If you are talking about a martial class that can control, the new rogue seems to be that with cunning strike or the battle master. The only thing going for monk is the movement speed.
I kind of wish they had done the Battle Master with Cunning-Strike-like abilities instead of 5e style. I’ve been working on something like that, for all of the Martial classes.
A lazy but balanced way of doing that for the battle master is:
Prepare Attack (level 7): when you use the attack action on your turn, you may sacrifice one of your attacks to gain an extra superiority die. If not used, this die is lost at the start of your next turn (make it the end if you want slightly more powerful).
That's a net dpr loss (how much depends on your choice of weapon), but allows applying a status effect, which makes it very similar to cunning strike.
If you are talking about a martial class that can control, the new rogue seems to be that with cunning strike or the battle master. The only thing going for monk is the movement speed.
I kind of wish they had done the Battle Master with Cunning-Strike-like abilities instead of 5e style. I’ve been working on something like that, for all of the Martial classes.
A lazy but balanced way of doing that for the battle master is:
Prepare Attack (level 7): when you use the attack action on your turn, you may sacrifice one of your attacks to gain an extra superiority die. If not used, this die is lost at the start of your next turn (make it the end if you want slightly more powerful).
That's a net dpr loss (how much depends on your choice of weapon), but allows applying a status effect, which makes it very similar to cunning strike.
They could even scale that idea for tier 3-4 by spending multiple attacks. Heck let people even use all their attacks for something that does no damage but has a high tier effect.
If you are talking about a martial class that can control, the new rogue seems to be that with cunning strike or the battle master. The only thing going for monk is the movement speed.
I kind of wish they had done the Battle Master with Cunning-Strike-like abilities instead of 5e style. I’ve been working on something like that, for all of the Martial classes.
A lazy but balanced way of doing that for the battle master is:
Prepare Attack (level 7): when you use the attack action on your turn, you may sacrifice one of your attacks to gain an extra superiority die. If not used, this die is lost at the start of your next turn (make it the end if you want slightly more powerful).
That's a net dpr loss (how much depends on your choice of weapon), but allows applying a status effect, which makes it very similar to cunning strike.
I don't see why anybody would ever use that. You're giving up one of your two attacks to have a chance to deal a bit of extra damage and have a relatively minor rider. With Cunning Strike, you already know that the attack has hit, and the reduction in damage is significantly lower than an entire attack from a Fighter.
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)
If you are talking about a martial class that can control, the new rogue seems to be that with cunning strike or the battle master. The only thing going for monk is the movement speed.
I kind of wish they had done the Battle Master with Cunning-Strike-like abilities instead of 5e style. I’ve been working on something like that, for all of the Martial classes.
A lazy but balanced way of doing that for the battle master is:
Prepare Attack (level 7): when you use the attack action on your turn, you may sacrifice one of your attacks to gain an extra superiority die. If not used, this die is lost at the start of your next turn (make it the end if you want slightly more powerful).
That's a net dpr loss (how much depends on your choice of weapon), but allows applying a status effect, which makes it very similar to cunning strike.
I don't see why anybody would ever use that. You're giving up one of your two attacks to have a chance to deal a bit of extra damage and have a relatively minor rider. With Cunning Strike, you already know that the attack has hit, and the reduction in damage is significantly lower than an entire attack from a Fighter.
Well if you gave up the 2nd attack after a hit its guaranteed extra damage and a small rider. But the main thing is battle master style effects need scaling to higher tiers.
So, let’s say we have “Martial Actions” that are the set of Cunning Strikes, Weapon Mastery abilities, Battle Master Maneuvers (minus their damage element, since that will come from somewhere else), Sword Bard Flourishes (again, minus the damage), and some bits from the 1e OA martial arts. That list gets cleaned up some to resolve duplicates and make them more consistent with each other. Then a damage enhancer ability for Fighters and Monks (that is limited to 1 die at low level, and 3 dice at high levels; compared to Sneak Attack where you can always use all of your “dice per turn” for damage, and Sneak Attack is always Rogue only).
(the Rogue poison Cunning Strike, and Thief Stealth Attack are NOT in the list of Martial Actions, and are instead special actions that use dice, but aren’t able to be learned by others)
Fighters and Monks get as many Martial Action Dice as a Rogue gets Sneak Attack dice, and like a Rogue they refresh every turn. Barbs get 1-2, but get extra while Raging. Paladins (and War Clerics) and Rangers get 1-2. Sword Bards and Dance Bards can use their Bardic Inspiration as Single Use Martial Action dice. Then there are some Single Use dice for various purposes, that refresh after short/long rests. War Clerics and Paladins can use Channel Divinity to create Single Use dice, as well (and Battle Masters get extra Single Use dice past what the Fighter gets).
Fighters and Monks have a die type that scales like the Monk’s martial arts die (which is also changed to scale at the same time as Bardic Inspiration dice).
Monks also use these dice instead of ki/spirit/discipline points. But most of those abilities are regular Martial Action dice.
And the whole thing basically replaces Weapon Masteries.
