Why does a Monk need a higher CON than any other class? 95% of the characters in my campaigns regardless of class have a +2 CON,
Monks can easily get a +3 DEX, +2 CON, +3 WIS with point buy, and can get even higher if you roll for stats. (The last character I rolled had 2 18s after adding racial bonuses which had I chosen monk would have given me an AC of 18).
Fun fact! The end of our last campaign we had an epic battle with a bunch of NPC allies with us (we were level 17, the NPCs were level 12). Only two NPC allies didn't go down during that battle. One was a monk, the other was a sorcerer. The Fighter, Artificer, and Paladin all got KOed, before the monk did...
Why does a Monk need a higher CON than any other class? 95% of the characters in my campaigns regardless of class have a +2 CON,
Monks can easily get a +3 DEX, +2 CON, +3 WIS with point buy, and can get even higher if you roll for stats. (The last character I rolled had 2 18s after adding racial bonuses which had I chosen monk would have given me an AC of 18).
Fun fact! The end of our last campaign we had an epic battle with a bunch of NPC allies with us (we were level 17, the NPCs were level 12). Only two NPC allies didn't go down during that battle. One was a monk, the other was a sorcerer. The Fighter, Artificer, and Paladin all got KOed, before the monk did...
OK, so the monk does not need more AC and has a good number of hit points. Good to know.
There are so many ways to fix monk, other than "make numbers bigger like fighter". If WotC want the minimal changes to fix it this is what is needed:
1. Martial Arts attack becomes part of main action, FoB is reduced to 1 attack as a BA, step of the wind should be free. 2. MA die applies to weapons & monk gets proficiency in martial weapons but can't use DEX with Heavy weapons. 3. starting when you get ki points (level 2) you can take a SR in 1 minute 1/day. 4. Deflect Missiles should apply to all attacks just like Uncanny Dodge does. 5. Stunning Strike needs be 1/turn and a Wis or Int save, last until the end of your next turn, and have added to it: "the next time the target takes damage it takes additional force damage equal to your monk level and is no longer stunned." 6. Stillness of Mind needs to be "If you start your turn charmed / frightened you can spend 1 ki to end the condition (no action required) or you can use a BA to end it without spending a ki" 7. At level 11, Stunning Strike should not be limited to 1/turn.
Open Hand 1. 3rd level feature should allow the use of any weapon mastery of your choice with your unarmed strikes, you can choose before making each attack & get the "remove reaction" as an extra WM option with no save. 2. Quivering Palm damage should have no save and be irreducible. 3. Healing feature should be identical to the Paladin's Lay on Hands but only target the monk. 4. The Sanctuary feature should be replaced with expertise in Insight and ability to use Insight in the place of Persuasion
Shadow
1. radius of the Darkness spell should only encompass the monk themselves.
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??)
fighting style is one thing they can do within each style. They aren't built around any one concept. Monk has 9-10 main class features, and usually at 1-2 subclass features around being a Monk.
Fighters are not as specialized at something as other classes, though they are effective.
for example, fighters can get a d6-d8 unarmed dice, but they can't use unarmed AS a BA, their unarmed dice never reach past d8, and they don't have on hit unarmed effects. They get one thing to specialize in unarmed, but they don't have multiple things that a true specialist has.
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?
first of the game isn't 'balanced' around having no magic items, its doable while having no magical items, unlike previous editions which sometimes required magic items. The DMG assumes that players have opened various hoards with magic items in it, or the DM or module is giving magic items to players. Its playable without it, but not designed without magic items in mind.
this is why non weapon based martial builds always get a feature that makes their attacks magical or elemental around level 6. because they expect martials to obtain a magic weapon by that level.
But that aside the issue is that people are talking about is the fact that once magic items come into play(most t2+ games (and every module, and dmg recommendations have magic items)) A class that is locked out from armor and shields, whom half attacks are without weapons doesn't perform the same way. Monk itemization, or an alternative that achieves parity with magic items is very underdeveloped in dnd. It also has poor spell and feature interactions.
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.
the reason they can't do it from class features is because some campaigns outlaw magic items, or give out few. So the thing that balances it can't be totally separate from magic items. They could however have monk focused items like manuals and tomes, that very much fit the concept of monk aesticism.
Monk itemization is utterly trivial, add a clause to all the weapons that already can be any weapon (like +1 weapon or Vicious weapon) that they can be specialized magic handwraps that apply their bonus to unarmed strikes.
