Personally it may be better for them to give the bonus action attack the Nick property and reduce the number of hits of Flurry of Blows to 1 from levels 2~10 then give them the 2nd flurry strike at 11th. This allows Monk to PD and SotW without being out-damaged by everyone while also not unbalancing it.
Respectfully, no.
First off, unarmed strikes aren't limited to their hands. You can kick, elbow, or headbutt with ease. The entire point of the Nick property is they get to make an additional weapon attack while freeing up that bonus action. If you're going to give a monk's unarmed strikes the Nick mastery, then you're essentially saying weapons are meaningless. No, really, here's one handaxe attack and then nothing but unarmed strikes because they hit harder and deal force damage. The only thing your change does is let them add their Dexterity to the additional attack; rather than acquire Two Weapon Fighting Style via a background feat. They can't benefit from Nick twice, so your proposal looks like a nerf.
Second, the ability of the monk to throttle its damage dealt, maneuverability, and survivability is powerful. It's empowering by giving the player a meaningful choice to exercise. I can't believe I still have to say this in 2023, but damage isn't everything. It should not be the metric all classes are held to because they weren't designed that way. Now, don't get me wrong, damage is important to a fight. It's how you stop most enemies. A rogue can still dish out more than a monk at most levels, and it does so with a single all-or-nothing attack. The playtest is also giving rogues Cunning Strikes, which sacrifice some of that damage for debuffs. This new mechanic offers a lot of tactical depth by allowing the rogue to sacrifice as many as nine of its ten potential Sneak Attack dice for a variety of effects. Both classes are being set up to throttle damage output in the form of tactical options.
How does your proposal fit within the established paradigm, of what is essentially opportunity cost, or do you reject it outright in favor of external pressures?
I think the real question we should be asking is do these "discipline point" costs remain meaningful choices throughout the monk's career? Should choices like Flurry of Blows, Patient Defense, and Step of the Wind grow stronger in the same way Deflect Missiles evolves to include Deflect Energy? And if so, what should those other evolutions look like?
You can't get two weapon fighting as a feat for Monk in current playtest. The prerequisite for fighting style feats was changed to having the fighting style feature so monks no longer qualify for fighting style feats unless they take a level of fighter or 2 levels of ranger.
Personally it may be better for them to give the bonus action attack the Nick property and reduce the number of hits of Flurry of Blows to 1 from levels 2~10 then give them the 2nd flurry strike at 11th. This allows Monk to PD and SotW without being out-damaged by everyone while also not unbalancing it.
Respectfully, no.
First off, unarmed strikes aren't limited to their hands. You can kick, elbow, or headbutt with ease. The entire point of the Nick property is they get to make an additional weapon attack while freeing up that bonus action. If you're going to give a monk's unarmed strikes the Nick mastery, then you're essentially saying weapons are meaningless. No, really, here's one handaxe attack and then nothing but unarmed strikes because they hit harder and deal force damage. The only thing your change does is let them add their Dexterity to the additional attack; rather than acquire Two Weapon Fighting Style via a background feat. They can't benefit from Nick twice, so your proposal looks like a nerf.
Second, the ability of the monk to throttle its damage dealt, maneuverability, and survivability is powerful. It's empowering by giving the player a meaningful choice to exercise. I can't believe I still have to say this in 2023, but damage isn't everything. It should not be the metric all classes are held to because they weren't designed that way. Now, don't get me wrong, damage is important to a fight. It's how you stop most enemies. A rogue can still dish out more than a monk at most levels, and it does so with a single all-or-nothing attack. The playtest is also giving rogues Cunning Strikes, which sacrifice some of that damage for debuffs. This new mechanic offers a lot of tactical depth by allowing the rogue to sacrifice as many as nine of its ten potential Sneak Attack dice for a variety of effects. Both classes are being set up to throttle damage output in the form of tactical options.
How does your proposal fit within the established paradigm, of what is essentially opportunity cost, or do you reject it outright in favor of external pressures?