It gives Monks more customizability around martial arts styles, and a damage enhancer for Fighters and Monks that helps them in later levels. I think I’m almost ready to share it.
Forgot to say this: Rogues can use Sneak Attack dice as Martial Action Dice, but not the other way around. But the mechanisms of MA Dice are the _basically_ the same as for Cunning Actions.
You don't need to have less subclass variation as long as devs build more subclasses of Monkish Fighter and the Monkish Rogue. Right now you have several subclasses of Monk that are completely half-baked anyway b/c the devs don't understand that their own cultural upbringing prevents them from seeing that "Monk" is really just a variation of Fighter or a variation of Rogue. If we start from the standpoint that some Fighter subclasses will wear less armor, have more mobility, and build their Ki instead of weapon skills, you can easily get something like the 5e Monk, but with more hit points while also being less MAD. If we start from the view that some Rogue subclasses will have access to specific magic abilities inherently and sometimes hit more than once a round, you also get something like the 5e Monk, but with better skill progression and less reliance on being in melee range where that d8 hit dice leads to quick trip to unconsciousness/death. And being less reliant on melee attacks will make building a Rogue Monk easier b/c also less MAD.
classes are not designed based on similar mechanics, classes are created based on what type of fantasy they represent.
this is evidenced by wizard and sorcerer being different classes, paladin being neither cleric, nor fighter subclasses, ranger being neither fighter nor druid subclasses. Bard being neither cleric nor wizard subclasses.
Classes are identity/fantasy/concept first, and they create and use whatever mechanics they build to represent that identifty/fantasy/concept.
subclasses are sub identities, and concepts.
Monk represents a different subset of fantasy than the fighter does, or the rogue.
Here is the problem, though. The fantasy superhuman that mostly uses punching/kicking and attains their super-ness via self-perfecting blend of mind/body/spirit is very much NOT a West European cultural construct. If you look at movies made in Hollywood (the global purveyor of West European pop culture), people who punch, kick, headbutt, etc. as their main form of attack are either genetically enhanced (Capt. America), born with superpowers (Colossus), or got their powers through sheer accident (Thing from FF4 franchise). Are boxers superpowered in Hollywood fiction? No. Are wrestlers superpowered in Hollywood fiction? No.
The only prominent examples you can arguably give for non-European superpowered punch/kick + mind/body/spirit perfection theme being executed well are Avatar: the Last Bender and Avatar: the Legend of Korra, which are basically part of the same Intellectual Property. Notice, however, clothing, food, artistic renditions of bodies, etc. for both of those series are much closer to an East Asian cultural aesthetic than a West European cultural aesthetic for the prominent recurring characters (aside from some clear borrowing of aesthetics from indigenous cultures). And notice, also, that the live action version of Avatar the Last Airbender has become a meme of crappitude based both on its cost:profit ratio and general plot/characterization issues.
Maybe not Hollywood exactly but wrestlers in Wrestling fiction are often super powered. The Undertaker has been killed in the ring lord knows how many times and has self-resurrected every time. He is, according to the lore, virtually unable to permanently die. I don’t believe a non-western trope has ever been mentioned related to his superhuman ability to will himself back to life, but I have lost touch with wrestling since I hit adulthood…
This is more of a Barbarian thing, though. Isn't this basically Zealot Barbarian? In any case, giving all members of a class a "you cannot be killed" ability doesn't really distinguish the class. There is a reason that only one subclass in the Barbarian set has this ability.
You don't need to have less subclass variation as long as devs build more subclasses of Monkish Fighter and the Monkish Rogue. Right now you have several subclasses of Monk that are completely half-baked anyway b/c the devs don't understand that their own cultural upbringing prevents them from seeing that "Monk" is really just a variation of Fighter or a variation of Rogue. If we start from the standpoint that some Fighter subclasses will wear less armor, have more mobility, and build their Ki instead of weapon skills, you can easily get something like the 5e Monk, but with more hit points while also being less MAD. If we start from the view that some Rogue subclasses will have access to specific magic abilities inherently and sometimes hit more than once a round, you also get something like the 5e Monk, but with better skill progression and less reliance on being in melee range where that d8 hit dice leads to quick trip to unconsciousness/death. And being less reliant on melee attacks will make building a Rogue Monk easier b/c also less MAD.
classes are not designed based on similar mechanics, classes are created based on what type of fantasy they represent.
this is evidenced by wizard and sorcerer being different classes, paladin being neither cleric, nor fighter subclasses, ranger being neither fighter nor druid subclasses. Bard being neither cleric nor wizard subclasses.
Classes are identity/fantasy/concept first, and they create and use whatever mechanics they build to represent that identifty/fantasy/concept.
subclasses are sub identities, and concepts.
Monk represents a different subset of fantasy than the fighter does, or the rogue.
