Though I realized above I'm focusing too much on mechanical details. So here's the big core issue:
Ok say we give monk exactly what you want : AC equal to that of Heavy Armour and no monk features require either Wisdom or Dexterity. Then how is this new monk different from a Fighter?
Monks as a Class should be dissolved and their features be spread out between a subset of Fighters and Rogues. Ninjas are really Rogues who wear form-fitting dark costumes and throw shuriken. The Psi Knight is a Monk-like Figther b/c of its movement abilities and obvs parallel to Star Wars' universe Jedi knights, the philosophy of which is clearly influenced by East Asian philosophy related to yin and yang. Goku of the DBZ universe is an unarmed OP Fighter who can shoot nuclear crap out of his hands. Second Wind and Action Surge are basically abilities using the same mysterious source of energy that 5E Monks use for their own abilities. Monks as we know it are basically Fighters and Rogues that specialize in using Ki, which Fighters and Rogues also should have, but we don't call it that b/c they don't "fit" the East Asian archetype enough to apply a non-English word like "Ki" to them. Action Surge, Second Wind, Evasion, and Blindsense should actually be limited use Ki abilities.
There is an conceptual barrier right now between the Monk and other martial classes b/c the game devs have too little experience reading, writing, and thinking about any of the many commonalities between the East Asian martial arts and the martial arts practiced in "the West." This is a totally artificial mental barrier in the first place. I don't see why we need to continue this farcically exaggerated difference-making by continuing to separate Monks from Fighters and Rogues.
No, monks are not subclasses of fighters or rogues. The identity and mechanics of a rogue is fundamentally different than a monk. And people are confused by fighter because it is a generalist. Classes are not simply about what a character is capable of. A wizard and a sorcerer are two different classes. A barbarian and a fighter are two different classes.
A fighter is defined by its genericness, they can do everything, but they don't dedicate a lot to any one thing.
Monk is not a generalist. Goku is not a fighter. Goku will not use a cannon if its the most efficient thing. Goku doesnt train in guns. Goku is not adept at wearing armor.
Also concept aside, mechanically each class is a group of 10-12. features. subclasses use those same 10-12 features and add 3-4 more. Any class concept that doesn't make use of 10-12 of the same features, needs to be another class.
Monk is mechanically the opposite of fighter, its not a general martial. It can't use all weapons, it doesnt use armor, it has a unique resource, different movement, The only thing these classes really line up with is extra attack, and they both hit things.
Feats yes, items they are fine for. They have bracers of defense, cloak of protection/cloak of displacement, and access to magic weapons (though the loss of martial arts die to weapons hurts this quite a bit) which is all they need to keep pace with other martials should the DM choose to hand out magic items in abundance. But a monk's class features should not be scaled to match a fighter getting +3 plate armour and a +1 flametongue greatsword at level 7 because you cannot assume every DM will do this (one DM I played with did this, another we played until level 17 and never got armour with more than a +1 or weapons that were better than a +2 magic bonus).
Combat Wraps. (Item, Common). Combat Wraps are made of cloth or leather and are worn in contact parts in unarmed combat, especially in forearms and legs. While wearing Wraps, you gain a +1 bonus to AC if you are wearing no armor and using no shield.
Why would this be necessary when claim of protection does the same but better? To stack them? I’m not that interested in manufacturing special items to fix a class. If they add more unarmed stuff in 2024 (not just monk stuff, paladins can smite Unarmed now) that’s fine. But for the most part I agree with Agilemind
Claim of protection?
My solution is simply a sub-variant of bracelets of defense, but as a common item, a kind of shield for fighters with 2 weapons or two-handed weapons. This would offer more AC and partially solve the monk's low AC problem at low levels.
Feats yes, items they are fine for. They have bracers of defense, cloak of protection/cloak of displacement, and access to magic weapons (though the loss of martial arts die to weapons hurts this quite a bit) which is all they need to keep pace with other martials should the DM choose to hand out magic items in abundance. But a monk's class features should not be scaled to match a fighter getting +3 plate armour and a +1 flametongue greatsword at level 7 because you cannot assume every DM will do this (one DM I played with did this, another we played until level 17 and never got armour with more than a +1 or weapons that
My solution is simply a sub-variant of bracelets of defense, but as a common item, a kind of shield for fighters with 2 weapons or two-handed weapons. This would offer more AC and partially solve the monk's low AC problem at low levels.
Why would anyone ever play sword and board in that case? Dual wielding and two-handed weapons would just be better in all circumstances than sword and board.
"Monks harness and focus their internal power to create extraordinary, even supernatural effects."
That Sounds great. I would love that.
Unfortunately the design build and mechanics dont support this description as good as it can. Simply put, wotc's version of the monk does not quite live up to the fantasy.
Its too bad.
But, there is always homebrew. That is what is great about this game. If you dont like something you can always discuss appropriate changes with your DM.