I think the real question we should be asking is do these "discipline point" costs remain meaningful choices throughout the monk's career? Should choices like Flurry of Blows, Patient Defense, and Step of the Wind grow stronger in the same way Deflect Missiles evolves to include Deflect Energy? And if so, what should those other evolutions look like?
You can't get two weapon fighting as a feat for Monk in current playtest. The prerequisite for fighting style feats was changed to having the fighting style feature so monks no longer qualify for fighting style feats unless they take a level of fighter or 2 levels of ranger.
Or two levels of paladin, and so what? Your entire proposal boils down to stripping away the bonus action attack. It's still a nerf. I can't imagine anyone wouldn't rather have the option to wield two weapons, attack up to three times with them, and still get in at least one unarmed strike. Yes, even at the cost of a bonus action. Because you're not getting in four attacks.
It's a dumb change for the playtest that is going to be walked back by WotC or ignored by most groups if it survives to publication. Because, as it stands, it's an inferior feat for anyone 4th-level or higher. They're all still 1st-level feats, and the only class which can take one at 1st-level is the fighter.
Personally it may be better for them to give the bonus action attack the Nick property and reduce the number of hits of Flurry of Blows to 1 from levels 2~10 then give them the 2nd flurry strike at 11th. This allows Monk to PD and SotW without being out-damaged by everyone while also not unbalancing it.
Respectfully, no.
First off, unarmed strikes aren't limited to their hands. You can kick, elbow, or headbutt with ease. The entire point of the Nick property is they get to make an additional weapon attack while freeing up that bonus action. If you're going to give a monk's unarmed strikes the Nick mastery, then you're essentially saying weapons are meaningless. No, really, here's one handaxe attack and then nothing but unarmed strikes because they hit harder and deal force damage. The only thing your change does is let them add their Dexterity to the additional attack; rather than acquire Two Weapon Fighting Style via a background feat. They can't benefit from Nick twice, so your proposal looks like a nerf.
Second, the ability of the monk to throttle its damage dealt, maneuverability, and survivability is powerful. It's empowering by giving the player a meaningful choice to exercise. I can't believe I still have to say this in 2023, but damage isn't everything. It should not be the metric all classes are held to because they weren't designed that way. Now, don't get me wrong, damage is important to a fight. It's how you stop most enemies. A rogue can still dish out more than a monk at most levels, and it does so with a single all-or-nothing attack. The playtest is also giving rogues Cunning Strikes, which sacrifice some of that damage for debuffs. This new mechanic offers a lot of tactical depth by allowing the rogue to sacrifice as many as nine of its ten potential Sneak Attack dice for a variety of effects. Both classes are being set up to throttle damage output in the form of tactical options.
How does your proposal fit within the established paradigm, of what is essentially opportunity cost, or do you reject it outright in favor of external pressures?
I think the real question we should be asking is do these "discipline point" costs remain meaningful choices throughout the monk's career? Should choices like Flurry of Blows, Patient Defense, and Step of the Wind grow stronger in the same way Deflect Missiles evolves to include Deflect Energy? And if so, what should those other evolutions look like?
You can't get two weapon fighting as a feat for Monk in current playtest. The prerequisite for fighting style feats was changed to having the fighting style feature so monks no longer qualify for fighting style feats unless they take a level of fighter or 2 levels of ranger.
Or two levels of paladin, and so what? Your entire proposal boils down to stripping away the bonus action attack. It's still a nerf. I can't imagine anyone wouldn't rather have the option to wield two weapons, attack up to three times with them, and still get in at least one unarmed strike. Yes, even at the cost of a bonus action. Because you're not getting in four attacks.
It's a dumb change for the playtest that is going to be walked back by WotC or ignored by most groups if it survives to publication. Because, as it stands, it's an inferior feat for anyone 4th-level or higher. They're all still 1st-level feats, and the only class which can take one at 1st-level is the fighter.
Your pedantry is getting you nowhere.
I didn't say Paladin because the multi-classing with Monk requires are a 13 in Strength, Dex, Wis and Cha making it an unrealistic multi-class to begin with. and I MADE no suggestions. I was just saying what the flaw was with your argument.