Here is the problem, though. The fantasy superhuman that mostly uses punching/kicking and attains their super-ness via self-perfecting blend of mind/body/spirit is very much NOT a West European cultural construct. If you look at movies made in Hollywood (the global purveyor of West European pop culture), people who punch, kick, headbutt, etc. as their main form of attack are either genetically enhanced (Capt. America), born with superpowers (Colossus), or got their powers through sheer accident (Thing from FF4 franchise). Are boxers superpowered in Hollywood fiction? No. Are wrestlers superpowered in Hollywood fiction? No.
The only prominent examples you can arguably give for non-European superpowered punch/kick + mind/body/spirit perfection theme being executed well are Avatar: the Last Bender and Avatar: the Legend of Korra, which are basically part of the same Intellectual Property. Notice, however, clothing, food, artistic renditions of bodies, etc. for both of those series are much closer to an East Asian cultural aesthetic than a West European cultural aesthetic for the prominent recurring characters (aside from some clear borrowing of aesthetics from indigenous cultures). And notice, also, that the live action version of Avatar the Last Airbender has become a meme of crappitude based both on its cost:profit ratio and general plot/characterization issues.
So where does the superpowered punch/kick + mind/body/spirit paradigm come from? For ease of refence, let's call this the "Holistic PK" model. East Asian pop culture. Whether it's anime, Hong Kong kung fu movies, or wuxia films, the aesthetic and framing for the this paradigm is East Asian.
However, D&D was designed by Gary Gygax based mostly on W.European cultural themes. Which were the primary classes when D&D first came out? Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Wizard. Let's call this these the "Classic Core." These factors are all important to our examination of the Monk class b/c the Holistic PK model is both A) not W.European fantasy in origin and B) is not a Fighter, Cleric, Thief, or Wizard. Therefore, the design team at WotC (which continues to be headed by people who grew up primarily with W.European ideas of what is inspiring fantasy fiction), will generally prioritize the best experience for players who want to play a Fighter, Rogue (name-swapped Thief), Cleric, or Wizard. This means that classes that are not the Classic Core will always be secondary in their design priorities. This is important because the game has mechanics, and class/subclass features must be based on mechanics, not just the imagination (even though the imagination is what brings the game to life for the players). However, because the Classic Core was designed first and is favored by the game devs, non-Classic Core classes become add-ons. This prioritization schema, intentional or not, will almost always prioritize giving nice things to the Classic Core, even at the expense of secondary classes.
If you look at your examples of different themes, we notice a pattern once we take the Classic Core design priority into consideration. The PHB Sorcerer is generally sub-optimal compared to the Wizard, right? Based on DPS, the Ranger is generally sub-optimal compared to the Fighter, correct? So we see that Classic Core is supported by the devs moreso than the non-Classic Core classes.
The problem for the Monk class is that it is both not a Classic Core class and not inspired by W.European cultural milieu. And as AEDorsay pointed out in a much earlier post on this same thread, weapons + armor is a mechanical choice that has to be noticeably different from unarmored, punching/kicking. As such, game design decisions re: optimization potential, feats, magic items, etc. will generally favor the Classic Core (and those classes designed most like the Classic Core) than something like the Monk, because the Holistic PK model is conceptually not W.European and was developed as a supplemental class, not a primary class by Gygax and co. This is why I proposed that the only real solution to this problem is getting rid of the conceptual barrier between Monk and Fighter, as well as between Monk and Rogue. As long as Monk design is treated as being both mechanically and thematically separate from the Classic Core, it will never get much in terms of Nice Things both because the design space for classes will generally favor the Common Core and b/c if you borrow features from Fighter or Rogue and give them to the Monk, the Fighter/Rogue fanbase will yell and holler about it, leading to the devs to backpedal, since the devs care more pleasing the Classic Core's fanbase more than the Holistic PK fanbase.
Why does dnd need to only draw from one culture? Dnd draws from tons of different cultures; genies, djinns, raksashas, oni, planes,
Asian martial arts literally existed at the same time period. And Europe was aware of Asia, Rome, middle east, etc even before the dark ages. There was trade between these nations.
even if dnd was only supposed to be a very limited closed setting (which monk was added fairly early, so probably not) By now dnd incorporates space, Astral seas, Multiple planes.
The fact that monk fantasy is based on Asian pop culture is largely irrelevant.
also, the weapon problem is largely just because of lack of thinking or rushing Unarmed last minute. That discrepancy can, and has been solved in a couple homebrew rules. Its just dnd revision cycle is 5 years generally, and 10 years for 5e. Its not a deep inherent problem with design paradigms.
I absolutely agree that Monk does not HAVE to be based on any one culture. Nor should it. But I bring up pop culture references b/c Monk subclass design has generally been based on anime. Sun Soul is weak version of Dragon Ball. Shadow is typical pop culture ninja minus shurikens. Drunken Master = kung fu movies with "Drunk fist" moves. Four Elements is an Avatar the Last Airbender reference. Kensei monk is a call back to a prestige class of the same name back in 2e that was in Oriental Adventures. Astral Self is a JoJo's Bizarre Adventure reference. None of this is a coincidence. The fact that the vast majority subclasses are drawn of East Asian pop culture tells you where the conceptual space that the devs draw their ideas from. Theme is big part of what makes a class and subclass "work" in the minds of the players. Yes, mechanics are big part, but without theme, it would be more like playing cards at the casino instead of a role-playing game.