My confidence that any meaningful changes to the monk will happen are quite low.
So....get your homebrew monks ready and play them in a way thats fair fun and fun for you.
The change needs to be that people who don't want to play a Monk, to engage with the specific mechanics of the class, to make use of the features and advantages the Monk possesses...shouldn't be obsessed with trying to turn a class into something it's not, and in doing so deprive people who enjoy what the Monk is of what they enjoy about the class.
What is the monk? How is it effectively played? What are its comparative advantages? What is it’s role in a party in the different pillars of play: combat, exploration, social? I’m asking because your statement assumes that the monk has some well defined roles and I believe it will be easier to discuss if I understand your view of the monk.
it all comes back to this. what is the 5e monk? there doesn't seem to be a lot of agreement although we're all reading the same player's handbook. what is the 5e monk?
So you claim that martial arts were not created to defend and fight against stronger or genetically superior people? Aren't martial arts a system to attack and defeat the opponent with as little effort and as quickly as possible? A way that in war even the weakest people can be useful during a fight? Of course, then there are martial arts for the public's entertainment, but mainly these were created for war purposes, so that when a war broke out the less trained population could learn quickly and not be behind the naturally strong people, but here it would get more into techniques of battle formations and basic armed combat.
In my view, martial arts techniques are designed to the situation, each martial art reflecting its history and developed to their use. Often unarmed martial arts were developed for the public's entertainment, or to escape from slavery (where weapons were not accessible), or for self-defense for those who made long journeys and could not afford to be armed at all times, or even for places where weapons are not allowed, etc. But the principle is always the same, be most effective and use as little force and effort as possible for maximum results. But the principle is always the same, to be as effective as possible using as little force and effort as possible for maximum results or at least to survive. The main principle of martial arts is the optimization of minimum effort, minimum movement, minimum force required, maximum precision and maximum effectiveness... is this false?
All "martial" arts are combat arts. They're not sports, they're not a performance. Their primary focus is incapacitating or killing an opponent with the least risk to yourself. Unarmed martial arts involve doing that using your body as a weapon, or a collection of weapons. However using a weapon is always more efficient than unarmed fighting, which is why women should always carry at least a knife, to balance out the superior strength that men have.
Historically war isn't fought with bare hands. The most common equipment combination historically was, spear, shield, helmet, and some sort of torso protection. That is where you use your weaker people (none were terribly weak though, that whole survival thing).
Yes very often a person's strength is very much related to one's body mass and weight. Martial arts have precisely developed stances where a person's weight is enhanced by the stance performed, so a good stance allows for greater strength in its attacks. Clearly, weight always has some importance in attack power. But this point would be more about constitution than strength.
Kinetic energy equals half mass times velocity squared. There are finite limits to how fast someone can throw a punch, so being able to put more mass behind it results in a higher pulse of kinetic energy. By the same token having more mass means a greater ability to absorb an impact.
All martial arts, including boxing, teach bringing the force from the ground up to your striking hand, as with Jack Dempsey's stepping punch.
There's overlap between all effective fighting techniques because the human body is a common thing. It can deliver blows in a common way, and has the same vulnerabilities.
your concept of martial arts, is not what the dnd 'monk' concept is about.
Also boxing, and many other things people consider martial arts are by your definition not a martial art, its a sport, its about performance, They limit themselves, they try to make the fights even and fair. Its about developing your mind and body and testing your ability. Its about the art,
Many modern, and past martial arts are not about the most efficient means of defeating an opponent, they may have started off that way, but they became traditions, means of passing on philosophy, pursuits of perfection, Self improvement, etc. This is what the dnd monk is trying to represent
Dnd monks are not trying to take the easiest and most efficient path to destroying their enemy. mechanically, a lvl 1 monk has spent immense time training so that their body can equal a dagger. Why not just use a dagger? They spent years honing their bodies to be like medium armor, why not use medium armor? Thats what the fighter would say. The monk is pursuing a specific path, for some other reason than efficient killing/incapacitation.
The fantasy of monk, and that type of 'martial art fiction' is that they can be as powerful as these other things.
A fighter learns unarmed techniques because in certain limited situations it might be useful to kill/incapacitate, or required for a job. Most of their design isn't tied to any one discipline.
this is a really good point about what the monk's training accomplishes. myself, i wish there was stronger emphasis on personal growth (ASI?) and self defense (reactions). a fighter might train to become better at swords to be prepared for the wider world. the monk, having been cloistered away as the clilche goes, assumes harmony of mind and body is preparation for unknown the path ahead. as such, i'd love to include a class feature that allows the monk to replace any skill check's ability mod with WIS+DEX but at disadvantage, echoing a monk's assumed a lack of common skills (unfamiliar with disguise, persuasion, animal handling, etc) but no lack of confidence in their wisdom and reflexes. maybe not fitting everyone's idea of a monk but is one way to solve the lack of out-of-combat skills.