My suggestions have been give back monk weapons (make weapons use the martial arts die). Give monks the ability to use dex for grapple and shove parts of unarmed strikes. Remove Ki cost from Patient defense, step of the wind (revert step of the wind to original effect, but no ki cost), remove cost for Flurry of blows, but push flurry of blows to level 5. In doing so Ki is less of an issue thus Metabolism can be replaced with some other feature, possibly the level 9 feature getting bumped down to 7 could be cool. And finally Monks need some form of better scaling into 11 and higher than just Martial arts die increase.
I am talking about THIS playtest right now, because we have no way of knowing what will and won't work later. THIS playtest has done everything it can to make sure monk gets access to as little as possible. It can't use martial weapons, it can't use fighting styles, it has a very limited access to masteries. It reduces Stunning strike uses down to once per turn. It really feels like wizards do not like monks.
Second the biggest issues monks face is damage scaling into level 11, survivability in melee and the fact that they do not qualify for most of the martial feats because they all require proficiency with a martial weapon.
IMO the monk should not require martial weapons to be feasible. They could help as have many mastery options, but not requiring it as much. The issue here is a poor design. I.e:
Charge:
Prerequisite: Proficiency with Any Martial Weapon
Charge Attack. If you move at least 10 feet in a straight line immediately before hitting with an attack as part of the Attack Action on your turn, choose one of the following effects: gain a +1d8 bonus to the attack’s damage roll, or push the target up to 10 feet, provided the target you want to push is no more than one Size larger than you. You can use this benefit only once on each of your turns
What? You cannot charge with unarmed attack? Then why it required martial weapon proficiency? As we can notice, this one is simply perfect fit for the monk mobility, looks like a monk feat, instead a fighter feat.
All these issues could be solved:
1) Add the "or Warrior class" to all the feats requiring martial weapons.
2) As I suggested previously, give the monk 1 martial weapon proficiency at level 1, then add another one on each ASI.
And then we need to change the unarmored defense so you could get those feats which increase 1 your Dex, and not losing so much AC for not increasing Wis at the same time. So replace Wis modifier by monk class level proficiency bonus for auto-increase one of the numbers for AC. The Barbarian can wear shield while unarmored defense, also uses d12 hit die, and has resistance to damage, so I think giving the monk this unarmored defense version does not break anything, but gives the class much more versatility and fun as you can get feats instead investing all on plain increasing Dex and Wis with no ability added.
And then we need to change the unarmored defense so you could get those feats which increase 1 your Dex, and not losing so much AC for not increasing Wis at the same time. So replace Wis modifier by monk class level proficiency bonus for auto-increase one of the numbers for AC. The Barbarian can wear shield while unarmored defense, also uses d12 hit die, and has resistance to damage, so I think giving the monk this unarmored defense version does not break anything, but gives the class much more versatility and fun as you can get feats instead investing all on plain increasing Dex and Wis with no ability added.
Why not just change the Bonus Unarmed Strike part of Martial Arts to the following:
Flexable Style: When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or simple weapon on your turn, as a bonus action you can either make one Unarmed strike or take a Defensive Stance. When you take a Defensive Stance, until the start of your next turn, the first melee attack that targets you each turn is made with disadvantage.
Since each of the warrior classes have their own key characteristics for staying in combat (Barbarian: high hp & damage resistance but low AC, Fighter: high AC, middling hp, flexible build options) why not make simply being very hard to hit in melee one of the Monk’s key characteristics? You can improve this feature at higher levels by allowing the monk to do both options at the same time or by keeping the choice but improve both options.
This would give monks a defensive option to use in combat from lvl 1, whilst also keeping their option to do additional damage open. It also wouldn’t take much away from the Martial Disciplines as they give stronger effects for the cost of a discipline point.
Also, as a side thing - I’ve been thinking about a new ability that, I think, seems really fitting for the monk but haven’t been able to find the right wording on it. I’m wondering if you could help?