I'm saying it would be better that the devs get out of the mind frame that East Asian pop culture be the primary source of inspiration for the Monk class. I agree with you on that. I like that the Mercy Monk, for instance, isn't yet another theme plucked from E.Asian pop culture. However, one or two decent subclasses does not fix the Monk class. And the as long as the Monk class is put into the "East Asian culture box", we are very unlikely to see any major official changes to the base class b/c W. European pop culture doesn't incorporate super-powered unarmed fighting with mind/body/spirit whatevs. So the devs need to reframe how Monk exists within the D&D universe, or else it is stuck being a crappier version of Fighter or crappier version of Rogue since the concept space for the Monk class is smaller from the get-go due to the Classic Core classes being the top priority for the developers. Making the fanbase for Classic Core happy is always going to trump making the Monk fanbase happy.
Re: weapon vs. unarmed fighting issue, I disagree. A big reason is Feats. Feats are what allow Fighter and Rogue to excel at high damage builds. And the feats that do the most damage are those that involve weapons that the Monk base class is poorly built for. Great Weapon Master doesn't work for Monk due to Monk weapon restrictions. Sharpshooter is possible, but not very good for most Monks since FoB, Stunning Strike are melee only.
What if we designed a Feat that improves damage or versatility of status effects from unarmed strikes? Well, okay, but we still have the MADness of the Monk stat distribution to deal with the class's poor survivability if it does not invest both in WIS and DEX, so better Monk feats only solves part of the problem. Ultimately, major changes need to happen for the Monk to keep up with Fighters after level 10. Might be easier to add smthing like Expertise to Monks so that at least they can compare with Rogues well in one department.
I'm saying it would be better that the devs get out of the mind frame that East Asian pop culture be the primary source of inspiration for the Monk class. I agree with you there. However, that is very unlikely precisely b/c W. European pop culture doesn't incorporate super-powered unarmed fighting with mind/body/spirit whatevs. So unless W. European pop culture changes, the Monk is "stuck" being a crappier version of Fighter or crappier version of Rogue since the concept space for the Monk class is smaller from the get-go due to the Classic Core classes being the top priority for the developers. Making the fanbase for Classic Core happy is always going to trump making the Monk fanbase happy.
IMO the problem here is that the Paladin is kind of the Western cultural version of the Monk, due to the influence of Christianity & Roman militarism on Western culture. You can kind of see it even in the class design. Thematically/Mechanically the Monk is more similar to the Paladin than it is to the Fighter:
- limited use damage buff -> Paladin: smite, Monk: FoB - high saving throws -> Paladin: aura of protection, Monk: Diamond Soul - resistance to fear/charm -> Paladin: devotion paladin aura + aura of Courage, Monk: Stillness of Mind - purity -> Paladin : Divine Health, Monk: Purity of Body - social buffs -> Paladin: Cha-focused, Monk: Tongue of the Sun and Moon
D&D is heavily based in the Western world-view. Sure it adapts things from other cultures (though that it itself is a very western thing) but it puts its own Western spin on it. I would argue that the Monk is not a good representation of East Asian traditions, it is a representation of the popular Western interpretation of those traditions.
I'm saying it would be better that the devs get out of the mind frame that East Asian pop culture be the primary source of inspiration for the Monk class. I agree with you there. However, that is very unlikely precisely b/c W. European pop culture doesn't incorporate super-powered unarmed fighting with mind/body/spirit whatevs. So unless W. European pop culture changes, the Monk is "stuck" being a crappier version of Fighter or crappier version of Rogue since the concept space for the Monk class is smaller from the get-go due to the Classic Core classes being the top priority for the developers. Making the fanbase for Classic Core happy is always going to trump making the Monk fanbase happy.
IMO the problem here is that the Paladin is kind of the Western cultural version of the Monk, due to the influence of Christianity & Roman militarism on Western culture. You can kind of see it even in the class design. Thematically/Mechanically the Monk is more similar to the Paladin than it is to the Fighter:
- limited use damage buff -> Paladin: smite, Monk: FoB - high saving throws -> Paladin: aura of protection, Monk: Diamond Soul - resistance to fear/charm -> Paladin: devotion paladin aura + aura of Courage, Monk: Stillness of Mind - purity -> Paladin : Divine Health, Monk: Purity of Body - social buffs -> Paladin: Cha-focused, Monk: Tongue of the Sun and Moon
D&D is heavily based in the Western world-view. Sure it adapts things from other cultures (though that it itself is a very western thing) but it puts its own Western spin on it. I would argue that the Monk is not a good representation of East Asian traditions, it is a representation of the popular Western interpretation of those traditions.
I agree, AgileM. The Paladin is basically the West European version of Monk, but uses weapons, armor, spell slots. Which is why it is easier to multi-class Paladin than Monk and why the devs have generally had much more success making subclasses for the Paladin instead of Monk: it fits the pre-established W. European framing of the fantasy theme AND the design principles are more in line with the Classic Core.