Though I realized above I'm focusing too much on mechanical details. So here's the big core issue:
Ok say we give monk exactly what you want : AC equal to that of Heavy Armour and no monk features require either Wisdom or Dexterity. Then how is this new monk different from a Fighter?
Monks as a Class should be dissolved and their features be spread out between a subset of Fighters and Rogues. Ninjas are really Rogues who wear form-fitting dark costumes and throw shuriken. The Psi Knight is a Monk-like Figther b/c of its movement abilities and obvs parallel to Star Wars' universe Jedi knights, the philosophy of which is clearly influenced by East Asian philosophy related to yin and yang. Goku of the DBZ universe is an unarmed OP Fighter who can shoot nuclear crap out of his hands. Second Wind and Action Surge are basically abilities using the same mysterious source of energy that 5E Monks use for their own abilities. Monks as we know it are basically Fighters and Rogues that specialize in using Ki, which Fighters and Rogues also should have, but we don't call it that b/c they don't "fit" the East Asian archetype enough to apply a non-English word like "Ki" to them. Action Surge, Second Wind, Evasion, and Blindsense should actually be limited use Ki abilities.
There is an conceptual barrier right now between the Monk and other martial classes b/c the game devs have too little experience reading, writing, and thinking about any of the many commonalities between the East Asian martial arts and the martial arts practiced in "the West." This is a totally artificial mental barrier in the first place. I don't see why we need to continue this farcically exaggerated difference-making by continuing to separate Monks from Fighters and Rogues.
No, monks are not subclasses of fighters or rogues. The identity and mechanics of a rogue is fundamentally different than a monk. And people are confused by fighter because it is a generalist. Classes are not simply about what a character is capable of. A wizard and a sorcerer are two different classes. A barbarian and a fighter are two different classes.
A fighter is defined by its genericness, they can do everything, but they don't dedicate a lot to any one thing.
Monk is not a generalist. Goku is not a fighter. Goku will not use a cannon if its the most efficient thing. Goku doesnt train in guns. Goku is not adept at wearing armor.
Also concept aside, mechanically each class is a group of 10-12. features. subclasses use those same 10-12 features and add 3-4 more. Any class concept that doesn't make use of 10-12 of the same features, needs to be another class.
Monk is mechanically the opposite of fighter, its not a general martial. It can't use all weapons, it doesnt use armor, it has a unique resource, different movement, The only thing these classes really line up with is extra attack, and they both hit things.
fighters can and do specialize. they call that a fighting style. they have ample opportunity to pick a specialty and they certainly can remain very general, but i wouldn't lack of focus defines them.
goku is a flying barbarian mix of sublasses: animal aspect, become giant, go berserk, summon the aide of spirits, etc... (but not warrior of the gods because raising him always required material components). is he agile? yes. is he strong? double yes. does he want to become stronger? very triple yes. is bodily perfection a monk-only thing? ...well, here comes the multiclass caveat again. if only monks are seeking full body efficiency then sure multiclassing in monk makes everything neat. then goku is a barbarian who is also a monk. in the same sense, his nemesis vegeta has the armor, training, and (initially) placement within an army to suggest fighter but i guess we'd say he goes on to become a monk too.
but that's really unsatisfying to me. i don't feel like i've seen any good "this is an example of a 5e monk" that doesn't require a multiclass bandaide to function... ninjas could easily be trickster rogue with a mask on. avatar benders are essentially doing magic with wide, obvious somatic components. 70's western show Kung Fu includes a literal shaolin monk but the 'mystical' aspect is just mindfulness and sayings. same actor in kill bill wants to learn a 'quivering palm' sort of technique, but until then he seems content with battle master techniques and a gun. best i can imagine is the 'crouching tiger, hidden dragon' type characters running across bamboo and standing on other people's swords (where's that class feature??)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Feats yes, items they are fine for. They have bracers of defense, cloak of protection/cloak of displacement, and access to magic weapons (though the loss of martial arts die to weapons hurts this quite a bit) which is all they need to keep pace with other martials should the DM choose to hand out magic items in abundance. But a monk's class features should not be scaled to match a fighter getting +3 plate armour and a +1 flametongue greatsword at level 7 because you cannot assume every DM will do this (one DM I played with did this, another we played until level 17 and never got armour with more than a +1 or weapons that
My solution is simply a sub-variant of bracelets of defense, but as a common item, a kind of shield for fighters with 2 weapons or two-handed weapons. This would offer more AC and partially solve the monk's low AC problem at low levels.
Why would anyone ever play sword and board in that case? Dual wielding and two-handed weapons would just be better in all circumstances than sword and board.
Then why is there already a magic item that does the same but +2 ?
