Ah yes, because a martial artist couldn't possibly be big and beefy
While all monks are martial artists, not all martial artists are monks.
Hmmm maybe the Monk could be a subclass of an MMA class then.
"Martial Arts" doesn't have enough of a concept / archetype to build a class around, as pretty much their only common feature is that they don't need weapons to fight. Many of them use weapons others don't, some wear armour others don't, some have a mystical / magical elements while others don't, some use their whole body others don't, some are physically strong, others are not, some are sneaky & dextrous others are not, some use improvized weapons others do not, some wrestle their opponents without hurting them others kill with a single strike. It would be a class with only 1 class feature everything else would be subclass specific, that isn't a class, it's a feat.
Sumo wrestlers and Jedi just don't fit into the same class.
ehh, the same can be said of fighters, Rangers, wizards, etc. A wizard can be a summoned magic weapon wielding dexterous dancer, or a Huge burly guy who is super hard to hurt. (in fact this is common in 5e) A fighter could be a 300lb guy with a huge battle axe, or a skinny dexterous guy who throws daggers with unerring accuracy.
Rangers are lightly armoured weapon users who can travel through harsh wilderness with ease and have an deep understanding of nature and the ability to magically manipulate it. They are generally light and dexterous so they can vanish into the foliage to ambush their prey using light weapons or bows.
Wizards are highly intelligent mages who rely on magic for everything they do, they are easily KOed and rely on magic to protect themselves - not armor, and have minimal ability to use weapons. However they are the most versatile and powerful spellcasters able to wipe out whole armies or cripple even the most powerful of creatures with the right spell.
Fighters are highly skilled warriors who specialize in a single combat style with highly honed physical bodies and skills to act tactically using the best weapons and armour that money can buy to turn the tide of a fight by using limited use powerful abilities at the right time and the right place.
What is a monk?
Rangers can be str or dex based. they also are proficient with medium armor. They aren't focused on light weapons or bows. There is actually nothing linking them more to dexterity than strength.
'using limited powerful abilities at the right time and place' is every class except maybe rogue. Having access to all weapons and armor also fits cleric and paladin. they actually can specialize in multiple fighting styles, but regardless, the same can be said of paladin. The fighter is actually defined in the phb as a generalist.
wizards depend on magic, but so does sorcerer. Not sure if they are easily ko'ed. perhaps without magic, but you may as well say a fighter is easily koed without armor.
its just as easy to say this type of stuff for monk,
monk is a well trained warrior who focuses on mind and body, simple weapon or no weapon, armorless they are deadly as armored knights. Their ascetic training allows them to perform super natural feats of speed, power and mental prowess through their application of the hidden magical energy innate to all living things.
and they do say this type of thing in the pHb for every class.
its not really monk being hard to define thats the problem, they just didnt make a great version of it, and now that everyone else is more versatile, unique, and tightened in design, the monk is a lot worse by comparison. The monk's flaws are more about execution than base concepts.
Lack of heavy armour proficiency requires Rangers to have at least a 14 Dex, they lack access to the GWF fighting style making them worse at using heavy weapons than other martials, many of their class-unique spells only work with ranged weapons which are Dex-based and several class features benefit stealth which is Dex-based and the PHB explicitly says they are Dex-based. Sure it is possible to build a Str ranger but they are definitely against type.
Barbarians, Rangers, and Rogues, all lack nova abilities and instead primarily use sustained-effects whether that's concentration spells from Ranger, or Rage that typically lasts all combat. In contrast all Fighter's limited use abilities last for only 1 round or less (only a couple of Rune Knight abilities violate this pattern).
Sorcerers gain magic innately so have far less versatility than Wizards and instead focus on maximizing the power of a small number of spells vs the wizard that focuses on having the right spell for the job.
Paladin's differ from Fighters in having strong support & out-of-combat abilities and being magical holy warriors with far less association with tactics (the "lawful stupid" paladin trope didn't just appear from nothing). The only difference between what STR-monk people want for Monk and a Fighter is that the monk doesn't use weapons or armour, which now doesn't make them unique at all b/c of the Brawler subclass for Fighter which fulfills all the archtype needs for a STR-based unarmed fighter.
Many many archtypes people want monk to fulfill are not mystical at all : Jackie Chan & other action stars, MMA fighters, Wrestlers, Boxers. Quite a few use armour and/or weapons - i.e. historical martial arts used by soldiers / armies, samurai.
monk is a well trained warrior who focuses on mind and body, simple weapon or no weapon, armorless they are deadly as armored knights. Their ascetic training allows them to perform super natural feats of speed, power and mental prowess through their application of the hidden magical energy innate to all living things.
fighters are well trained too. and barbarians focus on mind and body in lieu of armor as well. what that leaves out is why they choose to be less effective by giving up armor and martial weapons (and then didn't replace that with an exploration niche like rangers and the wilderness or rogues and other people's pockets). was this a response to weapon shortages or bans? or maybe these monk guys are all assassins, focusing on blending in with citizens to remove political rivals? maybe it's like with wizards, they just spend all their time on research of old scrolls and developing new techniques: muscle mages?
I feel like any short blurb describing the uniqueness of monks shouldn't sound like it could belong to oath of glory paladins caught out in their pajamas.
the same can be said for fighters and paladins in the post I quoted, as I pointed out. Blurbs don't encompass everything that a character is, its the central themes. Specifically the fighter is a generalist, and overlaps with many. The Paladin and fighter both train, both use weapons and armor well, but the fighter is more focused on it than the paladin.
There is a difference between an Academic and an Engineer. They have both studied in order to do their jobs, but the studying is a more central part of being an Academic than it is being an Engineer. The Engineer studies when needed. The Academic is defined by studying. The Engineer isnt an Academic or vice versa. Another Analogy might be an Olympic Track star versus a body builder. The Olympic Track star trains to be better at running, the Body Builder's trains to perfect their body. Training is the central core of the body builder's effort. For the trackstar its a means to an end.
Also, barbarians aren't really representing the highly trained warrior, they are representing raw natural talent, instinct, and a strong drive, and now, their connection to primal forces.
And monks in dnd aren't like paladins, paladin's strength comes from faith in a certain god or idea. Monks power comes from within themselves through rigorous training. No gods, or faith are required. they also don't cast spells, they use natural magic of living creatures (mostly themselves). Its more like being a Jedi than a spell caster.
and they aren't choosing to be less effective, because they have figured out how to manipulate living energy, they are as effective without weapons as with them. They can use a sword or not, there should be no strong difference.
This is why the MA dice was supposed to scale with monk level for weapons and unarmed, and why they were supposed to be able to attain the same armor class as a fighter with a shield and armor, based on level/attributes.
this is what the phb, and one dnd say about these concepts.
what sparked my response was that you had critiqued the ranger blub by picking apart how others wear medium armor and can build for dex. it looked like you were saying 'that's not very unique,' but ignoring the wilderness connection. the "what is a monk?" question was itself a callout for lack of unique cohesive features that might fit in a monk blurb. your answering blub was "well trained," "no weapon," "armorless," and "magical energy" which didn't answer the question of how monks are a class rather than a flavor theme. something like rage, spellbook, action surge, or metamagic. sure 'wilderness expert' is a little thin but it's easily a profession. on the other hand, 'punches powered by strict discipline' seems even thinner, more like a backstory or theme any roleplay-heavy warrior could slip on.
(sorry for not going back to quote all the relevant ziggurats, too difficult on mobile. maybe later.)
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!
monk is a well trained warrior who focuses on mind and body, simple weapon or no weapon, armorless they are deadly as armored knights. Their ascetic training allows them to perform super natural feats of speed, power and mental prowess through their application of the hidden magical energy innate to all living things.
fighters are well trained too. and barbarians focus on mind and body in lieu of armor as well. what that leaves out is why they choose to be less effective by giving up armor and martial weapons (and then didn't replace that with an exploration niche like rangers and the wilderness or rogues and other people's pockets). was this a response to weapon shortages or bans? or maybe these monk guys are all assassins, focusing on blending in with citizens to remove political rivals? maybe it's like with wizards, they just spend all their time on research of old scrolls and developing new techniques: muscle mages?
I feel like any short blurb describing the uniqueness of monks shouldn't sound like it could belong to oath of glory paladins caught out in their pajamas.
the same can be said for fighters and paladins in the post I quoted, as I pointed out. Blurbs don't encompass everything that a character is, its the central themes. Specifically the fighter is a generalist, and overlaps with many. The Paladin and fighter both train, both use weapons and armor well, but the fighter is more focused on it than the paladin.
There is a difference between an Academic and an Engineer. They have both studied in order to do their jobs, but the studying is a more central part of being an Academic than it is being an Engineer. The Engineer studies when needed. The Academic is defined by studying. The Engineer isnt an Academic or vice versa. Another Analogy might be an Olympic Track star versus a body builder. The Olympic Track star trains to be better at running, the Body Builder's trains to perfect their body. Training is the central core of the body builder's effort. For the trackstar its a means to an end.
Also, barbarians aren't really representing the highly trained warrior, they are representing raw natural talent, instinct, and a strong drive, and now, their connection to primal forces.
And monks in dnd aren't like paladins, paladin's strength comes from faith in a certain god or idea. Monks power comes from within themselves through rigorous training. No gods, or faith are required. they also don't cast spells, they use natural magic of living creatures (mostly themselves). Its more like being a Jedi than a spell caster.
and they aren't choosing to be less effective, because they have figured out how to manipulate living energy, they are as effective without weapons as with them. They can use a sword or not, there should be no strong difference.