Your Strength is your Weakness - when an enemy is targeted by one of your monk abilities and are required to make a saving throw using either their STR or DEX modifier, they must use whichever of those modifiers is lower.
Nick and graze are over powered or at the least far superior, meaning all other choices are pointless. Nick would allow 3 attacks at level 2 and graze is guaranteed damage with multiple attacks the monk already has. Monk 4th level and above with +4 Dex would deal 12-16 a round were they missed every attack. The difference is solely based on if they used flurry of blows or not. Having high AC on monsters is meaningless. Any creature concentrating on a spell has to make 3-4 checks even if the monk missed every attack.
So? A Fighter can do the same by picking up PAM at level 4 and using a Halberd. Only they would be dealing 1d10+4 on a hit for two of those attacks and 1d4+4 for the third, whereas the monk would deal 1d6+4 on each of the three attacks on a hit. Why should Monks be inferior to Fighter?
Personally it may be better for them to give the bonus action attack the Nick property and reduce the number of hits of Flurry of Blows to 1 from levels 2~10 then give them the 2nd flurry strike at 11th. This allows Monk to PD and SotW without being out-damaged by everyone while also not unbalancing it.
Respectfully, no.
First off, unarmed strikes aren't limited to their hands. You can kick, elbow, or headbutt with ease. The entire point of the Nick property is they get to make an additional weapon attack while freeing up that bonus action. If you're going to give a monk's unarmed strikes the Nick mastery, then you're essentially saying weapons are meaningless. No, really, here's one handaxe attack and then nothing but unarmed strikes because they hit harder and deal force damage. The only thing your change does is let them add their Dexterity to the additional attack; rather than acquire Two Weapon Fighting Style via a background feat. They can't benefit from Nick twice, so your proposal looks like a nerf.
Second, the ability of the monk to throttle its damage dealt, maneuverability, and survivability is powerful. It's empowering by giving the player a meaningful choice to exercise. I can't believe I still have to say this in 2023, but damage isn't everything. It should not be the metric all classes are held to because they weren't designed that way. Now, don't get me wrong, damage is important to a fight. It's how you stop most enemies. A rogue can still dish out more than a monk at most levels, and it does so with a single all-or-nothing attack. The playtest is also giving rogues Cunning Strikes, which sacrifice some of that damage for debuffs. This new mechanic offers a lot of tactical depth by allowing the rogue to sacrifice as many as nine of its ten potential Sneak Attack dice for a variety of effects. Both classes are being set up to throttle damage output in the form of tactical options.
How does your proposal fit within the established paradigm, of what is essentially opportunity cost, or do you reject it outright in favor of external pressures?
I think the real question we should be asking is do these "discipline point" costs remain meaningful choices throughout the monk's career? Should choices like Flurry of Blows, Patient Defense, and Step of the Wind grow stronger in the same way Deflect Missiles evolves to include Deflect Energy? And if so, what should those other evolutions look like?
You can't get two weapon fighting as a feat for Monk in current playtest. The prerequisite for fighting style feats was changed to having the fighting style feature so monks no longer qualify for fighting style feats unless they take a level of fighter or 2 levels of ranger.
Or two levels of paladin, and so what? Your entire proposal boils down to stripping away the bonus action attack. It's still a nerf. I can't imagine anyone wouldn't rather have the option to wield two weapons, attack up to three times with them, and still get in at least one unarmed strike. Yes, even at the cost of a bonus action. Because you're not getting in four attacks.
It's a dumb change for the playtest that is going to be walked back by WotC or ignored by most groups if it survives to publication. Because, as it stands, it's an inferior feat for anyone 4th-level or higher. They're all still 1st-level feats, and the only class which can take one at 1st-level is the fighter.
Your pedantry is getting you nowhere.
I didn't say Paladin because the multi-classing with Monk requires are a 13 in Strength, Dex, Wis and Cha making it an unrealistic multi-class to begin with. and I MADE no suggestions. I was just saying what the flaw was with your argument.