And for amour create a new class in the "Armour" section: Unarmoured Clothing: Traveller's Clothes, Commoner's Clothes, Fine Clothes, Entertain's Costume, Monk Robes, Mage Robes.
Then add into all the generic armour sets (like +1 armour) "can also be a set of clothing".
Et voila! Problem solved.
PS added bonus to this: a sadistic DM can give the party a +3 set of "Entertainer's Costume (Jester)".
just give monk a feature called External Focus which lets them gain the +x and "magic attacks" to unarmed strikes of a magic weapon that they keep sheathed/belted/etc on their person. works with one attuned weapon, add a sage advice later to suggest they can get the fire from firetongue or whatnot. there, now monks benefit from random loot tables that like to give out weapons no one in the party uses.
i'd say do the same for magic armor but what for? monks need better/more mobility reactions, not better/more AC.
Why does a Monk need a higher CON than any other class? 95% of the characters in my campaigns regardless of class have a +2 CON,
Monks can easily get a +3 DEX, +2 CON, +3 WIS with point buy, and can get even higher if you roll for stats. (The last character I rolled had 2 18s after adding racial bonuses which had I chosen monk would have given me an AC of 18).
Fun fact! The end of our last campaign we had an epic battle with a bunch of NPC allies with us (we were level 17, the NPCs were level 12). Only two NPC allies didn't go down during that battle. One was a monk, the other was a sorcerer. The Fighter, Artificer, and Paladin all got KOed, before the monk did...
First of the monk doesn't specifically need con, thats just one possible solution, they need survivability.
players can play sub optimally and the dm can adjust, but they can't adjust upward past the limits.
first off, only melee 'need' strong survivability mechanics in a group in dnd. So thats why off the bat, 80% of characters don't need it. However if they want it, most characters can pursue it and gain benefits without sacrificing effectiveness.
Also monk is literally the only class who needs to get into 5 foot range to be effective. They also have a low hitdice for that type of character. Even ranger gets a d10. The monk has baseline AC, low mitigation, low HP, low recovery and high risk. Mathematically, if a DM targets monks as often as other characters, they will die sooner, unless they give up half their already low damage.
An npc doesnt need to shine, its fine if a monk npc doesnt do a lot of damage/utility and plays it safe, its probably preferred. But most players will feel bad if they realize they are half as effective as other members on the team.
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.
the reason they can't do it from class features is because some campaigns outlaw magic items, or give out few. So the thing that balances it can't be totally separate from magic items. They could however have monk focused items like manuals and tomes, that very much fit the concept of monk aesticism.
No, they can do it from class features. I typed about what monks could be, not what you think they are now. That's my point. Magic items are a crutch and can't do it because magic items can be used by anyone. The monk, with its reduced proficiencies, has fewer opportunities to close any and all perceived gaps. It simply doesn't have the paths to power that other classes do.
However, simply having those paths doesn't make the other classes inherently stronger. As I said before, the classes have been redesigned from earlier editions to be more self-sufficient. They aren't as reliant on magic items as they used to be in order to keep up with challenges. That said, a thing only matters if and when it becomes relevant. If an option isn't utilized, then it may as well not exist. We've seen that come up in interviews with Crawford regarding the warlock and its pact magic. Similarly, druids can wear light and medium armor, but most of that won't matter if they can't get their hands on nonmetallic options stronger than leather or hide. And that's because druids choose not to wear armor made from metal, so that class has an identity which intentionally limits its own options.
just give monk a feature called External Focus which lets them gain the +x and "magic attacks" to unarmed strikes of a magic weapon that they keep sheathed/belted/etc on their person. works with one attuned weapon, add a sage advice later to suggest they can get the fire from firetongue or whatnot. there, now monks benefit from random loot tables that like to give out weapons no one in the party uses.
i'd say do the same for magic armor but what for? monks need better/more mobility reactions, not better/more AC.
Why make that a Sage Advice article, which hasn't been updated since before Tasha's was published, when you can just make that a function of the feature?
No, they can do it from class features. I typed about what monks could be, not what you think they are now. That's my point. Magic items are a crutch and can't do it because magic items can be used by anyone.