It's definitely true, in more ways than one, that the Paladin is the western version of the Monk. The most common models of the Paladin trope .. are the actual holy monastic warriors of the western tradition (the Templars, Hospitalers, and Teutonics).
It's definitely true, in more ways than one, that the Paladin is the western version of the Monk. The most common models of the Paladin trope .. are the actual holy monastic warriors of the western tradition (the Templars, Hospitalers, and Teutonics).
the next best thing the west has to a 'focus your inner energies' trope would be psions, i guess.
...that, or off-the-grid mushroom gathering, crystal wearing, phases of the moon tracking, crunchy granola moms. which are, i think they'd agree, more akin to druids.
((also, my first example of a 'western' psion fighter was The Matrix. but he famously learns kung fu. that's east. my second was Akira. oops! east'd again!))
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!
IMO the problem here is that the Paladin is kind of the Western cultural version of the Monk, due to the influence of Christianity & Roman militarism on Western culture.
Debatable. While there are certainly militarized western religious orders such as the Teutonic Order, they don't seem to treat the use of weapons as a form of religious practice, whereas there was a definite religious element to, for example, the practice of martial arts at the Shaolin temples.
Question, what does a player expect when they choose the monk class in a game, and I'm not just talking about dnd but also in video game? I think everyone starts with a preconception when choosing a class. I think everyone has their own idea due to the influences they have received in their lives, and I think you could start from this list:
Question, what does a player expect when they choose the monk class in a game, and I'm not just talking about dnd but also in video game? I think everyone starts with a preconception when choosing a class. I think everyone has their own idea due to the influences they have received in their lives, and I think you could start from this list:
80s cinematic folk art (Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Chuck Norris, ...)
More modern movies and TV series (Matrix, ...)
Video games (Diablo, WoW, Final Fanatasy, Fighting Games, ...)
Real martial arts
....
Monk, or at least Monk and its sub-classes, should be able to cover most of these to some degree; obviously not with the true power ascribed to a folk legend or seen in dragon ball etc., but a class should be flexible enough to allow you to build a range of characters around that archetype.
Fighter for example has a lot of freedom in the equipment you can take, and access to more feats than other classes, making it very easy to build a wide range of fighter type characters. Meanwhile the sub-classes let you refine that further by adding new options or doubling down on what they're already good at.
Monk's base class lacks that kind of flexibility; you don't really have the choice to lean more into martial arts vs. mysticism, because you get so few options for each as standard. The choice of whether to boost Dexterity or Wisdom first isn't much of a choice because outside of a few specific builds you need both eventually. This is why I think the idea of rolling in parts of Open Hand and maybe Astral Self has merit, because it would let the core class represent more, and give an opportunity for those sub-classes to then be more specialised.
Moving Open Hand Technique to the base class would give monks more access to martial arts techniques on all characters, but give Open Hand a chance to then specialise further into being the sub-class for a "pure" martial artists (where any Ki/Discipline powers are more about technique than mysticism). Likewise if a slightly stripped down Arms of the Astral Self were added to base monk it could represent a "focus" mode that most characters could reflavour as they like, allowing for more Wisdom focused builds, with Astral Self boosting it further with more mystical additions like the extended reach and other additions.
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.
Question, what does a player expect when they choose the monk class in a game, and I'm not just talking about dnd but also in video game? I think everyone starts with a preconception when choosing a class. I think everyone has their own idea due to the influences they have received in their lives, and I think you could start from this list:
80s cinematic folk art (Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Chuck Norris, ...)
More modern movies and TV series (Matrix, ...)
Video games (Diablo, WoW, Final Fanatasy, Fighting Games, ...)
Real martial arts
....
Monk, or at least Monk and its sub-classes, should be able to cover most of these to some degree; obviously not with the true power ascribed to a folk legend or seen in dragon ball etc., but a class should be flexible enough to allow you to build a range of characters around that archetype.
Fighter for example has a lot of freedom in the equipment you can take, and access to more feats than other classes, making it very easy to build a wide range of fighter type characters. Meanwhile the sub-classes let you refine that further new options doubling down on what you're already good at.
Monk's base class lacks that kind of flexibility; you don't really have the choice to lean more into martial arts vs. mysticism, because you get so few options for each as standard. The choice of whether to boost Dexterity or Wisdom first isn't much of a choice because outside of a few specific builds you need both eventually. This is why I think the idea of rolling in parts of Open Hand and maybe Astral Self has merit, because it would let the core class represent more, and give an opportunity for those sub-classes to then be more specialised.
Moving Open Hand Technique to the base class would give monks more access to martial arts techniques on all characters, but give Open Hand a chance to then specialise further into being the sub-class for a "pure" martial artists (where any Ki/Discipline powers are more about technique than mysticism). Likewise if a slightly stripped down Arms of the Astral Self were added to base monk it could represent a "focus" mode that most characters could reflavour as they like, allowing for more Wisdom focused builds, with Astral Self boosting it further with more mystical additions like the extended reach and other additions.