My suggestions have been give back monk weapons (make weapons use the martial arts die). Give monks the ability to use dex for grapple and shove parts of unarmed strikes. Remove Ki cost from Patient defense, step of the wind (revert step of the wind to original effect, but no ki cost), remove cost for Flurry of blows, but push flurry of blows to level 5. In doing so Ki is less of an issue thus Metabolism can be replaced with some other feature, possibly the level 9 feature getting bumped down to 7 could be cool. And finally Monks need some form of better scaling into 11 and higher than just Martial arts die increase.
I am talking about THIS playtest right now, because we have no way of knowing what will and won't work later. THIS playtest has done everything it can to make sure monk gets access to as little as possible. It can't use martial weapons, it can't use fighting styles, it has a very limited access to masteries. It reduces Stunning strike uses down to once per turn. It really feels like wizards do not like monks.
Monks and paladins are thematically, if not mechanically, two sides of the same coin. And with Divine Smite synergizing with unarmed strikes, I'm expecting some multiclass shenanigans. It's not difficult to get 13s in four ability scores. As for the rest, I'm not going to go back and comb through 24 pages worth of comments. I simply quoted your reply to my post and pointed out why it's a bad idea. Removing unarmed strikes from the bonus action and giving them the Nick mastery doesn't solve any problems. It actually makes things worse, and since you brought up your other suggestions...
Removing the "dp" cost to baseline abilities means delaying the feature until 3rd-level when Deflect Missiles and their subclass come up. Because there's no point in making that resource pool a 2nd-level feature. That turns "dp" into a resource primarily for subclasses, not the core class. If you're going to do that, just get rid of "dp" and give each subclass its own resource; if any. And shifting Flurry of Blows to 5th-level, when they're already getting Extra Attack, feels too much like an explosion when you can spread those gains out across earlier levels.
Your proposal would mean a fresh monk can't use a javelin, mace, quarterstaff, or spear without also giving up their unarmed strike. They would always have Patient Defense or Step of the Wind from 2nd-level on, but why? They don't always need to dart around, and if the goal is to "tank" then Patient Defense defeats the purpose of grappling. And what problem are you attempting to solve by locking them out of other tactical options? You would remove Sap and a ranged Slow as viable choices, at least early on. Looking at the UA RAW, I'm not sure the 1d4 is actually worth it without adding their Dexterity modifier to damage. A rogue doesn't need that modifier as badly, since it can at least have a second chance to use its Sneak Attack. The monk doesn't have anything like that until Stunning Strike, at 5th-level, so it needs something at 1st-level to make Nick worth it because 1d6 and advantage on 1d4 isn't it. It's too small. The option for a fighting style, whether through a class feature or 1st-level feat for being a warrior, needs to be there.
Maybe what the monk needs is Stunning Strike to grow like Cunning Strike; using "dp" to impose a variety of conditions. Because while stunned is a respectable debuff, forcing a Constitution saving throw to avoid it isn't practical against every enemy.
Monks have insane speed. As a grappler, the can reposition targets better than anyone else. They need reliable grappling, even if it ends up being a Strength-based focus. And why not? Rangers have access to all martial weapons and medium armor training. There should be a viable Strength-based path for monks, and if a monk picks up Martial Weapon Proficiency then they should be able to use those with Martial Arts. I would love to see ways for their unarmed strikes to synergize with weapon mastery for supplemental effects, and I'm afraid it won't happen. That said, Haravikk is right. The monk should be the best at unarmed strikes, and that means more than just raw damage. Don't get me wrong, I still want Flurry of Blows to get an additional hit in at 11th-level (and possibly 17th). And since that improves, so should Patient Defense and Step of the Wind. Lastly, a real relationship between Martial Arts, Tavern Brawler, and the Unarmed Fighting Style─combining for bigger damage─would be awesome. Not just for monks, but for anyone who wants to go down that path. I don't know what that would look like, but I see potential and would prefer not to see it wasted.
If you're going to fill out the survey, you should probably think further ahead than just the most recent playtest packet.