No, magic items are the correct way to balance. If your fifth level fighter has a +3 longsword (because the DM is ridiculous), the monk should have +3 boots of asskicking (or whatever); if he only has a +1 sword, the monk should only get +1 boots, and if he's limping along with a nonmagical sword, well, the monk should do the same.
No, they can do it from class features. I typed about what monks could be, not what you think they are now. That's my point. Magic items are a crutch and can't do it because magic items can be used by anyone.
No, magic items are the correct way to balance. If your fifth level fighter has a +3 longsword (because the DM is ridiculous), the monk should have +3 boots of asskicking (or whatever); if he only has a +1 sword, the monk should only get +1 boots, and if he's limping along with a nonmagical sword, well, the monk should do the same.
Correct. Your class abilities should put you on par with people without magic items. If your class abilities put you on par with the fighter with the +3 sword what happens in the game when the DM only gives him a +1. So on par with no magic item fighter, and with equivalent items to keep them on par as the fighter gets items.
No, they can do it from class features. I typed about what monks could be, not what you think they are now. That's my point. Magic items are a crutch and can't do it because magic items can be used by anyone.
No, magic items are the correct way to balance. If your fifth level fighter has a +3 longsword (because the DM is ridiculous), the monk should have +3 boots of asskicking (or whatever); if he only has a +1 sword, the monk should only get +1 boots, and if he's limping along with a nonmagical sword, well, the monk should do the same.
Correct. Your class abilities should put you on par with people without magic items. If your class abilities put you on par with the fighter with the +3 sword what happens in the game when the DM only gives him a +1. So on par with no magic item fighter, and with equivalent items to keep them on par as the fighter gets items.
the issue is, by the book, it doesnt work out for monks that way. The official advice of the dmg is to roll tables, and use already existing items. I hope part of their plan is better advice and methodology for itemization n 5e, but the history of 5e doesnt suggest thats the case. We'll see though
the issue is, by the book, it doesnt work out for monks that way. The official advice of the dmg is to roll tables, and use already existing items. I hope part of their plan is better advice and methodology for itemization n 5e, but the history of 5e doesnt suggest thats the case. We'll see though
This is why it's frustrating that they haven't really talked about other aspects of the game in any of the development videos; magic items are something we probably won't see in a playtest unless they're planning some unusual new additions, but it'd be nice to know that they're aware of how unbalanced the current core set of magic items are (heavily favour spellcasters which are made even stronger, while some classes *ahem* Monk *ahem* have major gaps in the magic item lineup).
It's why evaluating playtest materials as presented is so difficult; we're given a slice of future content to evaluate in the context of all the other problems with 5e, makes it very difficult to know how updated classes actually stack up. Because even if they'd released a really good Monk update (which they most certainly did not) it'd still have trouble with progression thanks to magic items, because it's not the job of class features to make up for that.
Classes should be reasonably balanced against other classes (give players access to a similar range of impactful core abilities), meanwhile magic items should be reasonably balanced against one another (items of similar rarity should have a similar impact on the class(es) they're intended for, each class should have access to a similar number of core magic items etc.).
If we at least knew they were thinking in these terms it would be easier to view the playtests, and OneD&D in general, with more confidence but they don't give that impression.
Really magic items should also enhance a character's strengths, or give them new abilities, they shouldn't eliminate weaknesses. But one of the big problems with 5e magic items is that so many items for casters give them a bunch of free spells, and free castings, which massively counteracts the resource limitations that are supposed to balance out the strength of spellcasting as a feature, and these items often have additional bonuses, like Wizards of the Coast don't consider more free spells to be a meaningful bonus, but they're such a major boost to casters.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
the issue is, by the book, it doesnt work out for monks that way. The official advice of the dmg is to roll tables, and use already existing items. I hope part of their plan is better advice and methodology for itemization n 5e, but the history of 5e doesnt suggest thats the case. We'll see though
Does that matter though when nobody uses it? AL doesn't use it, none of the half-dozen WM servers I've joined use it, and not one campaign I've played in use it. And beyond that not one of the famous streamers / professional DMs use them.
For real now, how many games have you played in that actually uses the random loot tables? Cause I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill, magic item disparity in the random loot tables doesn't matter because nobody uses them. Because the published magic items aren't just biased against monks, there are no magic halberds, glaives, crossbows, pikes, lances, war picks, whips, mauls, morningstars, flails, hammers, clubs, or sickles. Basically unless you are using a sword you lose out on magic items.