What you say sounds interesting. I think we should change Unarmed Strike to something more in line with Weapon Mastery for the monk and present it a bit like the open hand techniques. (This is only for the monk class). This could rapresent a bit of a version of Unarmed Mastery.
Then with the damage of the attack being able to choose one of the options and if done together with FoB being able to upgrade the option on par with the Weapon Mastery techniques.
An Unarmed Strike is a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within your Reach. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them. When you make an Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options:
Damage. Make an unarmed attack against a creature within your reach. Your bonus to hit with this attack equals your Strength modifier plus your Proficiency Bonus. On a hit, the target takes Bludgeoning Damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier.
Grapple. You attempt to grapple a creature within your reach. Make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). You succeed automatically if the target is incapacitated. If you succeed, the target is Grappled. The condition specifies the things that end it, and you can release the target whenever you like (no action required). This grapple is possible only if the target is no more than one Size larger than you and if you have a hand free to grab the target.
Shove. you make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). You succeed automatically if the target is Incapacitated. If you succeed, you either knock the target Prone or push it 5 feet away from you. This shove is possible only if the target is no more than one Size larger than you.
Question, what does a player expect when they choose the monk class in a game, and I'm not just talking about dnd but also in video game? I think everyone starts with a preconception when choosing a class. I think everyone has their own idea due to the influences they have received in their lives, and I think you could start from this list:
80s cinematic folk art (Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Chuck Norris, ...)
More modern movies and TV series (Matrix, ...)
Video games (Diablo, WoW, Final Fanatasy, Fighting Games, ...)
Real martial arts
....
Monk, or at least Monk and its sub-classes, should be able to cover most of these to some degree; obviously not with the true power ascribed to a folk legend or seen in dragon ball etc., but a class should be flexible enough to allow you to build a range of characters around that archetype.
Strongly agree with that.
I would include: movies (Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Jet Lee, Wuxia type genre, some of the extremes from the Matrix at higher level, etc.), shows like Avatar and Kung Fu, Marvel things like Shang-Chi and Dragon Fist (comics and live action), and sensibilities from real world Martial Arts (concrete and spiritual angles). I would also include some way to recover elements from earlier editions. Which means my vision of the Monk class really spans across those choices, and isn't about just one of them.
And my "real world" martial arts isn't limited to East Asian arts. There are martial arts from South Asia (India) as well. And historical arts from Europe (Pankration and various types of wrestling: Catch Wrestling, Olympic, Greco-Roman, the grappling skills from full plate equipped knights, etc.). And I don't see reason to leave out modern arts that influence the fiction genres (so Savate, Krav-Maga, Aikido, Hapkido, Jeet Kune Do, MMA, Russian Sambo wrestling). So I can easily make room for "eurocentric" non-Paladin "warrior Monks" who are more themed around Pankration, Western Wrestling traditions, Savate, and Krav-Maga type sensibilities.
And that doesn't even touch into HEMA, but that starts to undermine the stereotype of what "martial arts" means and return it to the broader meaning of the words.
Monk's [...] don't really have the choice to lean more into martial arts vs. mysticism,
Sort of highjacking that statement to say: I've long wanted to see a 1/3 caster subclass for the Monk that explores the magical side of Monk mysticism. I've added that in a recent repl to my thread about Martial Actions (some subclasses I left out of the initial post because they're "other missing subclasses" and not really about Martial Actions).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A lazy but balanced way of doing that for the battle master is:
That's a net dpr loss (how much depends on your choice of weapon), but allows applying a status effect, which makes it very similar to cunning strike.
They could even scale that idea for tier 3-4 by spending multiple attacks. Heck let people even use all their attacks for something that does no damage but has a high tier effect.
I don't see why anybody would ever use that. You're giving up one of your two attacks to have a chance to deal a bit of extra damage and have a relatively minor rider. With Cunning Strike, you already know that the attack has hit, and the reduction in damage is significantly lower than an entire attack from a Fighter.
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)
Well if you gave up the 2nd attack after a hit its guaranteed extra damage and a small rider. But the main thing is battle master style effects need scaling to higher tiers.
So, let’s say we have “Martial Actions” that are the set of Cunning Strikes, Weapon Mastery abilities, Battle Master Maneuvers (minus their damage element, since that will come from somewhere else), Sword Bard Flourishes (again, minus the damage), and some bits from the 1e OA martial arts. That list gets cleaned up some to resolve duplicates and make them more consistent with each other. Then a damage enhancer ability for Fighters and Monks (that is limited to 1 die at low level, and 3 dice at high levels; compared to Sneak Attack where you can always use all of your “dice per turn” for damage, and Sneak Attack is always Rogue only).
(the Rogue poison Cunning Strike, and Thief Stealth Attack are NOT in the list of Martial Actions, and are instead special actions that use dice, but aren’t able to be learned by others)
Fighters and Monks get as many Martial Action Dice as a Rogue gets Sneak Attack dice, and like a Rogue they refresh every turn. Barbs get 1-2, but get extra while Raging. Paladins (and War Clerics) and Rangers get 1-2. Sword Bards and Dance Bards can use their Bardic Inspiration as Single Use Martial Action dice. Then there are some Single Use dice for various purposes, that refresh after short/long rests. War Clerics and Paladins can use Channel Divinity to create Single Use dice, as well (and Battle Masters get extra Single Use dice past what the Fighter gets).