Martial Arts Techniques: You may replace any of unarmed strikes with one of the techniques listed below. It still counts as an unarmed strike for you, but it uses the damage die listed in the technique not your normal unarmed strike or your martial arts die. The technique uses your unarmed attack damage type unless the technique states a damage type. You may only use techniques that use a die size smaller or equal to your Martial arts die.
Unblockable Strike: This attack is fast and precise, the target must attempt to evade it. Instead of making an attack roll, the target makes a Dex save against 8+ Dex+ prof. On a fail they are considered to be hit by your unarmed strike and take damage equal to your martial arts die + atk mod. Starting at 11th if the target makes the save they still take half damage.
Unorthodox Strike: This attack s tricky and precise, the target must understand it to avoid it. Instead of making an attack roll the target makes a Wis save against 8+ Wis+ prof. On a fail they are considered to be hit by your unarmed strike and take damage equal to your martial arts die + Wis. Starting at 11th if the target makes the save they still take half damage.
Perfect Strike: This attack always misses. Instead of making an attack roll you automatically miss. The target takes 1d2 force damage. At 11th this damage increases to 1d4. At 17th the damage increases to 2d4.
Light Strike: This attack sets up your next attack. Make an attack roll, whether you hit or miss your next attack this turn has advantage. If you hit you deal 1d4 + atk mod damage. At 17th this attack increases to 2d4 damage.
Medium Strike: This attack does a average damage more consistently. Make an attack roll, on hit you deal 3d2 damage. The damage increases by 1d2 when your martial arts die increases in size. 4d2 at 5th, 5d2 at 11th, 6d2 at 17th.
Heavy Strike: This attack risk missing to deal heavier damage. This technique can’t be used if you already have disadvantage. Make an attack roll with disadvantage. On hit you deal 1d8 + atk mod damage. If you roll any odd number on the die treat the die as if you rolled an 8. At 17th you gain 1d4 to damage rolls.
Breaking Strike: This attack is good against objects. Make an attack roll, on hit you deal 1d8 + atk mod damage. If the target is an object any hit is an auto crit.
Storing Strike: This attack mysteriously does no damage, it is often used with Breaking Strike to exceed damage thresholds. Make an attack roll against a target, on hit you deal no damage but gain 1d10 stored power die. You may only have one stored power die at any time. The next time you hit the same target with an unarmed strike or any other martial arts technique you deal that strikes damage and you may released the stored power adding the 1d10+Wis to the damage roll.
Rolling Strike: This attack of multiple rapid weak strikes that practically all hit at once and can deal heavy damage at the cost of the ability to score a critical hit. You make an attack roll, on hit you deal 1d10 damage. If you roll an even number on the d10 you also roll a die of the corresponding size of your roll, if that die also rolls an even number you continue the pattern until you roll an odd number or you have rolled your proficiency bonus number of dice, whichever comes first. You damage is the total of all the dice rolled. Example: 11th lvl monk prof bonus +4 rolls an 8 on the d10, so rolls a d8 and gets an 8, so rolls a d8 and gets a 2, so rolls a d2 and gets a 2, and would roll another d2, but can only roll 4 dice because of the proficiency bonus limit. The total damage is 20.
Imperfect Strike: This attack harms the user as well as the target. Make an attack roll, on hit you deal 1d12 + atk mod damage. Whether you hit or miss, you may also expend a number of hit die up to your proficiency bonus and roll them. You, the target and any creatures of your choice within 5ft of the target take force damage equal to the roll of these dice.
Nick and graze are over powered or at the least far superior, meaning all other choices are pointless. Nick would allow 3 attacks at level 2 and graze is guaranteed damage with multiple attacks the monk already has. Monk 4th level and above with +4 Dex would deal 12-16 a round were they missed every attack. The difference is solely based on if they used flurry of blows or not. Having high AC on monsters is meaningless. Any creature concentrating on a spell has to make 3-4 checks even if the monk missed every attack.