No, they can do it from class features. I typed about what monks could be, not what you think they are now. That's my point. Magic items are a crutch and can't do it because magic items can be used by anyone.
No, magic items are the correct way to balance. If your fifth level fighter has a +3 longsword (because the DM is ridiculous), the monk should have +3 boots of asskicking (or whatever); if he only has a +1 sword, the monk should only get +1 boots, and if he's limping along with a nonmagical sword, well, the monk should do the same.
If you honestly think magic items are how everything is balanced, then we're back to square one. Fifth edition is a abject failure because the classes aren't self-sufficient. Everyone needs magic X magic items granting Y bonuses or the game simply breaks down and becomes impossible.
No, they can do it from class features. I typed about what monks could be, not what you think they are now. That's my point. Magic items are a crutch and can't do it because magic items can be used by anyone.
No, magic items are the correct way to balance. If your fifth level fighter has a +3 longsword (because the DM is ridiculous), the monk should have +3 boots of asskicking (or whatever); if he only has a +1 sword, the monk should only get +1 boots, and if he's limping along with a nonmagical sword, well, the monk should do the same.
If you honestly think magic items are how everything is balanced, then we're back to square one. Fifth edition is a abject failure because the classes aren't self-sufficient. Everyone needs magic X magic items granting Y bonuses or the game simply breaks down and becomes impossible.
Am I reading you correctly?
Sorry, what are you talking about? You don't need anything beyond common magic items to complete a 5e campaign. Everything else is optional. Casters in particular don't need a single magic item ever.
An npc doesnt need to shine, its fine if a monk npc doesnt do a lot of damage/utility and plays it safe, its probably preferred. But most players will feel bad if they realize they are half as effective as other members on the team.
They are half as effective because high level monk DPR is garbage, not because they are easily killed.
the issue is, by the book, it doesnt work out for monks that way. The official advice of the dmg is to roll tables, and use already existing items. I hope part of their plan is better advice and methodology for itemization n 5e, but the history of 5e doesnt suggest thats the case. We'll see though
Does that matter though when nobody uses it? AL doesn't use it, none of the half-dozen WM servers I've joined use it, and not one campaign I've played in use it. And beyond that not one of the famous streamers / professional DMs use them.
For real now, how many games have you played in that actually uses the random loot tables? Cause I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill, magic item disparity in the random loot tables doesn't matter because nobody uses them. Because the published magic items aren't just biased against monks, there are no magic halberds, glaives, crossbows, pikes, lances, war picks, whips, mauls, morningstars, flails, hammers, clubs, or sickles. Basically unless you are using a sword you lose out on magic items.
Nobody uses them? That's weird, my DM does. And it's the only table I play at. We don't do published adventures, don't do AL. Just because your experience doesn't use rolled loot doesn't mean no one else's does.
Why does a Monk need a higher CON than any other class? 95% of the characters in my campaigns regardless of class have a +2 CON,
Monks can easily get a +3 DEX, +2 CON, +3 WIS with point buy, and can get even higher if you roll for stats. (The last character I rolled had 2 18s after adding racial bonuses which had I chosen monk would have given me an AC of 18).
Fun fact! The end of our last campaign we had an epic battle with a bunch of NPC allies with us (we were level 17, the NPCs were level 12). Only two NPC allies didn't go down during that battle. One was a monk, the other was a sorcerer. The Fighter, Artificer, and Paladin all got KOed, before the monk did...
OK, so the monk does not need more AC and has a good number of hit points. Good to know.
There are so many ways to fix monk, other than "make numbers bigger like fighter". If WotC want the minimal changes to fix it this is what is needed:
1. Martial Arts attack becomes part of main action, FoB is reduced to 1 attack as a BA, step of the wind should be free.
2. MA die applies to weapons & monk gets proficiency in martial weapons but can't use DEX with Heavy weapons.
3. starting when you get ki points (level 2) you can take a SR in 1 minute 1/day.
4. Deflect Missiles should apply to all attacks just like Uncanny Dodge does.
5. Stunning Strike needs be 1/turn and a Wis or Int save, last until the end of your next turn, and have added to it: "the next time the target takes damage it takes additional force damage equal to your monk level and is no longer stunned."