Feats yes, items they are fine for. They have bracers of defense, cloak of protection/cloak of displacement, and access to magic weapons (though the loss of martial arts die to weapons hurts this quite a bit) which is all they need to keep pace with other martials should the DM choose to hand out magic items in abundance. But a monk's class features should not be scaled to match a fighter getting +3 plate armour and a +1 flametongue greatsword at level 7 because you cannot assume every DM will do this (one DM I played with did this, another we played until level 17 and never got armour with more than a +1 or weapons that
My solution is simply a sub-variant of bracelets of defense, but as a common item, a kind of shield for fighters with 2 weapons or two-handed weapons. This would offer more AC and partially solve the monk's low AC problem at low levels.
Why would anyone ever play sword and board in that case? Dual wielding and two-handed weapons would just be better in all circumstances than sword and board.
Then why is there already a magic item that does the same but +2 ?
Because if you are getting that magic item, then it is likely that the sword & board character is getting a +2 Shield so the sword & board character is still better off defensively.
Feats yes, items they are fine for. They have bracers of defense, cloak of protection/cloak of displacement, and access to magic weapons (though the loss of martial arts die to weapons hurts this quite a bit) which is all they need to keep pace with other martials should the DM choose to hand out magic items in abundance. But a monk's class features should not be scaled to match a fighter getting +3 plate armour and a +1 flametongue greatsword at level 7 because you cannot assume every DM will do this (one DM I played with did this, another we played until level 17 and never got armour with more than a +1 or weapons that
My solution is simply a sub-variant of bracelets of defense, but as a common item, a kind of shield for fighters with 2 weapons or two-handed weapons. This would offer more AC and partially solve the monk's low AC problem at low levels.
Why would anyone ever play sword and board in that case? Dual wielding and two-handed weapons would just be better in all circumstances than sword and board.
Then why is there already a magic item that does the same but +2 ?
Because if you are getting that magic item, then it is likely that the sword & board character is getting a +2 Shield so the sword & board character is still better off defensively.
But for the monk there is no such option. Cloak of Protection is a uncommon magic item and it is right that it has no limitations. My proposal has limitations precisely because it is common and more directed for characters without armor and shield.
Feats yes, items they are fine for. They have bracers of defense, cloak of protection/cloak of displacement, and access to magic weapons (though the loss of martial arts die to weapons hurts this quite a bit) which is all they need to keep pace with other martials should the DM choose to hand out magic items in abundance. But a monk's class features should not be scaled to match a fighter getting +3 plate armour and a +1 flametongue greatsword at level 7 because you cannot assume every DM will do this (one DM I played with did this, another we played until level 17 and never got armour with more than a +1 or weapons that
My solution is simply a sub-variant of bracelets of defense, but as a common item, a kind of shield for fighters with 2 weapons or two-handed weapons. This would offer more AC and partially solve the monk's low AC problem at low levels.
Why would anyone ever play sword and board in that case? Dual wielding and two-handed weapons would just be better in all circumstances than sword and board.
Then why is there already a magic item that does the same but +2 ?
Because if you are getting that magic item, then it is likely that the sword & board character is getting a +2 Shield so the sword & board character is still better off defensively.
But for the monk there is no such option.
If you're all going to focus on magic items, then you're missing a key design principle of 5th edition: self-sufficiency.
Magic items are not necessary to keep up with enemy monsters. The math doesn't break down if you lack any, and there are mundane solutions to most resistances and immunities. If anything, too many bonuses skews the odds in favor of the player characters.
Feats yes, items they are fine for. They have bracers of defense, cloak of protection/cloak of displacement, and access to magic weapons (though the loss of martial arts die to weapons hurts this quite a bit) which is all they need to keep pace with other martials should the DM choose to hand out magic items in abundance. But a monk's class features should not be scaled to match a fighter getting +3 plate armour and a +1 flametongue greatsword at level 7 because you cannot assume every DM will do this (one DM I played with did this, another we played until level 17 and never got armour with more than a +1 or weapons that
My solution is simply a sub-variant of bracelets of defense, but as a common item, a kind of shield for fighters with 2 weapons or two-handed weapons. This would offer more AC and partially solve the monk's low AC problem at low levels.
Why would anyone ever play sword and board in that case? Dual wielding and two-handed weapons would just be better in all circumstances than sword and board.
Then why is there already a magic item that does the same but +2 ?
Because if you are getting that magic item, then it is likely that the sword & board character is getting a +2 Shield so the sword & board character is still better off defensively.
But for the monk there is no such option.
If you're all going to focus on magic items, then you're missing a key design principle of 5th edition: self-sufficiency.
Magic items are not necessary to keep up with enemy monsters. The math doesn't break down if you lack any, and there are mundane solutions to most resistances and immunities. If anything, too many bonuses skews the odds in favor of the player characters.