So? A Fighter can do the same by picking up PAM at level 4 and using a Halberd. Only they would be dealing 1d10+4 on a hit for two of those attacks and 1d4+4 for the third, whereas the monk would deal 1d6+4 on each of the three attacks on a hit. Why should Monks be inferior to Fighter?
You just said level 4, taking a feat and a specific weapon build the fighter is superior, but you want the monk with no feat, no specific build to be far superior with 3 attacks at level 2. Also how did the fighter get the +4 since he had to take PAM at level 4 where did he get the ASI. Shouldn’t he be at +3 still. The monk is at +4, has 3 attacks and can flurry of blows 3 times for an additional attack. Your fighter could action surge for one additional attack. So why should the monk be so much superior at lower levels?
Nick and graze are over powered or at the least far superior, meaning all other choices are pointless. Nick would allow 3 attacks at level 2 and graze is guaranteed damage with multiple attacks the monk already has. Monk 4th level and above with +4 Dex would deal 12-16 a round were they missed every attack. The difference is solely based on if they used flurry of blows or not. Having high AC on monsters is meaningless. Any creature concentrating on a spell has to make 3-4 checks even if the monk missed every attack.
So? A Fighter can do the same by picking up PAM at level 4 and using a Halberd. Only they would be dealing 1d10+4 on a hit for two of those attacks and 1d4+4 for the third, whereas the monk would deal 1d6+4 on each of the three attacks on a hit. Why should Monks be inferior to Fighter?
You just said level 4, taking a feat and a specific weapon build the fighter is superior, but you want the monk with no feat, no specific build to be far superior with 3 attacks at level 2. Also how did the fighter get the +4 since he had to take PAM at level 4 where did he get the ASI. Shouldn’t he be at +3 still. The monk is at +4, has 3 attacks and can flurry of blows 3 times for an additional attack. Your fighter could action surge for one additional attack. So why should the monk be so much superior at lower levels?
What are you talking about? taking 1 feat and using a particular type of weapon (that can be trivially bought with starting background gold) isn't a "build" it's taking 1 feat. The vast majority of tables play with feats and in One D&D feats aren't even an optional rule anymore they are basic rules and choosing not to use feats is optional. And the Fighter would also get extra reaction attacks from PAM, making them not equal to the monk but superior. I want a Monk to be able to spend a DP (finite resource) to be only slightly worse than a Fighter that doesn't have to spend any resources at all. Even with my suggestions the Monk would be inferior to a Fighter.
If you're going by OneD&D, then by the time the Fighter and Monk get their Extra Attack, the Monk is at a d8 Martial Arts die. So the actual comparison would be 3d8 vs. 2d10 + 1d4. Without Polearm Master, the Monk outdamages a polearm-wielding Fighter. (This line of complaint also ignores whatever benefits the Monk gains from their chosen feat.)
And counting Discipline points on Flurry of Blows vs. Action Surge at Level 5, the Monk's resource gets them 5d8 extra damage vs. 2d10 extra damage—the Monk's five Discipline points are worth double the Fighter's one use of Action Surge.
I would have included a feat for the Monk if there was literally any feat available to monks that would boost their damage output. There isn't thus I didn't. You are ignoring weapon masteries when you only compare the damage dice of monk vs fighter.
If you're going by OneD&D, then by the time the Fighter and Monk get their Extra Attack, the Monk is at a d8 Martial Arts die. So the actual comparison would be 3d8 vs. 2d10 + 1d4. Without Polearm Master, the Monk outdamages a polearm-wielding Fighter. (This line of complaint also ignores whatever benefits the Monk gains from their chosen feat.)
And counting Discipline points on Flurry of Blows vs. Action Surge at Level 5, the Monk's resource gets them 5d8 extra damage vs. 2d10 extra damage—the Monk's five Discipline points are worth double the Fighter's one use of Action Surge.
I would have included a feat for the Monk if there was literally any feat available to monks that would boost their damage output. There isn't thus I didn't. You are ignoring weapon masteries when you only compare the damage dice of monk vs fighter.