6. Stillness of Mind needs to be "If you start your turn charmed / frightened you can spend 1 ki to end the condition (no action required) or you can use a BA to end it without spending a ki"
7. At level 11, Stunning Strike should not be limited to 1/turn.
Open Hand
1. 3rd level feature should allow the use of any weapon mastery of your choice with your unarmed strikes, you can choose before making each attack & get the "remove reaction" as an extra WM option with no save.
2. Quivering Palm damage should have no save and be irreducible.
3. Healing feature should be identical to the Paladin's Lay on Hands but only target the monk.
4. The Sanctuary feature should be replaced with expertise in Insight and ability to use Insight in the place of Persuasion
Shadow
1. radius of the Darkness spell should only encompass the monk themselves.
Everything else is fine.
fighting style is one thing they can do within each style. They aren't built around any one concept. Monk has 9-10 main class features, and usually at 1-2 subclass features around being a Monk.
Fighters are not as specialized at something as other classes, though they are effective.
for example, fighters can get a d6-d8 unarmed dice, but they can't use unarmed AS a BA, their unarmed dice never reach past d8, and they don't have on hit unarmed effects. They get one thing to specialize in unarmed, but they don't have multiple things that a true specialist has.
first of the game isn't 'balanced' around having no magic items, its doable while having no magical items, unlike previous editions which sometimes required magic items. The DMG assumes that players have opened various hoards with magic items in it, or the DM or module is giving magic items to players. Its playable without it, but not designed without magic items in mind.
this is why non weapon based martial builds always get a feature that makes their attacks magical or elemental around level 6. because they expect martials to obtain a magic weapon by that level.
But that aside the issue is that people are talking about is the fact that once magic items come into play(most t2+ games (and every module, and dmg recommendations have magic items)) A class that is locked out from armor and shields, whom half attacks are without weapons doesn't perform the same way. Monk itemization, or an alternative that achieves parity with magic items is very underdeveloped in dnd. It also has poor spell and feature interactions.
the reason they can't do it from class features is because some campaigns outlaw magic items, or give out few. So the thing that balances it can't be totally separate from magic items. They could however have monk focused items like manuals and tomes, that very much fit the concept of monk aesticism.
Monk itemization is utterly trivial, add a clause to all the weapons that already can be any weapon (like +1 weapon or Vicious weapon) that they can be specialized magic handwraps that apply their bonus to unarmed strikes.
And for amour create a new class in the "Armour" section:
Unarmoured Clothing: Traveller's Clothes, Commoner's Clothes, Fine Clothes, Entertain's Costume, Monk Robes, Mage Robes.
Then add into all the generic armour sets (like +1 armour) "can also be a set of clothing".
Et voila! Problem solved.
PS added bonus to this: a sadistic DM can give the party a +3 set of "Entertainer's Costume (Jester)".
just give monk a feature called External Focus which lets them gain the +x and "magic attacks" to unarmed strikes of a magic weapon that they keep sheathed/belted/etc on their person. works with one attuned weapon, add a sage advice later to suggest they can get the fire from firetongue or whatnot. there, now monks benefit from random loot tables that like to give out weapons no one in the party uses.
i'd say do the same for magic armor but what for? monks need better/more mobility reactions, not better/more AC.
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!
First of the monk doesn't specifically need con, thats just one possible solution, they need survivability.
players can play sub optimally and the dm can adjust, but they can't adjust upward past the limits.
first off, only melee 'need' strong survivability mechanics in a group in dnd. So thats why off the bat, 80% of characters don't need it. However if they want it, most characters can pursue it and gain benefits without sacrificing effectiveness.
Also monk is literally the only class who needs to get into 5 foot range to be effective. They also have a low hitdice for that type of character. Even ranger gets a d10. The monk has baseline AC, low mitigation, low HP, low recovery and high risk. Mathematically, if a DM targets monks as often as other characters, they will die sooner, unless they give up half their already low damage.
An npc doesnt need to shine, its fine if a monk npc doesnt do a lot of damage/utility and plays it safe, its probably preferred. But most players will feel bad if they realize they are half as effective as other members on the team.
No, they can do it from class features. I typed about what monks could be, not what you think they are now. That's my point. Magic items are a crutch and can't do it because magic items can be used by anyone. The monk, with its reduced proficiencies, has fewer opportunities to close any and all perceived gaps. It simply doesn't have the paths to power that other classes do.