Fighters and Monks have a die type that scales like the Monk’s martial arts die (which is also changed to scale at the same time as Bardic Inspiration dice).
Monks also use these dice instead of ki/spirit/discipline points. But most of those abilities are regular Martial Action dice.
And the whole thing basically replaces Weapon Masteries.
It gives Monks more customizability around martial arts styles, and a damage enhancer for Fighters and Monks that helps them in later levels. I think I’m almost ready to share it.
Forgot to say this: Rogues can use Sneak Attack dice as Martial Action Dice, but not the other way around. But the mechanisms of MA Dice are the _basically_ the same as for Cunning Actions.
I really dig your ideas here johnkzin.
Posted it as a new thread:
"Martial Actions, a replacement for Weapon Mastery for 1DD"
This is more of a Barbarian thing, though. Isn't this basically Zealot Barbarian? In any case, giving all members of a class a "you cannot be killed" ability doesn't really distinguish the class. There is a reason that only one subclass in the Barbarian set has this ability.
I absolutely agree that Monk does not HAVE to be based on any one culture. Nor should it. But I bring up pop culture references b/c Monk subclass design has generally been based on anime. Sun Soul is weak version of Dragon Ball. Shadow is typical pop culture ninja minus shurikens. Drunken Master = kung fu movies with "Drunk fist" moves. Four Elements is an Avatar the Last Airbender reference. Kensei monk is a call back to a prestige class of the same name back in 2e that was in Oriental Adventures. Astral Self is a JoJo's Bizarre Adventure reference. None of this is a coincidence. The fact that the vast majority subclasses are drawn of East Asian pop culture tells you where the conceptual space that the devs draw their ideas from. Theme is big part of what makes a class and subclass "work" in the minds of the players. Yes, mechanics are big part, but without theme, it would be more like playing cards at the casino instead of a role-playing game.
I'm saying it would be better that the devs get out of the mind frame that East Asian pop culture be the primary source of inspiration for the Monk class. I agree with you on that. I like that the Mercy Monk, for instance, isn't yet another theme plucked from E.Asian pop culture. However, one or two decent subclasses does not fix the Monk class. And the as long as the Monk class is put into the "East Asian culture box", we are very unlikely to see any major official changes to the base class b/c W. European pop culture doesn't incorporate super-powered unarmed fighting with mind/body/spirit whatevs. So the devs need to reframe how Monk exists within the D&D universe, or else it is stuck being a crappier version of Fighter or crappier version of Rogue since the concept space for the Monk class is smaller from the get-go due to the Classic Core classes being the top priority for the developers. Making the fanbase for Classic Core happy is always going to trump making the Monk fanbase happy.
Re: weapon vs. unarmed fighting issue, I disagree. A big reason is Feats. Feats are what allow Fighter and Rogue to excel at high damage builds. And the feats that do the most damage are those that involve weapons that the Monk base class is poorly built for. Great Weapon Master doesn't work for Monk due to Monk weapon restrictions. Sharpshooter is possible, but not very good for most Monks since FoB, Stunning Strike are melee only.
What if we designed a Feat that improves damage or versatility of status effects from unarmed strikes? Well, okay, but we still have the MADness of the Monk stat distribution to deal with the class's poor survivability if it does not invest both in WIS and DEX, so better Monk feats only solves part of the problem. Ultimately, major changes need to happen for the Monk to keep up with Fighters after level 10. Might be easier to add smthing like Expertise to Monks so that at least they can compare with Rogues well in one department.
IMO the problem here is that the Paladin is kind of the Western cultural version of the Monk, due to the influence of Christianity & Roman militarism on Western culture. You can kind of see it even in the class design. Thematically/Mechanically the Monk is more similar to the Paladin than it is to the Fighter:
- limited use damage buff -> Paladin: smite, Monk: FoB
- high saving throws -> Paladin: aura of protection, Monk: Diamond Soul
- resistance to fear/charm -> Paladin: devotion paladin aura + aura of Courage, Monk: Stillness of Mind
- purity -> Paladin : Divine Health, Monk: Purity of Body
- social buffs -> Paladin: Cha-focused, Monk: Tongue of the Sun and Moon
D&D is heavily based in the Western world-view. Sure it adapts things from other cultures (though that it itself is a very western thing) but it puts its own Western spin on it. I would argue that the Monk is not a good representation of East Asian traditions, it is a representation of the popular Western interpretation of those traditions.
the VOID
I agree, AgileM. The Paladin is basically the West European version of Monk, but uses weapons, armor, spell slots. Which is why it is easier to multi-class Paladin than Monk and why the devs have generally had much more success making subclasses for the Paladin instead of Monk: it fits the pre-established W. European framing of the fantasy theme AND the design principles are more in line with the Classic Core.