This is why the MA dice was supposed to scale with monk level for weapons and unarmed, and why they were supposed to be able to attain the same armor class as a fighter with a shield and armor, based on level/attributes.
this is what the phb, and one dnd say about these concepts.
what sparked my response was that you had critiqued the ranger blub by picking apart how others wear medium armor and can build for dex. it looked like you were saying 'that's not very unique,' but ignoring the wilderness connection. the "what is a monk?" question was itself a callout for lack of unique cohesive features that might fit in a monk blurb. your answering blub was "well trained," "no weapon," "armorless," and "magical energy" which didn't answer the question of how monks are a class rather than a flavor theme. something like rage, spellbook, action surge, or metamagic. sure 'wilderness expert' is a little thin but it's easily a profession. on the other hand, 'punches powered by strict discipline' seems even thinner, more like a backstory or theme any roleplay-heavy warrior could slip on.
(sorry for not going back to quote all the relevant ziggurats, too difficult on mobile. maybe later.)
what I was saying was those specific facets that I mentioned were not unique.
The monk issues are not an identity issue. There is plenty of overlap in concept between other classes in the game while maintaining the distinctiveness of those other classes. Monk problems are definately a design issue. The monk designers seem to truly not understand how to translate the fantasy of the monk into gameplay. If they cant do that, then the monk has little hope.
However, since wotc is diminishing the myticism of the monk by moving from ki to discipline i can certainly see why some would say it should just be a fighter subclass instead of its own class.
Ah yes, because a martial artist couldn't possibly be big and beefy
While all monks are martial artists, not all martial artists are monks.
Hmmm maybe the Monk could be a subclass of an MMA class then.
"Martial Arts" doesn't have enough of a concept / archetype to build a class around, as pretty much their only common feature is that they don't need weapons to fight. Many of them use weapons others don't, some wear armour others don't, some have a mystical / magical elements while others don't, some use their whole body others don't, some are physically strong, others are not, some are sneaky & dextrous others are not, some use improvized weapons others do not, some wrestle their opponents without hurting them others kill with a single strike. It would be a class with only 1 class feature everything else would be subclass specific, that isn't a class, it's a feat.
Sumo wrestlers and Jedi just don't fit into the same class.
ehh, the same can be said of fighters, Rangers, wizards, etc. A wizard can be a summoned magic weapon wielding dexterous dancer, or a Huge burly guy who is super hard to hurt. (in fact this is common in 5e) A fighter could be a 300lb guy with a huge battle axe, or a skinny dexterous guy who throws daggers with unerring accuracy.
Rangers are lightly armoured weapon users who can travel through harsh wilderness with ease and have an deep understanding of nature and the ability to magically manipulate it. They are generally light and dexterous so they can vanish into the foliage to ambush their prey using light weapons or bows.
Wizards are highly intelligent mages who rely on magic for everything they do, they are easily KOed and rely on magic to protect themselves - not armor, and have minimal ability to use weapons. However they are the most versatile and powerful spellcasters able to wipe out whole armies or cripple even the most powerful of creatures with the right spell.
Fighters are highly skilled warriors who specialize in a single combat style with highly honed physical bodies and skills to act tactically using the best weapons and armour that money can buy to turn the tide of a fight by using limited use powerful abilities at the right time and the right place.
What is a monk?
Rangers can be str or dex based. they also are proficient with medium armor. They aren't focused on light weapons or bows. There is actually nothing linking them more to dexterity than strength.
'using limited powerful abilities at the right time and place' is every class except maybe rogue. Having access to all weapons and armor also fits cleric and paladin. they actually can specialize in multiple fighting styles, but regardless, the same can be said of paladin. The fighter is actually defined in the phb as a generalist.
wizards depend on magic, but so does sorcerer. Not sure if they are easily ko'ed. perhaps without magic, but you may as well say a fighter is easily koed without armor.
its just as easy to say this type of stuff for monk,
monk is a well trained warrior who focuses on mind and body, simple weapon or no weapon, armorless they are deadly as armored knights. Their ascetic training allows them to perform super natural feats of speed, power and mental prowess through their application of the hidden magical energy innate to all living things.
and they do say this type of thing in the pHb for every class.
its not really monk being hard to define thats the problem, they just didnt make a great version of it, and now that everyone else is more versatile, unique, and tightened in design, the monk is a lot worse by comparison. The monk's flaws are more about execution than base concepts.
Lack of heavy armour proficiency requires Rangers to have at least a 14 Dex, they lack access to the GWF fighting style making them worse at using heavy weapons than other martials, many of their class-unique spells only work with ranged weapons which are Dex-based and several class features benefit stealth which is Dex-based and the PHB explicitly says they are Dex-based. Sure it is possible to build a Str ranger but they are definitely against type.
Barbarians, Rangers, and Rogues, all lack nova abilities and instead primarily use sustained-effects whether that's concentration spells from Ranger, or Rage that typically lasts all combat. In contrast all Fighter's limited use abilities last for only 1 round or less (only a couple of Rune Knight abilities violate this pattern).
Sorcerers gain magic innately so have far less versatility than Wizards and instead focus on maximizing the power of a small number of spells vs the wizard that focuses on having the right spell for the job.
Paladin's differ from Fighters in having strong support & out-of-combat abilities and being magical holy warriors with far less association with tactics (the "lawful stupid" paladin trope didn't just appear from nothing). The only difference between what STR-monk people want for Monk and a Fighter is that the monk doesn't use weapons or armour, which now doesn't make them unique at all b/c of the Brawler subclass for Fighter which fulfills all the archtype needs for a STR-based unarmed fighter.
Many many archtypes people want monk to fulfill are not mystical at all : Jackie Chan & other action stars, MMA fighters, Wrestlers, Boxers. Quite a few use armour and/or weapons - i.e. historical martial arts used by soldiers / armies, samurai.
I'm not saying there is no difference between these other classes, I'm saying its not any more defined than the difference between monk. Also I'm pointing out that most martials have strong overlap with fighter, by design. You could call Ryu(monk) a fighter as much as you can call Aragorn(ranger) a fighter, or Conan(barbarian), or king Arthur(paladin). Basically the fighter is analogous to A general practioner. Every martial learned fighting to an extent. the fighter learns more of it. The others specialized into something unique. Ranger; nature survival, paladin; divine riteous, barbarian; instinct, primal, monk; wisdom, Ki, rogue; cunning, trickery. So there will always be a ton of overlap, that isnt a flaw, its the design.
Also, the fact that you possess the ability to use ranged attacks doesnt mean it defines you. These are options. Fighter has archery fighting style, it doesnt mean they are only meant to use ranged attacks. Anyone can benefit from having 14 dex for medium armor. Medium armor does not equal, you aren't suppose to use str, or be burly. barbarian also uses medium armor, and they are the most str/con based Class in the game. They also one of the toughest to kill, so lack of access to heavy armor does not equal a dexterous focus. Fighters may also use medium armor to avoid stealth penalties. And note, you can make ranged attacks via strength with throwing. Ranger and fighter are specifically designed to be able to benefit from either str or dex. Only rogue is built to be highly dex dependent, it only gets finesse weapons, sneak only works with finesse, and light armor which requires a high dex investment to get the AC of a barbarian or fighter. Ranger was modeled after Aragorn, it is not, by trope the slim ranged attacker type.
A monk does not have to be overtly mystical, you can think of it like the force in star wars. Some people use the force to lift objects, bust most use of the force looks like just doing something better than other people. Hitting targets, dodging attacks, jumping higher, being tougher. The monk mostly uses Ki internally, you see this with step of the wind, patient defense, and flurry of blows. The monk will say I can do this because I can harness my inner magical energy. The Fighter observing might say, you are trained/strong/dextrous/lucky. If you've read or seen most martial arts fiction, you know commonly there is some internal energy being applied even with what appears to be normal fighting. Point being, the Drunken Kung Fu(Jackie chan) trope is not separate from the concept of chi. (which is the basis the monk is riffing on)
stunning strike is represented as being external, manipulating another creatures internal energies, but much of the rest of monk is in part fueled by using Ki to be stronger/faster/tougher.
The monk issues are not an identity issue. There is plenty of overlap in concept between other classes in the game while maintaining the distinctiveness of those other classes. Monk problems are definately a design issue. The monk designers seem to truly not understand how to translate the fantasy of the monk into gameplay. If they cant do that, then the monk has little hope.
However, since wotc is diminishing the myticism of the monk by moving from ki to discipline i can certainly see why some would say it should just be a fighter subclass instead of its own class.
I mostly agree with you, but I'm not sure the intent is to remove the thing Ki is trying to riff on, its mostly to try to obscure its source. Which imo is a bad idea, dnd is a fantasy world built on tropes, thats why its usually easy to RP, because even without reading tons of lore, you instantly know what type of character you are playing based on other media/culture.
that said, i think the intend to keep monk's mysticism
Monks use rigorous combat training and mental discipline to align themselves with the multiverse and tap into internal reservoirs of power. Different Monks conceptualize this power in various ways: as breath, energy, life force, essence, or self, for example. Whether channeled as a striking display of martial prowess or as a subtler focus of defense and speed, this power infuses all that a Monk does. Monks harness and focus their internal power to create extraordinary, even supernatural, effects. They channel uncanny speed and strength into their attacks, with or without the use of weapons. In their hands and guided by their power, even the most basic weapons can become sophisticated implements of combat mastery. And their mightiest attacks can stun their opponents.