But for the monk there is no such option. Cloak of Protection is a uncommon magic item and it is right that it has no limitations. My proposal has limitations precisely because it is common and more directed for characters without armor and shield.
Combat Wraps. (Item, Common).Combat Wraps are made of cloth or leather and are worn in contact parts in unarmed combat, especially in forearms and legs. While wearing Wraps, you gain a +1 bonus to AC if you are wearing no armor and using no shield.
Feats yes, items they are fine for. They have bracers of defense, cloak of protection/cloak of displacement, and access to magic weapons (though the loss of martial arts die to weapons hurts this quite a bit) which is all they need to keep pace with other martials should the DM choose to hand out magic items in abundance. But a monk's class features should not be scaled to match a fighter getting +3 plate armour and a +1 flametongue greatsword at level 7 because you cannot assume every DM will do this (one DM I played with did this, another we played until level 17 and never got armour with more than a +1 or weapons that
My solution is simply a sub-variant of bracelets of defense, but as a common item, a kind of shield for fighters with 2 weapons or two-handed weapons. This would offer more AC and partially solve the monk's low AC problem at low levels.
Why would anyone ever play sword and board in that case? Dual wielding and two-handed weapons would just be better in all circumstances than sword and board.
Then why is there already a magic item that does the same but +2 ?
Because if you are getting that magic item, then it is likely that the sword & board character is getting a +2 Shield so the sword & board character is still better off defensively.
But for the monk there is no such option.
If you're all going to focus on magic items, then you're missing a key design principle of 5th edition: self-sufficiency.
Magic items are not necessary to keep up with enemy monsters. The math doesn't break down if you lack any, and there are mundane solutions to most resistances and immunities. If anything, too many bonuses skews the odds in favor of the player characters.
But for the monk there is no such option. Cloak of Protection is a uncommon magic item and it is right that it has no limitations. My proposal has limitations precisely because it is common and more directed for characters without armor and shield.
Combat Wraps. (Item, Common).Combat Wraps are made of cloth or leather and are worn in contact parts in unarmed combat, especially in forearms and legs. While wearing Wraps, you gain a +1 bonus to AC if you are wearing no armor and using no shield.
First, you don't need to bold and recolor words for emphasis. Stressing them isn't doing what you think they are.
Second, my point went completely over your head. The magic items aren't important by design, so your emphasis on them means you either don't care or don't understand─possibly both.
Third, why should such an item be only Common when bracers of defense are Rare?
Combat Wraps. (Item, Common).Combat Wraps are made of cloth or leather and are worn in contact parts in unarmed combat, especially in forearms and legs. While wearing Wraps, you gain a +1 bonus to AC if you are wearing no armor and using no shield.
Additional AC is definitely not within the scope of a common item. If you want to give unarmed AC options, they should follow the normal path. +1 is rare, +2 is very rare, +3 is legendary. Bracers of Defense are an exception because they a) require attunement and b) aren't very well designed.
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)
Feats yes, items they are fine for. They have bracers of defense, cloak of protection/cloak of displacement, and access to magic weapons (though the loss of martial arts die to weapons hurts this quite a bit) which is all they need to keep pace with other martials should the DM choose to hand out magic items in abundance. But a monk's class features should not be scaled to match a fighter getting +3 plate armour and a +1 flametongue greatsword at level 7 because you cannot assume every DM will do this (one DM I played with did this, another we played until level 17 and never got armour with more than a +1 or weapons that
My solution is simply a sub-variant of bracelets of defense, but as a common item, a kind of shield for fighters with 2 weapons or two-handed weapons. This would offer more AC and partially solve the monk's low AC problem at low levels.
Why would anyone ever play sword and board in that case? Dual wielding and two-handed weapons would just be better in all circumstances than sword and board.
Then why is there already a magic item that does the same but +2 ?
Because if you are getting that magic item, then it is likely that the sword & board character is getting a +2 Shield so the sword & board character is still better off defensively.
But for the monk there is no such option.
If you're all going to focus on magic items, then you're missing a key design principle of 5th edition: self-sufficiency.
Magic items are not necessary to keep up with enemy monsters. The math doesn't break down if you lack any, and there are mundane solutions to most resistances and immunities. If anything, too many bonuses skews the odds in favor of the player characters.
But for the monk there is no such option. Cloak of Protection is a uncommon magic item and it is right that it has no limitations. My proposal has limitations precisely because it is common and more directed for characters without armor and shield.
Combat Wraps. (Item, Common).Combat Wraps are made of cloth or leather and are worn in contact parts in unarmed combat, especially in forearms and legs. While wearing Wraps, you gain a +1 bonus to AC if you are wearing no armor and using no shield.
First, you don't need to bold and recolor words for emphasis. Stressing them isn't doing what you think they are.
Second, my point went completely over your head. The magic items aren't important by design, so your emphasis on them means you either don't care or don't understand─possibly both.