It's definitely true, in more ways than one, that the Paladin is the western version of the Monk. The most common models of the Paladin trope .. are the actual holy monastic warriors of the western tradition (the Templars, Hospitalers, and Teutonics).
the next best thing the west has to a 'focus your inner energies' trope would be psions, i guess.
...that, or off-the-grid mushroom gathering, crystal wearing, phases of the moon tracking, crunchy granola moms. which are, i think they'd agree, more akin to druids.
((also, my first example of a 'western' psion fighter was The Matrix. but he famously learns kung fu. that's east. my second was Akira. oops! east'd again!))
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!
Debatable. While there are certainly militarized western religious orders such as the Teutonic Order, they don't seem to treat the use of weapons as a form of religious practice, whereas there was a definite religious element to, for example, the practice of martial arts at the Shaolin temples.
Question, what does a player expect when they choose the monk class in a game, and I'm not just talking about dnd but also in video game? I think everyone starts with a preconception when choosing a class. I think everyone has their own idea due to the influences they have received in their lives, and I think you could start from this list:
Monk, or at least Monk and its sub-classes, should be able to cover most of these to some degree; obviously not with the true power ascribed to a folk legend or seen in dragon ball etc., but a class should be flexible enough to allow you to build a range of characters around that archetype.
Fighter for example has a lot of freedom in the equipment you can take, and access to more feats than other classes, making it very easy to build a wide range of fighter type characters. Meanwhile the sub-classes let you refine that further by adding new options or doubling down on what they're already good at.
Monk's base class lacks that kind of flexibility; you don't really have the choice to lean more into martial arts vs. mysticism, because you get so few options for each as standard. The choice of whether to boost Dexterity or Wisdom first isn't much of a choice because outside of a few specific builds you need both eventually. This is why I think the idea of rolling in parts of Open Hand and maybe Astral Self has merit, because it would let the core class represent more, and give an opportunity for those sub-classes to then be more specialised.
Moving Open Hand Technique to the base class would give monks more access to martial arts techniques on all characters, but give Open Hand a chance to then specialise further into being the sub-class for a "pure" martial artists (where any Ki/Discipline powers are more about technique than mysticism). Likewise if a slightly stripped down Arms of the Astral Self were added to base monk it could represent a "focus" mode that most characters could reflavour as they like, allowing for more Wisdom focused builds, with Astral Self boosting it further with more mystical additions like the extended reach and other additions.
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.
What you say sounds interesting. I think we should change Unarmed Strike to something more in line with Weapon Mastery for the monk and present it a bit like the open hand techniques. (This is only for the monk class). This could rapresent a bit of a version of Unarmed Mastery.
Then with the damage of the attack being able to choose one of the options and if done together with FoB being able to upgrade the option on par with the Weapon Mastery techniques.
An Unarmed Strike is a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within your Reach. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them. When you make an Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options:
Damage. Make an unarmed attack against a creature within your reach. Your bonus to hit with this attack equals your Strength modifier plus your Proficiency Bonus. On a hit, the target takes Bludgeoning Damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier.
Grapple. You attempt to grapple a creature within your reach. Make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). You succeed automatically if the target is incapacitated. If you succeed, the target is Grappled. The condition specifies the things that end it, and you can release the target whenever you like (no action required). This grapple is possible only if the target is no more than one Size larger than you and if you have a hand free to grab the target.
Shove. you make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). You succeed automatically if the target is Incapacitated. If you succeed, you either knock the target Prone or push it 5 feet away from you. This shove is possible only if the target is no more than one Size larger than you.
Strongly agree with that.
I would include: movies (Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Jet Lee, Wuxia type genre, some of the extremes from the Matrix at higher level, etc.), shows like Avatar and Kung Fu, Marvel things like Shang-Chi and Dragon Fist (comics and live action), and sensibilities from real world Martial Arts (concrete and spiritual angles). I would also include some way to recover elements from earlier editions. Which means my vision of the Monk class really spans across those choices, and isn't about just one of them.
And my "real world" martial arts isn't limited to East Asian arts. There are martial arts from South Asia (India) as well. And historical arts from Europe (Pankration and various types of wrestling: Catch Wrestling, Olympic, Greco-Roman, the grappling skills from full plate equipped knights, etc.). And I don't see reason to leave out modern arts that influence the fiction genres (so Savate, Krav-Maga, Aikido, Hapkido, Jeet Kune Do, MMA, Russian Sambo wrestling). So I can easily make room for "eurocentric" non-Paladin "warrior Monks" who are more themed around Pankration, Western Wrestling traditions, Savate, and Krav-Maga type sensibilities.
And that doesn't even touch into HEMA, but that starts to undermine the stereotype of what "martial arts" means and return it to the broader meaning of the words.
Sort of highjacking that statement to say: I've long wanted to see a 1/3 caster subclass for the Monk that explores the magical side of Monk mysticism. I've added that in a recent repl to my thread about Martial Actions (some subclasses I left out of the initial post because they're "other missing subclasses" and not really about Martial Actions).