Many Monks find that a structured life of ascetic withdrawal from the mundane world helps them cultivate the physical and mental discipline they need to harness their power. Other Monks believe that immersing themselves in the vibrant confusion of life helps to fuel their determination and discipline. Monks generally view their adventures as personal tests of their physical and mental development. They are driven by a desire to accomplish a greater mission than merely slaying monsters and plundering treasure; they strive to hone themselves into living weapons.
This a quote from the UA. so I don't think they are trying to demystify it, just rebrand it. I guess they are not calling it 'magic' any more, but really it was never supposed to be the same type of thing as the weave in dnd. This is actually closer to some definitions of chi than before.
I'll also say it describes the concept the people are looking for roughly when they play a monk, as you say its a design flaw, not a conceptual problem.
You know, I think asking what the monk's core concept is is asking the wrong question. The question should be "Given that I have a character concept, which concepts are best represented as which class?". If a class is only good at representing a narrow range of character concepts, it should probably be made broader. So... what character concepts do you think the monk should be a reasonable answer for?
I think the monk could be interpreted with the same philosophy as the Jedi in Star Wars. Just eliminate technology and galaxy and exchange them for magic and multiverse. I find there is a great similarity and it could also be a way to separate from the image of the Asian monk.
I think a class should be unique to a certain extent, but before it is unique one should identify its game characteristics, how it will be used, what role a in the group, what is the advantage it can bring in a group, etc....
Only after deciding these aspects can it be modified into a monk with more cosmetic and presentational touches.
When a designer develops an object he/she thinks first about its practical use and then about its design, some times already the form of its practical use is a design in itself.
"In order to master the ways of the Force, Jedi must forgo all attachment." To be a Jedi was to live a life of selflessness and devotion to the light side of the Force.
The Jedi Knights focused on calmness and peace to channel their powers in the Force, using the light side of the Force to serve in the capacity of guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy. Even so, the Jedi sought to preserve balance in the Force; the ancient prophecy of the Chosen One foretold of a being who would restore balance to the Force by destroying the Sith. In combat, whereas an enemy may grow impatient and rely on their overwhelming strength, a Jedi would meditate and find serenity in their mind to focus. A Jedi used the Force for defense and knowledge rather than use it to gain power over others. Their chosen weapon the lightsaber, a weapon with limitations, likewise symbolised the care a Jedi took wielding their gifts and that when a Jedi fights it is with intention and precision, ending conflict while injuring no more, or taking no more life, than the lightsaber's wielder chooses. A Jedi was supposed to be selfless and work to save others above themselves. Like all people, Jedi were imperfect and always needed to strive to better themselves, meaning it was impossible to be a "perfect Jedi."
Because of their ability in the Force, a Jedi, even if they lacked a physical weapon, was never defenseless, and some Jedi were capable of appearing after death as Force spirits. The Jedi considered themselves instruments of the Force, and during the time of the Galactic Republic, peacekeepers instead of soldiers. Striving to be majestic yet simple, knowledge, the Force, and self-discipline were considered the three pillars of Jedi strength. The Jedi believed that—no matter one's physical appearance—everyone was internally made up of light. Individuals who did not understand the Force took to calling Jedi "space wizards." Through the Jedi Order all Jedi belonged to, a Jedi was connected to the entire galaxy.
The life of a Jedi was full of hardships. Training to become a Jedi was difficult, according to Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn, and those who succeeded were faced with a hard life ahead. Adherence to the Jedi way required a disciplined mind and a strong sense of commitment, and it was considered unbecoming of a Jedi to seek adventure or excitement. The Jedi Code therefore regulated the lives of individual Jedi, their actions and beliefs, and the policies of the Jedi Order. While the Code permitted compassion, attachment and possession were forbidden to the Jedi. The Jedi believed that attachment led to jealousy, and greed in turn, and ultimately the fear of loss which was a pathway to the dark side of the Force. Through the Force, the Jedi hoped to direct themselves through their passions, instead of acting in an impulsive manner. Forgoing attachment was also considered essential to a Jedi's progress in mastering their Force powers, as their training could last from years to a lifetime. Despite the importance of non-attachment in the Jedi vow, there was disagreement on what that specifically meant.
Some Jedi took it to mean they needed to suppress their emotions, such as vanquishing love and discomfort from themselves, whereas others believed trying to master emotion went against the ideals of the Order. For the latter group of Jedi, emotions like love were centered upon the idea of letting go. Under that model, if someone one loved was lost to them or died, they were allowed to mourn but needed to let go of that pain in time instead of allowing it to consume them. Indeed, the Jedi accepted death as a part of the natural course of life, believing that the deceased should be celebrated instead of mourned for becoming one with the Force. Detachment was nonetheless one of the most difficult lessons for Jedi to learn, as it took practice and repetition to master. Learning the lesson—that, to be a Jedi, one needed to "let go"—multiple times over his long life, Grand Master Yoda was able to carry the belief to his deathbed after a lifespan of nine centuries, even accepting his death—the death of all life—as the way of the Force.
Indeed, the Jedi understood feelings like love to be natural; Jedi were allowed to feel these emotions, but their task was to balance their strong feelings. With an understanding of their strongest emotions, it was hoped a Jedi would analyze what, deep down, made them feel the way they did. Able to then address their underlining motivations, the Jedi could formulate the best possible path forward instead of allowing themself to act without thinking. Attachments like romance were understood to be distractions from the Jedi mission of spreading justice and the light side: it represented a person tying themself down to one attachment, rather than opening themself up to the galaxy as a whole. Bound only to the Force and the Jedi Temple, relationships to a Jedi needed to be carefully handled in the name of their service to the Force. Close friendships still existed and were valued, but a Jedi needed to understand their friends could be lost and need to be let go of at any given time.
i wouldn't reject a jedi reinterpretation of monk origins (although certain multinational companies might). but it doesn't address the question: why monks? why them instead of a class of gladiators or swashbucklers or spell-swords or witches or comic book heros? why would jedi-monks, seemingly another drop-in-the-bucket religion in an already crowded pantheon but minus representation of an "emotion suppression" zeus, plausibly become common enough to be a base class?
...my answer would be those rejecting religion to seek humanoid self-empowerment. atheists with intent. a sort of peaceful guerilla resistance? what's your thought?
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!
The only difference between what STR-monk people want for Monk and a Fighter is that the monk doesn't use weapons or armour, which now doesn't make them unique at all b/c of the Brawler subclass for Fighter which fulfills all the archtype needs for a STR-based unarmed fighter.
The Brawler doesn't have any features that enable it to function without armour; it still fully wants to be wearing medium or heavy armour. The only thing it does the same as a Monk is that it has a weapon dice for unarmed strikes comparable to a basic weapon, but that damage doesn't scale and it doesn't get the same bonus action attack so in tiers 1 and 2 it needs to use action surge to compete.
I'm not sure the Brawler is a good point of comparison, as it's a pretty rubbish sub-class nobody actually asked for, and honestly I'd be surprised if they went ahead with it; they have much better sub-classes to update for Fighter, and updating the Tavern Brawler feat, Battlemaster sub-class and bringing back the Tasha's Cauldron unarmed fighting style would give far better mechanics for an armoured brawler for those that want that.
But Monks are not armoured brawlers, the only common element between them is the unarmed strikes. The brawler is also no faster than a regular Fighter without burning its Action Surge to Dash etc. Monk's mechanical identity isn't a single feature, just as a Ranger's identity isn't just "spellcasting".
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.
i wouldn't reject a jedi reinterpretation of monk origins (although certain multinational companies might). but it doesn't address the question: why monks? why them instead of a class of gladiators or swashbucklers or spell-swords or witches or comic book heros? why would jedi-monks, seemingly another drop-in-the-bucket religion in an already crowded pantheon but minus representation of an "emotion suppression" zeus, plausibly become common enough to be a base class?
...my answer would be those rejecting religion to seek humanoid self-empowerment. atheists with intent. a sort of peaceful guerilla resistance? what's your thought?
there isnt really a concept of classes needing to be common. In fact its assumed some of them are rare. In fact paladin's phb description specifically claims they are fairly rars in relation to fighters. Sorcerers, artificers, etc are also implied to be rare. Fighters are said to be more common. Classes are supposed to represent what you are able to do, or your calling. Its not these are the most common types of adventurers.
if the gladiator does fighter things (every weapon, fighting styles, no specific unique flavor) they are a fighter. Even if no one calls them that. If a spell sword has tons of arcane magic they learned to cast, and has only mastered one weapon, they might be a wizard/blade dancer. a comic book hero is more about the world and its limits, but most heroes would be various classes depending on what type of hero they are. Hulk would probably be a Epic level barbarian with like bonded accuracy breaking STR/CON low intelligence. , And Banner a wizard/warlock who gets transformed by otherworldly energies
phb quote on classes.
class is the primary definition of what your character can do. Its more than a profession, its your character's calling. Class shapes the way you think about the world...
The classes in the phb represent most of the tropes they could come up with at the time, and they actually generally do a fairly decent Job representing most tropes in the planes.
The only difference between what STR-monk people want for Monk and a Fighter is that the monk doesn't use weapons or armour, which now doesn't make them unique at all b/c of the Brawler subclass for Fighter which fulfills all the archtype needs for a STR-based unarmed fighter.
The Brawler doesn't have any features that enable it to function without armour; it still fully wants to be wearing medium or heavy armour. The only thing it does the same as a Monk is that it has a weapon dice for unarmed strikes comparable to a basic weapon, but that damage doesn't scale and it doesn't get the same bonus action attack so in tiers 1 and 2 it needs to use action surge to compete.