Third, why should such an item be only Common when bracers of defense are Rare?
1) I LIKE THE COLORS AND BOLD ON THE WORDS.
2) The theme was inherent in the fact that the monk has a low AC durente its first levels. This was a solution designed for 1st level characters. Effectively I misunderstood your writing. so it has nothing to do with what you wrote and I apologize.
3) You ask why have a common item when bracers of defense already exist? Because it is a practical solution. the clock of protection is noncommon and can be worn without restrictions. Why then not create something that has restrictions but is common?
Really, if monks could just use a shield that would do it for me in the defensive buffs side. I don't see why they couldn't block with a shield in one hand while still punching and kicking with their other limbs.
Feats yes, items they are fine for. They have bracers of defense, cloak of protection/cloak of displacement, and access to magic weapons (though the loss of martial arts die to weapons hurts this quite a bit) which is all they need to keep pace with other martials should the DM choose to hand out magic items in abundance. But a monk's class features should not be scaled to match a fighter getting +3 plate armour and a +1 flametongue greatsword at level 7 because you cannot assume every DM will do this (one DM I played with did this, another we played until level 17 and never got armour with more than a +1 or weapons that
My solution is simply a sub-variant of bracelets of defense, but as a common item, a kind of shield for fighters with 2 weapons or two-handed weapons. This would offer more AC and partially solve the monk's low AC problem at low levels.
Why would anyone ever play sword and board in that case? Dual wielding and two-handed weapons would just be better in all circumstances than sword and board.
Then why is there already a magic item that does the same but +2 ?
Because if you are getting that magic item, then it is likely that the sword & board character is getting a +2 Shield so the sword & board character is still better off defensively.
But for the monk there is no such option. Cloak of Protection is a uncommon magic item and it is right that it has no limitations. My proposal has limitations precisely because it is common and more directed for characters without armor and shield.
But why does a wizard with Mage Armour and the Shield spell need a +1 bonus to their AC at 1st level?
If AC is so crucial, why don't we just get rid of all these mismashes of patches and fixes and just make basic baseline AC = 13+your Dexterity Modifier?
Then wizards don't need to waste a spell slot on Mage Armour, Monks don't need Wisdom, and Barbarians don't need Con. Dex-based classes don't go out and buy studded leather, etc...
At low levels, typically you just have starting equipment, not half-plate, breastplate, fullplate, or studded leather. This means AC at level 1 for the different classes is: Monk - 16 Barbarian - 15 Fighter - 16-18 Paladin - 16-18 Cleric - 15-18 Druid - 15 Bard - 13 Rogue - 14 Ranger - 14 Warlock - 13 Wizard - 15 (with Mage Armour) Sorcerer - 15 (with Mage Armour)
And this is assuming that most classes are suffering MAD-ness from by having to have at least a +2 DEX, +2 CON, +3 primary stat.
Could somebody please explain to me why Monk is somehow completely non-functional compared to the other classes???
If your DM is giving out Full plate at level 1, THEY ARE BREAKING THE GAME. That isn't the fault of the game's design.
Really, if monks could just use a shield that would do it for me in the defensive buffs side. I don't see why they couldn't block with a shield in one hand while still punching and kicking with their other limbs.
Why could the monk attack with its bonus action and the other classes not? It would be unfair to the other classes who use 2 weapons. That's why I thought of proposing this alternative of restricted wraps offering only +1. But from what I understand it was not liked very much in this forum.
Feats yes, items they are fine for. They have bracers of defense, cloak of protection/cloak of displacement, and access to magic weapons (though the loss of martial arts die to weapons hurts this quite a bit) which is all they need to keep pace with other martials should the DM choose to hand out magic items in abundance. But a monk's class features should not be scaled to match a fighter getting +3 plate armour and a +1 flametongue greatsword at level 7 because you cannot assume every DM will do this (one DM I played with did this, another we played until level 17 and never got armour with more than a +1 or weapons that
My solution is simply a sub-variant of bracelets of defense, but as a common item, a kind of shield for fighters with 2 weapons or two-handed weapons. This would offer more AC and partially solve the monk's low AC problem at low levels.
Why would anyone ever play sword and board in that case? Dual wielding and two-handed weapons would just be better in all circumstances than sword and board.
Then why is there already a magic item that does the same but +2 ?
Because if you are getting that magic item, then it is likely that the sword & board character is getting a +2 Shield so the sword & board character is still better off defensively.
But for the monk there is no such option. Cloak of Protection is a uncommon magic item and it is right that it has no limitations. My proposal has limitations precisely because it is common and more directed for characters without armor and shield.
But why does a wizard with Mage Armour and the Shield spell need a +1 bonus to their AC at 1st level?
Why are you talking about the wizard when we are talking about the monk?