However, simply having those paths doesn't make the other classes inherently stronger. As I said before, the classes have been redesigned from earlier editions to be more self-sufficient. They aren't as reliant on magic items as they used to be in order to keep up with challenges. That said, a thing only matters if and when it becomes relevant. If an option isn't utilized, then it may as well not exist. We've seen that come up in interviews with Crawford regarding the warlock and its pact magic. Similarly, druids can wear light and medium armor, but most of that won't matter if they can't get their hands on nonmetallic options stronger than leather or hide. And that's because druids choose not to wear armor made from metal, so that class has an identity which intentionally limits its own options.
Why make that a Sage Advice article, which hasn't been updated since before Tasha's was published, when you can just make that a function of the feature?
Or just give them items they can use that might not require attunement, like a Flame Tongue Shortsword or Giant Slayer Handaxe.
No, magic items are the correct way to balance. If your fifth level fighter has a +3 longsword (because the DM is ridiculous), the monk should have +3 boots of asskicking (or whatever); if he only has a +1 sword, the monk should only get +1 boots, and if he's limping along with a nonmagical sword, well, the monk should do the same.
Correct. Your class abilities should put you on par with people without magic items. If your class abilities put you on par with the fighter with the +3 sword what happens in the game when the DM only gives him a +1. So on par with no magic item fighter, and with equivalent items to keep them on par as the fighter gets items.
the issue is, by the book, it doesnt work out for monks that way. The official advice of the dmg is to roll tables, and use already existing items. I hope part of their plan is better advice and methodology for itemization n 5e, but the history of 5e doesnt suggest thats the case. We'll see though
That's mostly because they aren't willing to publish boots of asskicking.
This is why it's frustrating that they haven't really talked about other aspects of the game in any of the development videos; magic items are something we probably won't see in a playtest unless they're planning some unusual new additions, but it'd be nice to know that they're aware of how unbalanced the current core set of magic items are (heavily favour spellcasters which are made even stronger, while some classes *ahem* Monk *ahem* have major gaps in the magic item lineup).
It's why evaluating playtest materials as presented is so difficult; we're given a slice of future content to evaluate in the context of all the other problems with 5e, makes it very difficult to know how updated classes actually stack up. Because even if they'd released a really good Monk update (which they most certainly did not) it'd still have trouble with progression thanks to magic items, because it's not the job of class features to make up for that.
Classes should be reasonably balanced against other classes (give players access to a similar range of impactful core abilities), meanwhile magic items should be reasonably balanced against one another (items of similar rarity should have a similar impact on the class(es) they're intended for, each class should have access to a similar number of core magic items etc.).
If we at least knew they were thinking in these terms it would be easier to view the playtests, and OneD&D in general, with more confidence but they don't give that impression.
Really magic items should also enhance a character's strengths, or give them new abilities, they shouldn't eliminate weaknesses. But one of the big problems with 5e magic items is that so many items for casters give them a bunch of free spells, and free castings, which massively counteracts the resource limitations that are supposed to balance out the strength of spellcasting as a feature, and these items often have additional bonuses, like Wizards of the Coast don't consider more free spells to be a meaningful bonus, but they're such a major boost to casters.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Does that matter though when nobody uses it? AL doesn't use it, none of the half-dozen WM servers I've joined use it, and not one campaign I've played in use it. And beyond that not one of the famous streamers / professional DMs use them.
For real now, how many games have you played in that actually uses the random loot tables? Cause I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill, magic item disparity in the random loot tables doesn't matter because nobody uses them. Because the published magic items aren't just biased against monks, there are no magic halberds, glaives, crossbows, pikes, lances, war picks, whips, mauls, morningstars, flails, hammers, clubs, or sickles. Basically unless you are using a sword you lose out on magic items.
If you honestly think magic items are how everything is balanced, then we're back to square one. Fifth edition is a abject failure because the classes aren't self-sufficient. Everyone needs magic X magic items granting Y bonuses or the game simply breaks down and becomes impossible.
Am I reading you correctly?
Sorry, what are you talking about? You don't need anything beyond common magic items to complete a 5e campaign. Everything else is optional. Casters in particular don't need a single magic item ever.
They are half as effective because high level monk DPR is garbage, not because they are easily killed.
Nobody uses them? That's weird, my DM does. And it's the only table I play at. We don't do published adventures, don't do AL. Just because your experience doesn't use rolled loot doesn't mean no one else's does.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?