I'm not sure the Brawler is a good point of comparison, as it's a pretty rubbish sub-class nobody actually asked for, and honestly I'd be surprised if they went ahead with it; they have much better sub-classes to update for Fighter, and updating the Tavern Brawler feat, Battlemaster sub-class and bringing back the Tasha's Cauldron unarmed fighting style would give far better mechanics for an armoured brawler for those that want that.
But Monks are not armoured brawlers, the only common element between them is the unarmed strikes. The brawler is also no faster than a regular Fighter without burning its Action Surge to Dash etc. Monk's mechanical identity isn't a single feature, just as a Ranger's identity isn't just "spellcasting".
brawler is not a bad concept, and I'd rather have a brawler than a rework of existing subclasses. but thats another topic.
I agree the brawler is not trying to be a monk. In fact its core feature is improvisation and being a master of every type of weapon, to the point it can make anything like another weapon. A brawler does not share the core identities of a pursuit of mental/physical perfection through rigorous training, the focus on manipulating the inner energy of all things to increase its power/growth.
And the use of DEX is not the core concept of a monk. Its a mechanic they chose.
or the new one heavily ties the monk to dexterity. The idea is that they could use either str or dex to attack, and also that their AC is improved through wisdom. (every character can add their dex to their unarmored defense)
to be clear, I'm not saying the 5e monk doesnt need dex, I'm saying the concept of a monk isn't the same as a fighter if they use strength. In fact for most classes, what stat they chose to make a main stat don't really heavily tie into its identity. A warlock would still be a warlock whether it used int or wis as its main stat. If they chose wisdom over charisma for paladin, no one would bat an eye.
The only difference between what STR-monk people want for Monk and a Fighter is that the monk doesn't use weapons or armour, which now doesn't make them unique at all b/c of the Brawler subclass for Fighter which fulfills all the archtype needs for a STR-based unarmed fighter.
The Brawler doesn't have any features that enable it to function without armour; it still fully wants to be wearing medium or heavy armour. The only thing it does the same as a Monk is that it has a weapon dice for unarmed strikes comparable to a basic weapon, but that damage doesn't scale and it doesn't get the same bonus action attack so in tiers 1 and 2 it needs to use action surge to compete.
I'm not sure the Brawler is a good point of comparison, as it's a pretty rubbish sub-class nobody actually asked for, and honestly I'd be surprised if they went ahead with it; they have much better sub-classes to update for Fighter, and updating the Tavern Brawler feat, Battlemaster sub-class and bringing back the Tasha's Cauldron unarmed fighting style would give far better mechanics for an armoured brawler for those that want that.
But Monks are not armoured brawlers, the only common element between them is the unarmed strikes. The brawler is also no faster than a regular Fighter without burning its Action Surge to Dash etc. Monk's mechanical identity isn't a single feature, just as a Ranger's identity isn't just "spellcasting".
Unarmored Brawler is as simple as a Barbarian dip. Even with low Dex (which... why are you unarmored again?) you can pump Con and wear a shield and not be too bad off.
i wouldn't reject a jedi reinterpretation of monk origins (although certain multinational companies might). but it doesn't address the question: why monks? why them instead of a class of gladiators or swashbucklers or spell-swords or witches or comic book heros? why would jedi-monks, seemingly another drop-in-the-bucket religion in an already crowded pantheon but minus representation of an "emotion suppression" zeus, plausibly become common enough to be a base class?
...my answer would be those rejecting religion to seek humanoid self-empowerment. atheists with intent. a sort of peaceful guerilla resistance? what's your thought?
there isnt really a concept of classes needing to be common. In fact its assumed some of them are rare. In fact paladin's phb description specifically claims they are fairly rars in relation to fighters. Sorcerers, artificers, etc are also implied to be rare. Fighters are said to be more common. Classes are supposed to represent what you are able to do, or your calling. Its not these are the most common types of adventurers.
if the gladiator does fighter things (every weapon, fighting styles, no specific unique flavor) they are a fighter. Even if no one calls them that. If a spell sword has tons of arcane magic they learned to cast, and has only mastered one weapon, they might be a wizard/blade dancer. a comic book hero is more about the world and its limits, but most heroes would be various classes depending on what type of hero they are. Hulk would probably be a Epic level barbarian with like bonded accuracy breaking STR/CON low intelligence. , And Banner a wizard/warlock who gets transformed by otherworldly energies
phb quote on classes.
class is the primary definition of what your character can do. Its more than a profession, its your character's calling. Class shapes the way you think about the world...
The classes in the phb represent most of the tropes they could come up with at the time, and they actually generally do a fairly decent Job representing most tropes in the planes.
Yeah, all PC classes are rare relative to the general population. Minstrels and troubadours are commonplace in taverns, but few are capable of becoming true Bards. Any random town guard or militia can be a warrior or soldier, but not many are capable of being Fighters.
Some are even rarer than that - there are probably fewer wizards than clerics - but just by being a PC adventurer you're already the 10% if not the 5%.
i wouldn't reject a jedi reinterpretation of monk origins (although certain multinational companies might). but it doesn't address the question: why monks? why them instead of a class of gladiators or swashbucklers or spell-swords or witches or comic book heros? why would jedi-monks, seemingly another drop-in-the-bucket religion in an already crowded pantheon but minus representation of an "emotion suppression" zeus, plausibly become common enough to be a base class?
...my answer would be those rejecting religion to seek humanoid self-empowerment. atheists with intent. a sort of peaceful guerilla resistance? what's your thought?
there isnt really a concept of classes needing to be common. In fact its assumed some of them are rare. In fact paladin's phb description specifically claims they are fairly rars in relation to fighters. Sorcerers, artificers, etc are also implied to be rare. Fighters are said to be more common. Classes are supposed to represent what you are able to do, or your calling. Its not these are the most common types of adventurers.
if the gladiator does fighter things (every weapon, fighting styles, no specific unique flavor) they are a fighter. Even if no one calls them that. If a spell sword has tons of arcane magic they learned to cast, and has only mastered one weapon, they might be a wizard/blade dancer. a comic book hero is more about the world and its limits, but most heroes would be various classes depending on what type of hero they are. Hulk would probably be a Epic level barbarian with like bonded accuracy breaking STR/CON low intelligence. , And Banner a wizard/warlock who gets transformed by otherworldly energies
phb quote on classes.
class is the primary definition of what your character can do. Its more than a profession, its your character's calling. Class shapes the way you think about the world...
The classes in the phb represent most of the tropes they could come up with at the time, and they actually generally do a fairly decent Job representing most tropes in the planes.
i wouldn't reject a jedi reinterpretation of monk origins (although certain multinational companies might). but it doesn't address the question: why monks? why them instead of a class of gladiators or swashbucklers or spell-swords or witches or comic book heros? why would jedi-monks, seemingly another drop-in-the-bucket religion in an already crowded pantheon but minus representation of an "emotion suppression" zeus, plausibly become common enough to be a base class?
...my answer would be those rejecting religion to seek humanoid self-empowerment. atheists with intent. a sort of peaceful guerilla resistance? what's your thought?
there isnt really a concept of classes needing to be common. In fact its assumed some of them are rare. In fact paladin's phb description specifically claims they are fairly rars in relation to fighters. Sorcerers, artificers, etc are also implied to be rare. Fighters are said to be more common. Classes are supposed to represent what you are able to do, or your calling. Its not these are the most common types of adventurers.
if the gladiator does fighter things (every weapon, fighting styles, no specific unique flavor) they are a fighter. Even if no one calls them that. If a spell sword has tons of arcane magic they learned to cast, and has only mastered one weapon, they might be a wizard/blade dancer. a comic book hero is more about the world and its limits, but most heroes would be various classes depending on what type of hero they are. Hulk would probably be a Epic level barbarian with like bonded accuracy breaking STR/CON low intelligence. , And Banner a wizard/warlock who gets transformed by otherworldly energies
phb quote on classes.
class is the primary definition of what your character can do. Its more than a profession, its your character's calling. Class shapes the way you think about the world...
The classes in the phb represent most of the tropes they could come up with at the time, and they actually generally do a fairly decent Job representing most tropes in the planes.
Yeah, all PC classes are rare relative to the general population. Minstrels and troubadours are commonplace in taverns, but few are capable of becoming true Bards. Any random town guard or militia can be a warrior or soldier, but not many are capable of being Fighters.
Some are even rarer than that - there are probably fewer wizards than clerics - but just by being a PC adventurer you're already the 10% if not the 5%.
I was thinking we'd take rare or common in relation to other classes if we're taking about classes. personally, it's my habit to not even acknowledge a character's class in-game if it can be helped. most mechanisms and 'class talk' should be out of character (unless you're doing the isekai adventure's guild sort of thing, I guess). as such, it's entirely up to a given table whether an NPC will ever stand up and shout "aha! a monk! they're known to be..." or rogue or ranger or whatever. but really I was asking how common this jedi cult would be. if it's pervasive or spreading, then okay. if it's just from one quiet mountain village then that's less a class concept than pirate or fantasy snow ski enthusiasts.
but setting that aside, there wouldn't be a conversation about the role and archetype and fitting-in of monks if it was easily answered. yes, class is more than a profession but 'monk' isn't even a monk's profession. secluded monks are basically farmers with more abs and schools of monks are... schools with school jobs (probably secluded too). in dnd the priests/clerics/paladins handle exorcisms and sealed demons and shooing yokai. all monk has to separate them from other warriors is a dedication to poverty and some quick feet.
if this is going in circles then I'll drop it. but, first let me just reiterate: if the answer was easy then there wouldn't be so much disagreement about what a monk is or should be.