If AC is so crucial, why don't we just get rid of all these mismashes of patches and fixes and just make basic baseline AC = 13+your Dexterity Modifier?
Then wizards don't need to waste a spell slot on Mage Armour, Monks don't need Wisdom, and Barbarians don't need Con. Dex-based classes don't go out and buy studded leather, etc...
At low levels, typically you just have starting equipment, not half-plate, breastplate, fullplate, or studded leather. This means AC at level 1 for the different classes is: Monk - 16 Barbarian - 16 Fighter - 16-18 Paladin - 16-18 Cleric - 18 Druid - 15 Bard - 13 Rogue - 14 Ranger - 14 Warlock - 13 Wizard - 15 (with Mage Armour) Sorcerer - 15 (with Mage Armour)
Could somebody please explain to me why Monk is somehow completely non-functional compared to the other classes???
because by sacrificing some points on Wis that enhance AC, you could use them for Con and still have a good AC.
Really, if monks could just use a shield that would do it for me in the defensive buffs side. I don't see why they couldn't block with a shield in one hand while still punching and kicking with their other limbs.
Because that's antithetical to what the monk is.
Yes, the monks of D&D have a strong Asian bend to them. But focusing on that misses the forest for the trees. All monks are ascetic; a word we get from the Greek askēsis ("exercise" or "training"). Originally, this was a synonym for athlete. It later became associated with religious practices and self-denial. Whether it's pleasures of the flesh or material possessions, ascetics practice discipline with the end goal of achieving higher spirituality.
And a high-level monk gets there. They are capable of feats, both physical and spiritual, which equal or outperform the best weapons and armor money can buy. Only magic items meaningfully extend the gap, and that's to be expected. The asceticism of monks extends well into the "phat loot" they might find as adventurers. But in the grand scheme of things, they are elite.
You cannot rely on magic items to build a better monk without destroying its identity. If you are dissatisfied, if you think power and balance are essential, then you should be looking to strengthen the class features themselves.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well put
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Claim of protection?
My solution is simply a sub-variant of bracelets of defense, but as a common item, a kind of shield for fighters with 2 weapons or two-handed weapons. This would offer more AC and partially solve the monk's low AC problem at low levels.
Why would anyone ever play sword and board in that case? Dual wielding and two-handed weapons would just be better in all circumstances than sword and board.
This is a quote from the most recent UA
"Monks harness and focus their internal power to create extraordinary, even supernatural effects."
That Sounds great. I would love that.
Unfortunately the design build and mechanics dont support this description as good as it can. Simply put, wotc's version of the monk does not quite live up to the fantasy.
Its too bad.
But, there is always homebrew. That is what is great about this game. If you dont like something you can always discuss appropriate changes with your DM.
My confidence that any meaningful changes to the monk will happen are quite low.
So....get your homebrew monks ready and play them in a way thats fair fun and fun for you.
it all comes back to this. what is the 5e monk? there doesn't seem to be a lot of agreement although we're all reading the same player's handbook. what is the 5e monk?
this is a really good point about what the monk's training accomplishes. myself, i wish there was stronger emphasis on personal growth (ASI?) and self defense (reactions). a fighter might train to become better at swords to be prepared for the wider world. the monk, having been cloistered away as the clilche goes, assumes harmony of mind and body is preparation for unknown the path ahead. as such, i'd love to include a class feature that allows the monk to replace any skill check's ability mod with WIS+DEX but at disadvantage, echoing a monk's assumed a lack of common skills (unfamiliar with disguise, persuasion, animal handling, etc) but no lack of confidence in their wisdom and reflexes. maybe not fitting everyone's idea of a monk but is one way to solve the lack of out-of-combat skills.
fighters can and do specialize. they call that a fighting style. they have ample opportunity to pick a specialty and they certainly can remain very general, but i wouldn't lack of focus defines them.
goku is a flying barbarian mix of sublasses: animal aspect, become giant, go berserk, summon the aide of spirits, etc... (but not warrior of the gods because raising him always required material components). is he agile? yes. is he strong? double yes. does he want to become stronger? very triple yes. is bodily perfection a monk-only thing? ...well, here comes the multiclass caveat again. if only monks are seeking full body efficiency then sure multiclassing in monk makes everything neat. then goku is a barbarian who is also a monk. in the same sense, his nemesis vegeta has the armor, training, and (initially) placement within an army to suggest fighter but i guess we'd say he goes on to become a monk too.
but that's really unsatisfying to me. i don't feel like i've seen any good "this is an example of a 5e monk" that doesn't require a multiclass bandaide to function... ninjas could easily be trickster rogue with a mask on. avatar benders are essentially doing magic with wide, obvious somatic components. 70's western show Kung Fu includes a literal shaolin monk but the 'mystical' aspect is just mindfulness and sayings. same actor in kill bill wants to learn a 'quivering palm' sort of technique, but until then he seems content with battle master techniques and a gun. best i can imagine is the 'crouching tiger, hidden dragon' type characters running across bamboo and standing on other people's swords (where's that class feature??)
