practice of conscripting monks became popular, the earliest 'Shaolin Warriors' were straight up single class Fighters who happened to have the Acolyte Background.)
They were good soldiers because, being small-m monks, they were already used to a regimented life in spartan conditions and in obeying their superiors, which made them adapt to military life faster and with fewer morale issues than the average peasant.
What about all the monks that want to use a simple wooden quarterstaff to lay low their foes?
What about all the monks that use a single shortsword as a jian, ninjato, or other short, handy blade to pierce their foes' defenses?
What about monks that want to use a club (or even a pair of clubs) as escrima sticks or other fighting rods?
What about monks that use a dagger and play their character up as a Philipino-style knife master?
Why are all of those concepts all right to shove aside and abandon in favor of making monks capable solely and exclusively of Fist Punching?
Please do not contact or message me.
They aren't? Making Monk equally effective whether using a weapon or using fists is the goal, so people can flavour it however they want. Flurry should be limited to unarmed strikes because weapon-wielding monks can use Fighting Styles to get higher damage with their main attacks and then do one of the many other options for their BA.
I don’t think anyone is trying to push all of them aside. Even now in 5E you can be a dagger wielding monk with damage that scales with MA die.
If they make it so that with MA when wielding only one weapon or unarmed when you take the attack action you can make an additional unarmed strike as part of that action it wouldn’t conflict or stack with light property (ilight requires you start attack action with two weapons, I believe they changed it to and I stated MA wielding only one weapon). So you can use one short sword and still unarmed strike, wield a quarter staff and unarmed strike, wield two short swords and use light property and it should all equal out, especially if unarmed strikes start at d6 (which would benefit a one or two wielding dagger monk as well). FoB can be the BA attack if you want to spend Ki.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Another way to allow Monks to sorta benefit from magical items is if they had a feature that allowed them to use Ki to copy an item's numeric bonus or magic effects while still retaining their unarmoured defense and martial arts. You'd have to make some caveats to it, like it removes the effects from the item, or they need to renew it every long rest or something, or they can have only one armor or weapon bonus at one time. Then, if they equip something that has a magic effect to it while having copied one already, then their copied effects doesn't work, like the magic interferes with their Ki or some other reason to prevent stacking bonuses.
i mean, it'd just be easier to allow Monks to use the items directly, but this could be a compromise.
Time point out more stuff:
In 5e if you dual-wield monk weapons or use the two-handed strike on a versatile monk weapon or use a two-handed Kensei weapon (which counts as a monk weapon for you), in other words: if you have both hands full, you can still make an unarmed strike as a bonus action (granted, you can't if you're dual-wielding and use your bonus action to strike with the off-hand weapon, but that's a result of only getting one bonus action per round, not of having your hands full). Because Unarmed Strikes are not limited to punches.
And since the only real effect of using a Monk Weapon over using an Unarmed Attack once your MA die exceeds the weapon die is the type of damage you do, I don't really see a reason why you shouldn't be able to do a Flurry of Blows with a Monk Weapon if we all agree that MA dice should start higher, which I think we do. (Yes, yes, I know that I'm the one that said that Monks being reliant on equipment is bad flavour, but then again the whole reason I think that this is okay is that the Monk isn't reliant on the weapon, because the Monk would do just as much damage with a punch, a kick or a headbutt as they do with the weapon).
The original DnD Monk was definitely based on eastern philosophy (think Shaolin Monks) and the class even had limited numbers of high level. The Grandmaster was 17th level and there was only one of them. To advance in level player had to beat out the monk currently in that seat. It was different. The fights were more sparing matches than to the death and might even be a dance contest depending on how the DM set up the monastery but it was what it was.
That said while the Tibetan & Shaolin Monks are Buddhists and are devoutly religious in history the nature of Bushism and what the Monk represents is not really the same as a religious western convent of Monks. The ascetics are supposedly trying to divorce themselves from the karma of the material world to prepare for enlightenment. This is somewhat different meaning the monks would not be preachers teaching religious philosophy, others would do that. They were cutting themselves off from the world and honing their bodies was a way of meeting that end, meditating etc,
I don't fully understand it but while it is of the religion it is not religious in the way I would think of it. Theoretically, Jainism is a religion that teaches there are reincarnation and souls but no Gods so is a religion but is atheistic depending on how you define that term. They are Indian but I believe have monasteries and gurus that follow traditions like the monks do.