The only difference between what STR-monk people want for Monk and a Fighter is that the monk doesn't use weapons or armour, which now doesn't make them unique at all b/c of the Brawler subclass for Fighter which fulfills all the archtype needs for a STR-based unarmed fighter.
The Brawler doesn't have any features that enable it to function without armour; it still fully wants to be wearing medium or heavy armour. The only thing it does the same as a Monk is that it has a weapon dice for unarmed strikes comparable to a basic weapon, but that damage doesn't scale and it doesn't get the same bonus action attack so in tiers 1 and 2 it needs to use action surge to compete.
I'm not sure the Brawler is a good point of comparison, as it's a pretty rubbish sub-class nobody actually asked for, and honestly I'd be surprised if they went ahead with it; they have much better sub-classes to update for Fighter, and updating the Tavern Brawler feat, Battlemaster sub-class and bringing back the Tasha's Cauldron unarmed fighting style would give far better mechanics for an armoured brawler for those that want that.
But Monks are not armoured brawlers, the only common element between them is the unarmed strikes. The brawler is also no faster than a regular Fighter without burning its Action Surge to Dash etc. Monk's mechanical identity isn't a single feature, just as a Ranger's identity isn't just "spellcasting".
I agree with everything you said, but as a sidebar, I admit I was intrigued by the brawler. You are absolutely correct that in its current form, it is a bit rubbish though. There are few reasons why anyone would ever go unarmed when they have a +2 sword that maybe has some other trait to it. Maybe just for the RP effect of pummeling someone already on the verge of defeat. The subclass definitely needs work to be ready for prime time.
The only difference between what STR-monk people want for Monk and a Fighter is that the monk doesn't use weapons or armour, which now doesn't make them unique at all b/c of the Brawler subclass for Fighter which fulfills all the archtype needs for a STR-based unarmed fighter.
The Brawler doesn't have any features that enable it to function without armour; it still fully wants to be wearing medium or heavy armour. The only thing it does the same as a Monk is that it has a weapon dice for unarmed strikes comparable to a basic weapon, but that damage doesn't scale and it doesn't get the same bonus action attack so in tiers 1 and 2 it needs to use action surge to compete.
I'm not sure the Brawler is a good point of comparison, as it's a pretty rubbish sub-class nobody actually asked for, and honestly I'd be surprised if they went ahead with it; they have much better sub-classes to update for Fighter, and updating the Tavern Brawler feat, Battlemaster sub-class and bringing back the Tasha's Cauldron unarmed fighting style would give far better mechanics for an armoured brawler for those that want that.
But Monks are not armoured brawlers, the only common element between them is the unarmed strikes. The brawler is also no faster than a regular Fighter without burning its Action Surge to Dash etc. Monk's mechanical identity isn't a single feature, just as a Ranger's identity isn't just "spellcasting".
I agree with everything you said, but as a sidebar, I admit I was intrigued by the brawler. You are absolutely correct that in its current form, it is a bit rubbish though. There are few reasons why anyone would ever go unarmed when they have a +2 sword that maybe has some other trait to it. Maybe just for the RP effect of pummeling someone already on the verge of defeat. The subclass definitely needs work to be ready for prime time.
You say that, but then in one of my campaigns we have a Rune Knight who picked up the Unarmed Fighting FS and is currently exclusively using unarmed attacks & Grapple/Shove.
That's fair. I have played in a campaign with someone who was a RK as well and rejected the use of weapons to be the ultimate grappling king. There will always be exceptions I suppose.
You say that, but then in one of my campaigns we have a Rune Knight who picked up the Unarmed Fighting FS and is currently exclusively using unarmed attacks & Grapple/Shove.
Which is why the unarmed fighting style and/or feats is the better way of doing an unarmed brawler; Fighters get two extra ability score improvements and aren't especially multi-score dependent to begin with, so they've never struggled to take on feats to specialise themselves how they want. If a player wants to be a brawling fighter then the fighting style is the better fit since that really is just a choice of preferred weapon, albeit no weapons in this case. Otherwise the problem in 5e isn't that brawling requires feats, it's that the feats aren't currently all that good (e.g- Skill Expert is better for brawling than Grappler is because you can boost Athletics with it).
But keeping it accessible via feats mean you can also do the same with Barbarian, or even other classes like Paladin or Ranger so long as they are able to gain the fighting style somehow. Fighter is just the easier platform for taking multiple feats, ideal if they also want Tavern Brawler for the improvised weapons etc. though again that feat could be better.
That's my problem with Brawler really; aside from the fact that its features really just make it a baseline Fighter without "proper" weapons, the features could just easily be rolled into the appropriate feats, I just don't see the need for a sub-class for this or for it to be Fighter specific. For example, an extra benefit of Tavern Brawler could be to allow you to use weapon mastery with improvised weapons if you have the weapon mastery feature/feat.
And that covers anyone that wants to be an armoured brawler (Fighter), or a tanking brawler (Barbarian), but there's still plenty of room for the mobile/skirmishing brawler/martial artist because we otherwise don't have that, especially when you also add the other things Monks and their sub-classes can do that makes them play very differently. The problem in 5e isn't that Monk lacks definition or options, it's that the core class scaling poorly means everything scales poorly, and some of the sub-classes were implemented badly.
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.
Talking about the different issues that have been discussed about the monk class, I came to this conclusion:
- Unarmed Strike brought up to par with Weapon Mastery - Use of martial weapons (limited to dex weapons) - Patient Defense + bonus attack - Step of the Wind - as a movimeno action - Self Healing - Ability check support
Slightly lower dpr in area 1-2 and higher in part 3-4. This way every Force/Ki/D point you use there is no chance of being wasted if the attack does not hit. This way there is also a number of attacks more in line with other classes (in case if enhanced with magic items). Force Focus also allows the enhancement of ranged attacks.
Monk Profession / Background / situation: - Gardian or protector (temple, sacred territory, forest,...) - Sage (village, town, a group) - Hermit (territory) - Conclave of monks who restore balance in the multiverse (Jedi style) - Explorer of the multiverse - Seeking enlightenment outside the temple (pilgrimage) - Excommunicated from the temple - Last survivor of the temple - Heir of a martial arts style - Master of a school of martial arts
Characteristics: - Speed and freedom of movement (jumps, surfaces,...) - Unarmed and armed style - Counterattack based on reaction (Deflect-Missiles, Counter-Strike, Force Barrier) - Force/ki/D allows the monk to overcome the mortals limits
An Unarmed Strike is a Melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or push, or sweep a target within 5 feet of you. Whenever you use your Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options for its effect:
Damage. You make an attack roll against the target. Your bonus to hit equals your Strength modifier + your Proficiency Bonus. On a hit, the target takes Bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier.
Grapple. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or it has the Grappled condition. The DC for the saving throw and any escape attempts equals 8 + your Strength modifier + your Proficiency Bonus. 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 it.
Push. You can push the creature up to 10 feet away from you horizontally if it is no more than one size larger than you.
Sweep. The target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw with a DC equal to 8 + your Strength modifier + your Proficiency Bonus, or fall in the Prone condition.
Proficiencies:
Simple Weapons, Martial Weapons
1st: Martial Arts
Your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use your Unarmed Strike and Simple Weapons. You gain the following benefits while you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield:
Soft Technique. You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the Unarmed Strikes (variant)properties, and also for all Simple Weapons that do not have the two-handed property.
Martial Arts Die. You can roll a d6 in place of the normal damage of your Unarmed Strike or your weapon attacks. This die changes as you gain Monk levels, as shown in the Martial Arts column of the Monk table.
Quick Strike. When you use the Attack action with an Unarmed Strike or with a Weapon that use dexterity on your turn, you can make one Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action on the same turn.
Unarmed Mastery. Each long rest you can choose a property of Unaremd Strike (Grapple, Push or Sweep) and combine this property with the damage of each of your unarmed strikes.
1st: Unarmored Defense
1st: Weapon Mastery
2st: The Force (ki/D)
Your self-discipline and martial training allow you to sense extraordinary energy around you. Your access to this energy is represented by a number of Force Points. Your Monk level determines the number of points you have, as shown in the Force Points column of the Monk table.
You can spend these points to fuel various Force Powers. You start knowing five such powers: Defence, Fast, Focus, Knowledge, and Life. You learn more Force Powers as you gain levels in this class. When you spend a Force Point, it is unavailable until you finish a Short Rest or Long Rest, at the end of which you regain all your expended points. Some of the Force Power Features require your target to make a saving throw to resist the Power’s effects. The saving throw DC is calculated as follows:
Force save DC = 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Wisdom modifier
Defence. You can spend 1 Force point to take the Dodge action as a Bonus Action, and you can move your Quick Strike as part of the Attack action.
Fast You can spend 1 Force point to take both the Disengage and Dash actions as part of your movement, and your jump distance is doubled for the turn.
Focus.Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack, you can spend 1 Force point, roll a Martial Arts die and add it to the damage roll.
Knowledge. When you fail an ability check, you can spend 1 Force Point as a reaction, roll of Martial Arts die and add it to the ability check.
Life. You can spend 1 Force Point as a Bonus action, and regain a number of Hit Points equal to a roll of Martial Art die plus your Wisdom modifier.