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Then why is there already a magic item that does the same but +2 ?
Because if you are getting that magic item, then it is likely that the sword & board character is getting a +2 Shield so the sword & board character is still better off defensively.
But for the monk there is no such option. Cloak of Protection is a uncommon magic item and it is right that it has no limitations. My proposal has limitations precisely because it is common and more directed for characters without armor and shield.
If you're all going to focus on magic items, then you're missing a key design principle of 5th edition: self-sufficiency.
Magic items are not necessary to keep up with enemy monsters. The math doesn't break down if you lack any, and there are mundane solutions to most resistances and immunities. If anything, too many bonuses skews the odds in favor of the player characters.
But for the monk there is no such option. Cloak of Protection is a uncommon magic item and it is right that it has no limitations. My proposal has limitations precisely because it is common and more directed for characters without armor and shield.
Combat Wraps. (Item, Common). Combat Wraps are made of cloth or leather and are worn in contact parts in unarmed combat, especially in forearms and legs. While wearing Wraps, you gain a +1 bonus to AC if you are wearing no armor and using no shield.
First, you don't need to bold and recolor words for emphasis. Stressing them isn't doing what you think they are.
Second, my point went completely over your head. The magic items aren't important by design, so your emphasis on them means you either don't care or don't understand─possibly both.
Third, why should such an item be only Common when bracers of defense are Rare?
Additional AC is definitely not within the scope of a common item. If you want to give unarmed AC options, they should follow the normal path. +1 is rare, +2 is very rare, +3 is legendary. Bracers of Defense are an exception because they a) require attunement and b) aren't very well designed.
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)
1) I LIKE THE COLORS AND BOLD ON THE WORDS.
2) The theme was inherent in the fact that the monk has a low AC durente its first levels. This was a solution designed for 1st level characters. Effectively I misunderstood your writing. so it has nothing to do with what you wrote and I apologize.
3) You ask why have a common item when bracers of defense already exist? Because it is a practical solution. the clock of protection is noncommon and can be worn without restrictions. Why then not create something that has restrictions but is common?
Really, if monks could just use a shield that would do it for me in the defensive buffs side. I don't see why they couldn't block with a shield in one hand while still punching and kicking with their other limbs.
But why does a wizard with Mage Armour and the Shield spell need a +1 bonus to their AC at 1st level?
If AC is so crucial, why don't we just get rid of all these mismashes of patches and fixes and just make basic baseline AC = 13+your Dexterity Modifier?
Then wizards don't need to waste a spell slot on Mage Armour, Monks don't need Wisdom, and Barbarians don't need Con. Dex-based classes don't go out and buy studded leather, etc...
At low levels, typically you just have starting equipment, not half-plate, breastplate, fullplate, or studded leather. This means AC at level 1 for the different classes is:
Monk - 16
Barbarian - 15
Fighter - 16-18
Paladin - 16-18
Cleric - 15-18
Druid - 15
Bard - 13
Rogue - 14
Ranger - 14
Warlock - 13
Wizard - 15 (with Mage Armour)
Sorcerer - 15 (with Mage Armour)
And this is assuming that most classes are suffering MAD-ness from by having to have at least a +2 DEX, +2 CON, +3 primary stat.
Could somebody please explain to me why Monk is somehow completely non-functional compared to the other classes???
If your DM is giving out Full plate at level 1, THEY ARE BREAKING THE GAME. That isn't the fault of the game's design.
Why could the monk attack with its bonus action and the other classes not? It would be unfair to the other classes who use 2 weapons. That's why I thought of proposing this alternative of restricted wraps offering only +1. But from what I understand it was not liked very much in this forum.
Why are you talking about the wizard when we are talking about the monk?
because by sacrificing some points on Wis that enhance AC, you could use them for Con and still have a good AC.
Because that's antithetical to what the monk is.
Yes, the monks of D&D have a strong Asian bend to them. But focusing on that misses the forest for the trees. All monks are ascetic; a word we get from the Greek askēsis ("exercise" or "training"). Originally, this was a synonym for athlete. It later became associated with religious practices and self-denial. Whether it's pleasures of the flesh or material possessions, ascetics practice discipline with the end goal of achieving higher spirituality.
And a high-level monk gets there. They are capable of feats, both physical and spiritual, which equal or outperform the best weapons and armor money can buy. Only magic items meaningfully extend the gap, and that's to be expected. The asceticism of monks extends well into the "phat loot" they might find as adventurers. But in the grand scheme of things, they are elite.
You cannot rely on magic items to build a better monk without destroying its identity. If you are dissatisfied, if you think power and balance are essential, then you should be looking to strengthen the class features themselves.