It really is more about a dedication to that way of life, removing oneself from the material world, meditation, etc. to prepare the soul to ascend so it is different.
In the DnD world you could easily have Monastaries devoted to all lawful gods or the lawful alignment or a philosophy etc. and it would still work. It gets confused because many DM's and players combine elements of Eastern and Western monasteries into something new but that is OK.
No one said anything about banning weapons for monks altogether. Just that fists have to be equally powerful, because monks are the only class that is really designed for those who want to play as martial artists.
Actually, it is a part of the problem. The way monk weapons work, it makes no sense to fight unarmed when there's quarterstaff that deals 1d8 damage. And considering that monk weapons scale with martial arts die, magic weapons are always superior to unarmed fighting. Now, there is a couple of magic items in the entire game that can give a +1 or +2 bonus to your unarmed attacks, but making exclusive crutches for monks to let them function like other martials is not an optimal, universal solution in my opinion.
Which is why I believe that martial arts die should not apply to monk weapons.
But how should martial arts scale for unarmed damage? At the beginning, a martial can start with dual wielding d6+Str/Dex weapons with TWF fighting style. A logical starting point for unarmed damage. Two unarmed attacks for 1d6+Dex. But where to end? If we measure monks against other fast hitters, namely the fighter, we have to compete against four attacks for 2d6+3+Str at level 17 (assuming that fighters keep their Extra Attack (3) feature and it gets moved to level 17 like the other class capstones). So I would say that unarmed scaling should end at at least three attacks for 2d8+Dex by level 17, four with Flurry of Blows. If martial arts die starts at 1d6 and increases every fourth level, 1d8 at lvl4, 1d10 at lvl8, 2d6 at lvl12 (that's when fighter gains third attack, almost equal though still behind magic greatsword), and 2d8 at lvl16, that would be in the competitive martial ballpark. Though we'll have to factor in flurry of blows. Monk can equal fighter's output if FoB becomes free at some point, maybe around lvl11.
A 1d8+3 quarterstaff is roughly as good as 2d8 fist, given that said magical quarterstaff may have additional effects.
I’m fine with weapons scaling with MA die. If they start at d6 you’re just 1 point of damage on average behind quarterstaff d8 versatile until 5th level. Yes magic weapons would always be better but they are magic and if you are building to a theme then it shouldn’t matter that much. Or give minks who fight completely unarmed a bonus that scales +1 to +3 at appropriate levels, kind of like rage bonus damage.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Maybe this can fix martial arts.
Martial Arts
At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are any simple melee weapons that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property and one martial weapon of your choice that does not have the two-handed or heavy property.
You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield:
This makes it so monks don’t have to worry about the two weapon fighting style or dual wielder feat. I would then make flurry of blows:
Flurry of Blows
Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make one unarmed strike or attack with monk weapon that has light property as a bonus action. Starting at 11th you can make two attacks as a bonus action with this feature.
I would also change ki empowered strikes:
Ki-Empowered Strikes
Starting at 6th level, your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage. At 10th level you gain the ability to augment your unarmed strikes further with your ki. As a bonus action, you can expend up to 3 ki points to grant your unarmed strikes a bonus to attack and damage rolls. The bonus equals the number of ki points you spent. This bonus lasts for 1 minute.
I stole that second part from the Kensei monk and modified it for all monks unarmed damage. I believe this makes the monk fair whether they want to use weapons or fight unarmed. Some sub classes will lean toward unarmed and others toward weapon use so this allows players to pick their flavor without feeling self nerfed.
Thing is, spellcasters can have full damage potential without relying on magic weapons. Why can't monks? I'm trying to step outside of logic of shoehorning monks into the same mold as other martials. Am I trying to make it different for the aske of it being different? As a matter of fact, it's partly true, because making fists into just another weapon is boring. What about developing a way of fighting that feels like you're becoming as powerful as monsters the party faces, transcending human limits without relying on equipment? I mean, it's what spellcasters do; monk just does it in a physical way.