2nd: Unarmored Movement
You gain the following benefits while you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield:
Force Jump. You can use Wisdom instead of Strength to determines how far you can jump.
Heightened Speed. Your speed increases by 10 feet, this bonus increases when you reach certain Monk levels, as shown in the Monk table.
Slow Fall. You can use your Reaction when you fall to reduce any damage you take from the fall by an amount equal to five times your Monk level.
3rd: Deflect-Missiles
When you use Dodgeand a creature misses youwith a ranged attack, you can use your reaction to deflect the attack against the creature. If you do so, choose a creature within 60 feet of yourself that isn’t behind Total Cover. That creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take damage equal to two rolls of your Martial Arts die. The damage is the same type dealt by the attack.
5th: Extra Attack
5th: Stunning Strike
When you hit a creature with Focus, you can attempt a Stunning Strike. The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or have the Stunned condition until the end of your next turn.
6th: One with the Weapon
Whenever you finish a short or long rest, you can touch one weapon, infuse your Force on it, and become one with it. The weapon appears as if a fluorescent light covers it and when handled it emits a vibrating sound. This will share out its magic bonus to attack and damage rolls with your unarmed strikes. Additionally, when you deal damage with this weapon or with your Unarmed Strike, you can deal your choice of Force damage or its normal damage type.
7th: Force-Sensitive
Your inner Force nourishes your body and mind. You no longer need food or water. Additionally, if you spend at least 1 minute meditating, you can regain all your expended Force points. Once you use this feature, you can’t use it again until you finish a Long Rest.
7th: Evasion
9th: Art of Movement
You gain the following benefits while you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield:
Inertia. At 9th level, you gain the ability to move along vertical surfaces and across liquids on your turn without falling during the move.
Gravity Walk. You can spend 1 Force Point as a bonus action and for 10 minutes, you can hold your position and not fall while using inertia.
Lightning Step. When you use Fast your step is so light that for the turn you can run through the air.
10th: Counter-Strike
When you use Dodge and a creature misses you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to make an unarmed attack against it.
11th: Flurry of Strikes
Your Martial Arts feature now confers two extra Quick Strikes rather than one. Additionally, if you spend 1 Force point or more as an action, you can perform Flurry of Strikes as a bonus action before the end of the turn.
14th: Harmony
Your physical and mental discipline, and your mastery of Force grant you proficiency in all saving throws. Additionally, whenever you make a saving throw and fail, you can spend 1 Force Point to reroll it and take the second result.
14th: Force Bariere
When you use Dodge and a creature that can be seen hits you with an attack, you can use your reaction to reduce the damage by 1d10 plus your Dexterity modifier plus your monk level. If you have reduced the damage to 0 through this feature, as if dodged the attack, you can use Deflect-Missiles or Counter-Strike as part of the same reaction.
18th: Force Master
When using Stunning Strike, you can choose to spend 1 Force point to affect the opponent’s mind, in which case the Stunning Strike saving throw will be on Wisdom.
20th: Unlimited Force
Your unarmed attacks have never been more powerful. If you use 1 Force Point at the beginning of your turn to perform Focus, each of your attacks that hit during your turn is a Focus attack.
Lack of heavy armour proficiency requires Rangers to have at least a 14 Dex, they lack access to the GWF fighting style making them worse at using heavy weapons than other martials, many of their class-unique spells only work with ranged weapons which are Dex-based and several class features benefit stealth which is Dex-based and the PHB explicitly says they are Dex-based. Sure it is possible to build a Str ranger but they are definitely against type.
Barbarians, Rangers, and Rogues, all lack nova abilities and instead primarily use sustained-effects whether that's concentration spells from Ranger, or Rage that typically lasts all combat. In contrast all Fighter's limited use abilities last for only 1 round or less (only a couple of Rune Knight abilities violate this pattern).
Sorcerers gain magic innately so have far less versatility than Wizards and instead focus on maximizing the power of a small number of spells vs the wizard that focuses on having the right spell for the job.
Paladin's differ from Fighters in having strong support & out-of-combat abilities and being magical holy warriors with far less association with tactics (the "lawful stupid" paladin trope didn't just appear from nothing). The only difference between what STR-monk people want for Monk and a Fighter is that the monk doesn't use weapons or armour, which now doesn't make them unique at all b/c of the Brawler subclass for Fighter which fulfills all the archtype needs for a STR-based unarmed fighter.
Many many archtypes people want monk to fulfill are not mystical at all : Jackie Chan & other action stars, MMA fighters, Wrestlers, Boxers. Quite a few use armour and/or weapons - i.e. historical martial arts used by soldiers / armies, samurai.
what sparked my response was that you had critiqued the ranger blub by picking apart how others wear medium armor and can build for dex. it looked like you were saying 'that's not very unique,' but ignoring the wilderness connection. the "what is a monk?" question was itself a callout for lack of unique cohesive features that might fit in a monk blurb. your answering blub was "well trained," "no weapon," "armorless," and "magical energy" which didn't answer the question of how monks are a class rather than a flavor theme. something like rage, spellbook, action surge, or metamagic. sure 'wilderness expert' is a little thin but it's easily a profession. on the other hand, 'punches powered by strict discipline' seems even thinner, more like a backstory or theme any roleplay-heavy warrior could slip on.
(sorry for not going back to quote all the relevant ziggurats, too difficult on mobile. maybe later.)
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!
what I was saying was those specific facets that I mentioned were not unique.
The monk issues are not an identity issue. There is plenty of overlap in concept between other classes in the game while maintaining the distinctiveness of those other classes. Monk problems are definately a design issue. The monk designers seem to truly not understand how to translate the fantasy of the monk into gameplay. If they cant do that, then the monk has little hope.
However, since wotc is diminishing the myticism of the monk by moving from ki to discipline i can certainly see why some would say it should just be a fighter subclass instead of its own class.
I'm not saying there is no difference between these other classes, I'm saying its not any more defined than the difference between monk. Also I'm pointing out that most martials have strong overlap with fighter, by design. You could call Ryu(monk) a fighter as much as you can call Aragorn(ranger) a fighter, or Conan(barbarian), or king Arthur(paladin). Basically the fighter is analogous to A general practioner. Every martial learned fighting to an extent. the fighter learns more of it. The others specialized into something unique. Ranger; nature survival, paladin; divine riteous, barbarian; instinct, primal, monk; wisdom, Ki, rogue; cunning, trickery. So there will always be a ton of overlap, that isnt a flaw, its the design.
Also, the fact that you possess the ability to use ranged attacks doesnt mean it defines you. These are options. Fighter has archery fighting style, it doesnt mean they are only meant to use ranged attacks. Anyone can benefit from having 14 dex for medium armor. Medium armor does not equal, you aren't suppose to use str, or be burly. barbarian also uses medium armor, and they are the most str/con based Class in the game. They also one of the toughest to kill, so lack of access to heavy armor does not equal a dexterous focus. Fighters may also use medium armor to avoid stealth penalties. And note, you can make ranged attacks via strength with throwing. Ranger and fighter are specifically designed to be able to benefit from either str or dex. Only rogue is built to be highly dex dependent, it only gets finesse weapons, sneak only works with finesse, and light armor which requires a high dex investment to get the AC of a barbarian or fighter. Ranger was modeled after Aragorn, it is not, by trope the slim ranged attacker type.
A monk does not have to be overtly mystical, you can think of it like the force in star wars. Some people use the force to lift objects, bust most use of the force looks like just doing something better than other people. Hitting targets, dodging attacks, jumping higher, being tougher. The monk mostly uses Ki internally, you see this with step of the wind, patient defense, and flurry of blows. The monk will say I can do this because I can harness my inner magical energy. The Fighter observing might say, you are trained/strong/dextrous/lucky. If you've read or seen most martial arts fiction, you know commonly there is some internal energy being applied even with what appears to be normal fighting. Point being, the Drunken Kung Fu(Jackie chan) trope is not separate from the concept of chi. (which is the basis the monk is riffing on)
stunning strike is represented as being external, manipulating another creatures internal energies, but much of the rest of monk is in part fueled by using Ki to be stronger/faster/tougher.
I mostly agree with you, but I'm not sure the intent is to remove the thing Ki is trying to riff on, its mostly to try to obscure its source. Which imo is a bad idea, dnd is a fantasy world built on tropes, thats why its usually easy to RP, because even without reading tons of lore, you instantly know what type of character you are playing based on other media/culture.
that said, i think the intend to keep monk's mysticism
This a quote from the UA. so I don't think they are trying to demystify it, just rebrand it. I guess they are not calling it 'magic' any more, but really it was never supposed to be the same type of thing as the weave in dnd. This is actually closer to some definitions of chi than before.
I'll also say it describes the concept the people are looking for roughly when they play a monk, as you say its a design flaw, not a conceptual problem.
You know, I think asking what the monk's core concept is is asking the wrong question. The question should be "Given that I have a character concept, which concepts are best represented as which class?". If a class is only good at representing a narrow range of character concepts, it should probably be made broader. So... what character concepts do you think the monk should be a reasonable answer for?
I think the monk could be interpreted with the same philosophy as the Jedi in Star Wars. Just eliminate technology and galaxy and exchange them for magic and multiverse. I find there is a great similarity and it could also be a way to separate from the image of the Asian monk.
I think a class should be unique to a certain extent, but before it is unique one should identify its game characteristics, how it will be used, what role a in the group, what is the advantage it can bring in a group, etc....
Only after deciding these aspects can it be modified into a monk with more cosmetic and presentational touches.
When a designer develops an object he/she thinks first about its practical use and then about its design, some times already the form of its practical use is a design in itself.
Jedi Philosophy
"In order to master the ways of the Force, Jedi must forgo all attachment."
To be a Jedi was to live a life of selflessness and devotion to the light side of the Force.
The Jedi Knights focused on calmness and peace to channel their powers in the Force, using the light side of the Force to serve in the capacity of guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy. Even so, the Jedi sought to preserve balance in the Force; the ancient prophecy of the Chosen One foretold of a being who would restore balance to the Force by destroying the Sith. In combat, whereas an enemy may grow impatient and rely on their overwhelming strength, a Jedi would meditate and find serenity in their mind to focus. A Jedi used the Force for defense and knowledge rather than use it to gain power over others. Their chosen weapon the lightsaber, a weapon with limitations, likewise symbolised the care a Jedi took wielding their gifts and that when a Jedi fights it is with intention and precision, ending conflict while injuring no more, or taking no more life, than the lightsaber's wielder chooses. A Jedi was supposed to be selfless and work to save others above themselves. Like all people, Jedi were imperfect and always needed to strive to better themselves, meaning it was impossible to be a "perfect Jedi."
Because of their ability in the Force, a Jedi, even if they lacked a physical weapon, was never defenseless, and some Jedi were capable of appearing after death as Force spirits. The Jedi considered themselves instruments of the Force, and during the time of the Galactic Republic, peacekeepers instead of soldiers. Striving to be majestic yet simple, knowledge, the Force, and self-discipline were considered the three pillars of Jedi strength. The Jedi believed that—no matter one's physical appearance—everyone was internally made up of light. Individuals who did not understand the Force took to calling Jedi "space wizards." Through the Jedi Order all Jedi belonged to, a Jedi was connected to the entire galaxy.
The life of a Jedi was full of hardships. Training to become a Jedi was difficult, according to Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn, and those who succeeded were faced with a hard life ahead. Adherence to the Jedi way required a disciplined mind and a strong sense of commitment, and it was considered unbecoming of a Jedi to seek adventure or excitement. The Jedi Code therefore regulated the lives of individual Jedi, their actions and beliefs, and the policies of the Jedi Order. While the Code permitted compassion, attachment and possession were forbidden to the Jedi. The Jedi believed that attachment led to jealousy, and greed in turn, and ultimately the fear of loss which was a pathway to the dark side of the Force. Through the Force, the Jedi hoped to direct themselves through their passions, instead of acting in an impulsive manner. Forgoing attachment was also considered essential to a Jedi's progress in mastering their Force powers, as their training could last from years to a lifetime. Despite the importance of non-attachment in the Jedi vow, there was disagreement on what that specifically meant.
Some Jedi took it to mean they needed to suppress their emotions, such as vanquishing love and discomfort from themselves, whereas others believed trying to master emotion went against the ideals of the Order. For the latter group of Jedi, emotions like love were centered upon the idea of letting go. Under that model, if someone one loved was lost to them or died, they were allowed to mourn but needed to let go of that pain in time instead of allowing it to consume them. Indeed, the Jedi accepted death as a part of the natural course of life, believing that the deceased should be celebrated instead of mourned for becoming one with the Force. Detachment was nonetheless one of the most difficult lessons for Jedi to learn, as it took practice and repetition to master. Learning the lesson—that, to be a Jedi, one needed to "let go"—multiple times over his long life, Grand Master Yoda was able to carry the belief to his deathbed after a lifespan of nine centuries, even accepting his death—the death of all life—as the way of the Force.
Indeed, the Jedi understood feelings like love to be natural; Jedi were allowed to feel these emotions, but their task was to balance their strong feelings. With an understanding of their strongest emotions, it was hoped a Jedi would analyze what, deep down, made them feel the way they did. Able to then address their underlining motivations, the Jedi could formulate the best possible path forward instead of allowing themself to act without thinking. Attachments like romance were understood to be distractions from the Jedi mission of spreading justice and the light side: it represented a person tying themself down to one attachment, rather than opening themself up to the galaxy as a whole. Bound only to the Force and the Jedi Temple, relationships to a Jedi needed to be carefully handled in the name of their service to the Force. Close friendships still existed and were valued, but a Jedi needed to understand their friends could be lost and need to be let go of at any given time.
i wouldn't reject a jedi reinterpretation of monk origins (although certain multinational companies might). but it doesn't address the question: why monks? why them instead of a class of gladiators or swashbucklers or spell-swords or witches or comic book heros? why would jedi-monks, seemingly another drop-in-the-bucket religion in an already crowded pantheon but minus representation of an "emotion suppression" zeus, plausibly become common enough to be a base class?
...my answer would be those rejecting religion to seek humanoid self-empowerment. atheists with intent. a sort of peaceful guerilla resistance? what's your thought?
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!
The Brawler doesn't have any features that enable it to function without armour; it still fully wants to be wearing medium or heavy armour. The only thing it does the same as a Monk is that it has a weapon dice for unarmed strikes comparable to a basic weapon, but that damage doesn't scale and it doesn't get the same bonus action attack so in tiers 1 and 2 it needs to use action surge to compete.
I'm not sure the Brawler is a good point of comparison, as it's a pretty rubbish sub-class nobody actually asked for, and honestly I'd be surprised if they went ahead with it; they have much better sub-classes to update for Fighter, and updating the Tavern Brawler feat, Battlemaster sub-class and bringing back the Tasha's Cauldron unarmed fighting style would give far better mechanics for an armoured brawler for those that want that.
But Monks are not armoured brawlers, the only common element between them is the unarmed strikes. The brawler is also no faster than a regular Fighter without burning its Action Surge to Dash etc. Monk's mechanical identity isn't a single feature, just as a Ranger's identity isn't just "spellcasting".
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.
there isnt really a concept of classes needing to be common. In fact its assumed some of them are rare. In fact paladin's phb description specifically claims they are fairly rars in relation to fighters. Sorcerers, artificers, etc are also implied to be rare. Fighters are said to be more common. Classes are supposed to represent what you are able to do, or your calling. Its not these are the most common types of adventurers.
if the gladiator does fighter things (every weapon, fighting styles, no specific unique flavor) they are a fighter. Even if no one calls them that. If a spell sword has tons of arcane magic they learned to cast, and has only mastered one weapon, they might be a wizard/blade dancer. a comic book hero is more about the world and its limits, but most heroes would be various classes depending on what type of hero they are. Hulk would probably be a Epic level barbarian with like bonded accuracy breaking STR/CON low intelligence. , And Banner a wizard/warlock who gets transformed by otherworldly energies
phb quote on classes.
The classes in the phb represent most of the tropes they could come up with at the time, and they actually generally do a fairly decent Job representing most tropes in the planes.
brawler is not a bad concept, and I'd rather have a brawler than a rework of existing subclasses. but thats another topic.
I agree the brawler is not trying to be a monk. In fact its core feature is improvisation and being a master of every type of weapon, to the point it can make anything like another weapon. A brawler does not share the core identities of a pursuit of mental/physical perfection through rigorous training, the focus on manipulating the inner energy of all things to increase its power/growth.
And the use of DEX is not the core concept of a monk. Its a mechanic they chose.
nothing in this description
https://www.dndbeyond.com/classes/monk
or the new one heavily ties the monk to dexterity. The idea is that they could use either str or dex to attack, and also that their AC is improved through wisdom. (every character can add their dex to their unarmored defense)
to be clear, I'm not saying the 5e monk doesnt need dex, I'm saying the concept of a monk isn't the same as a fighter if they use strength. In fact for most classes, what stat they chose to make a main stat don't really heavily tie into its identity. A warlock would still be a warlock whether it used int or wis as its main stat. If they chose wisdom over charisma for paladin, no one would bat an eye.
Unarmored Brawler is as simple as a Barbarian dip. Even with low Dex (which... why are you unarmored again?) you can pump Con and wear a shield and not be too bad off.
Yeah, all PC classes are rare relative to the general population. Minstrels and troubadours are commonplace in taverns, but few are capable of becoming true Bards. Any random town guard or militia can be a warrior or soldier, but not many are capable of being Fighters.
Some are even rarer than that - there are probably fewer wizards than clerics - but just by being a PC adventurer you're already the 10% if not the 5%.
lets hope for 3rd attack at level eleven and weapon mastery on unarmed strikes and ma die back on weapons.
I was thinking we'd take rare or common in relation to other classes if we're taking about classes. personally, it's my habit to not even acknowledge a character's class in-game if it can be helped. most mechanisms and 'class talk' should be out of character (unless you're doing the isekai adventure's guild sort of thing, I guess). as such, it's entirely up to a given table whether an NPC will ever stand up and shout "aha! a monk! they're known to be..." or rogue or ranger or whatever. but really I was asking how common this jedi cult would be. if it's pervasive or spreading, then okay. if it's just from one quiet mountain village then that's less a class concept than pirate or fantasy snow ski enthusiasts.
but setting that aside, there wouldn't be a conversation about the role and archetype and fitting-in of monks if it was easily answered. yes, class is more than a profession but 'monk' isn't even a monk's profession. secluded monks are basically farmers with more abs and schools of monks are... schools with school jobs (probably secluded too). in dnd the priests/clerics/paladins handle exorcisms and sealed demons and shooing yokai. all monk has to separate them from other warriors is a dedication to poverty and some quick feet.
if this is going in circles then I'll drop it. but, first let me just reiterate: if the answer was easy then there wouldn't be so much disagreement about what a monk is or should be.
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!
I agree with everything you said, but as a sidebar, I admit I was intrigued by the brawler. You are absolutely correct that in its current form, it is a bit rubbish though. There are few reasons why anyone would ever go unarmed when they have a +2 sword that maybe has some other trait to it. Maybe just for the RP effect of pummeling someone already on the verge of defeat. The subclass definitely needs work to be ready for prime time.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
You say that, but then in one of my campaigns we have a Rune Knight who picked up the Unarmed Fighting FS and is currently exclusively using unarmed attacks & Grapple/Shove.
That's fair. I have played in a campaign with someone who was a RK as well and rejected the use of weapons to be the ultimate grappling king. There will always be exceptions I suppose.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Which is why the unarmed fighting style and/or feats is the better way of doing an unarmed brawler; Fighters get two extra ability score improvements and aren't especially multi-score dependent to begin with, so they've never struggled to take on feats to specialise themselves how they want. If a player wants to be a brawling fighter then the fighting style is the better fit since that really is just a choice of preferred weapon, albeit no weapons in this case. Otherwise the problem in 5e isn't that brawling requires feats, it's that the feats aren't currently all that good (e.g- Skill Expert is better for brawling than Grappler is because you can boost Athletics with it).
But keeping it accessible via feats mean you can also do the same with Barbarian, or even other classes like Paladin or Ranger so long as they are able to gain the fighting style somehow. Fighter is just the easier platform for taking multiple feats, ideal if they also want Tavern Brawler for the improvised weapons etc. though again that feat could be better.
That's my problem with Brawler really; aside from the fact that its features really just make it a baseline Fighter without "proper" weapons, the features could just easily be rolled into the appropriate feats, I just don't see the need for a sub-class for this or for it to be Fighter specific. For example, an extra benefit of Tavern Brawler could be to allow you to use weapon mastery with improvised weapons if you have the weapon mastery feature/feat.
And that covers anyone that wants to be an armoured brawler (Fighter), or a tanking brawler (Barbarian), but there's still plenty of room for the mobile/skirmishing brawler/martial artist because we otherwise don't have that, especially when you also add the other things Monks and their sub-classes can do that makes them play very differently. The problem in 5e isn't that Monk lacks definition or options, it's that the core class scaling poorly means everything scales poorly, and some of the sub-classes were implemented badly.
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.
Talking about the different issues that have been discussed about the monk class, I came to this conclusion:
- Unarmed Strike brought up to par with Weapon Mastery
- Use of martial weapons (limited to dex weapons)
- Patient Defense + bonus attack
- Step of the Wind - as a movimeno action
- Self Healing
- Ability check support
Slightly lower dpr in area 1-2 and higher in part 3-4. This way every Force/Ki/D point you use there is no chance of being wasted if the attack does not hit. This way there is also a number of attacks more in line with other classes (in case if enhanced with magic items). Force Focus also allows the enhancement of ranged attacks.
Monk Profession / Background / situation:
- Gardian or protector (temple, sacred territory, forest,...)
- Sage (village, town, a group)
- Hermit (territory)
- Conclave of monks who restore balance in the multiverse (Jedi style)
- Explorer of the multiverse
- Seeking enlightenment outside the temple (pilgrimage)
- Excommunicated from the temple
- Last survivor of the temple
- Heir of a martial arts style
- Master of a school of martial arts
Characteristics:
- Speed and freedom of movement (jumps, surfaces,...)
- Unarmed and armed style
- Counterattack based on reaction (Deflect-Missiles, Counter-Strike, Force Barrier)
- Force/ki/D allows the monk to overcome the mortals limits
https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/-beL8eetxcyx
UNARMED STRIKE (variant)
An Unarmed Strike is a Melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or push, or sweep a target within 5 feet of you. Whenever you use your Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options for its effect:
Damage. You make an attack roll against the target. Your bonus to hit equals your Strength modifier + your Proficiency Bonus. On a hit, the target takes Bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier.
Grapple. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or it has the Grappled condition. The DC for the saving throw and any escape attempts equals 8 + your Strength modifier + your Proficiency Bonus. 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 it.
Push. You can push the creature up to 10 feet away from you horizontally if it is no more than one size larger than you.
Sweep. The target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw with a DC equal to 8 + your Strength modifier + your Proficiency Bonus, or fall in the Prone condition.
1st: Martial Arts
Your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use your Unarmed Strike and Simple Weapons. You gain the following benefits while you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield:
Soft Technique. You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the Unarmed Strikes (variant) properties, and also for all Simple Weapons that do not have the two-handed property.
Martial Arts Die. You can roll a d6 in place of the normal damage of your Unarmed Strike or your weapon attacks. This die changes as you gain Monk levels, as shown in the Martial Arts column of the Monk table.
Quick Strike. When you use the Attack action with an Unarmed Strike or with a Weapon that use dexterity on your turn, you can make one Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action on the same turn.
Unarmed Mastery. Each long rest you can choose a property of Unaremd Strike (Grapple, Push or Sweep) and combine this property with the damage of each of your unarmed strikes.
1st: Unarmored Defense
1st: Weapon Mastery
2st: The Force (ki/D)
Your self-discipline and martial training allow you to sense extraordinary energy around you. Your access to this energy is represented by a number of Force Points. Your Monk level determines the number of points you have, as shown in the Force Points column of the Monk table.
You can spend these points to fuel various Force Powers. You start knowing five such powers: Defence, Fast, Focus, Knowledge, and Life. You learn more Force Powers as you gain levels in this class. When you spend a Force Point, it is unavailable until you finish a Short Rest or Long Rest, at the end of which you regain all your expended points. Some of the Force Power Features require your target to make a saving throw to resist the Power’s effects. The saving throw DC is calculated as follows:
Force save DC = 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Wisdom modifier
Defence. You can spend 1 Force point to take the Dodge action as a Bonus Action, and you can move your Quick Strike as part of the Attack action.
Fast You can spend 1 Force point to take both the Disengage and Dash actions as part of your movement, and your jump distance is doubled for the turn.
Focus. Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack, you can spend 1 Force point, roll a Martial Arts die and add it to the damage roll.
Knowledge. When you fail an ability check, you can spend 1 Force Point as a reaction, roll of Martial Arts die and add it to the ability check.
Life. You can spend 1 Force Point as a Bonus action, and regain a number of Hit Points equal to a roll of Martial Art die plus your Wisdom modifier.
2nd: Unarmored Movement
You gain the following benefits while you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield:
Force Jump. You can use Wisdom instead of Strength to determines how far you can jump.
Heightened Speed. Your speed increases by 10 feet, this bonus increases when you reach certain Monk levels, as shown in the Monk table.
Slow Fall. You can use your Reaction when you fall to reduce any damage you take from the fall by an amount equal to five times your Monk level.
3rd: Deflect-Missiles
When you use Dodge and a creature misses you with a ranged attack, you can use your reaction to deflect the attack against the creature. If you do so, choose a creature within 60 feet of yourself that isn’t behind Total Cover. That creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take damage equal to two rolls of your Martial Arts die. The damage is the same type dealt by the attack.
5th: Extra Attack
5th: Stunning Strike
When you hit a creature with Focus, you can attempt a Stunning Strike. The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or have the Stunned condition until the end of your next turn.
6th: One with the Weapon
Whenever you finish a short or long rest, you can touch one weapon, infuse your Force on it, and become one with it. The weapon appears as if a fluorescent light covers it and when handled it emits a vibrating sound. This will share out its magic bonus to attack and damage rolls with your unarmed strikes. Additionally, when you deal damage with this weapon or with your Unarmed Strike, you can deal your choice of Force damage or its normal damage type.
7th: Force-Sensitive
Your inner Force nourishes your body and mind. You no longer need food or water. Additionally, if you spend at least 1 minute meditating, you can regain all your expended Force points. Once you use this feature, you can’t use it again until you finish a Long Rest.
7th: Evasion
9th: Art of Movement
You gain the following benefits while you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield:
Inertia. At 9th level, you gain the ability to move along vertical surfaces and across liquids on your turn without falling during the move.
Gravity Walk. You can spend 1 Force Point as a bonus action and for 10 minutes, you can hold your position and not fall while using inertia.
Lightning Step. When you use Fast your step is so light that for the turn you can run through the air.
10th: Counter-Strike
When you use Dodge and a creature misses you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to make an unarmed attack against it.
11th: Flurry of Strikes
Your Martial Arts feature now confers two extra Quick Strikes rather than one. Additionally, if you spend 1 Force point or more as an action, you can perform Flurry of Strikes as a bonus action before the end of the turn.
14th: Harmony
Your physical and mental discipline, and your mastery of Force grant you proficiency in all saving throws. Additionally, whenever you make a saving throw and fail, you can spend 1 Force Point to reroll it and take the second result.
14th: Force Bariere
When you use Dodge and a creature that can be seen hits you with an attack, you can use your reaction to reduce the damage by 1d10 plus your Dexterity modifier plus your monk level. If you have reduced the damage to 0 through this feature, as if dodged the attack, you can use Deflect-Missiles or Counter-Strike as part of the same reaction.
18th: Force Master
When using Stunning Strike, you can choose to spend 1 Force point to affect the opponent’s mind, in which case the Stunning Strike saving throw will be on Wisdom.
20th: Unlimited Force
Your unarmed attacks have never been more powerful. If you use 1 Force Point at the beginning of your turn to perform Focus, each of your attacks that hit during your turn is a Focus attack.