This is why Monks must get full access to all the weapon masteries for their fists to remain competitive with weapon-using martials.
Your hit odds are off a bit. If you have a 65% to hit you have a 35% to miss not 45.
I will also say Monk's masteries do matter. Dagger and hand axe duo with nick does more than 1 unarmed strike. So it should be 1d4+1d6+2d8+12 and one of the unarmed strikes should have a slightly higher chance to hit since if you hit with the axe than the unarmed will have advantage.
So given this the monk damage should be.
1d4+1d6+1d8+8*.65 +(1d8+4)*.8) +(1d4+1d6+1d8*.05) +(1d8*.08)= 19.06 without using ki.
The monk should be able to use 1 ki per round so will want to do so based on what they are fighting a mage with low con stun will be best against a typical monster flurry will add another 5.75
Edit: watch out for the axe gang. Lol.
Edit2: thus the fighter should be .65(2d10+1d4+(3*str)) +.35(3*str)+.05(2d10+1d4)=21.45
So? A Fighter can do the same by picking up PAM at level 4 and using a Halberd. Only they would be dealing 1d10+4 on a hit for two of those attacks and 1d4+4 for the third, whereas the monk would deal 1d6+4 on each of the three attacks on a hit. Why should Monks be inferior to Fighter?
You just said level 4, taking a feat and a specific weapon build the fighter is superior, but you want the monk with no feat, no specific build to be far superior with 3 attacks at level 2. Also how did the fighter get the +4 since he had to take PAM at level 4 where did he get the ASI. Shouldn’t he be at +3 still. The monk is at +4, has 3 attacks and can flurry of blows 3 times for an additional attack. Your fighter could action surge for one additional attack. So why should the monk be so much superior at lower levels?
What are you talking about? taking 1 feat and using a particular type of weapon (that can be trivially bought with starting background gold) isn't a "build" it's taking 1 feat. The vast majority of tables play with feats and in One D&D feats aren't even an optional rule anymore they are basic rules and choosing not to use feats is optional. And the Fighter would also get extra reaction attacks from PAM, making them not equal to the monk but superior. I want a Monk to be able to spend a DP (finite resource) to be only slightly worse than a Fighter that doesn't have to spend any resources at all. Even with my suggestions the Monk would be inferior to a Fighter.
So you are going to ignore the fact that taking a feat means not increasing your full ASI. You are going to ignore that choosing a pole arm means not choosing a shield. Your Nick monk spends 1 dp which it gets back on a short rest to have 3 attacks per turn at level 2. A fighter can’t even have a PAM at that level and the best it can do is dual wield for tow attacks and action surge once per short rest for 3 attacks, but if it does this at 2nd level it makes the transition to PAM a little more difficult. Most DMs let you change your fighting styles when you level and the rules favor this as well, so it may be a minor inconvenience. At 4th they can take PAM thus not gaining ASI, switch from two weapon fighting style to something more favorable, thus building, also it not an extra reaction it’s an additional reaction trigger. With your suggestion at 4th level the monk has 3 turns per short rest were it could take 4 attacks and can take 3 attacks per turn every turn. The fighter can take 3 attacks per turn every turn, and 4 attacks per turn once per short rest with action surge. The only time the monk is worse is if you have a tricky DM that runs combats without giving you a short rest but makes sure 10 minutes have passed since your last battle.
So? A Fighter can do the same by picking up PAM at level 4 and using a Halberd. Only they would be dealing 1d10+4 on a hit for two of those attacks and 1d4+4 for the third, whereas the monk would deal 1d6+4 on each of the three attacks on a hit. Why should Monks be inferior to Fighter?
You just said level 4, taking a feat and a specific weapon build the fighter is superior, but you want the monk with no feat, no specific build to be far superior with 3 attacks at level 2. Also how did the fighter get the +4 since he had to take PAM at level 4 where did he get the ASI. Shouldn’t he be at +3 still. The monk is at +4, has 3 attacks and can flurry of blows 3 times for an additional attack. Your fighter could action surge for one additional attack. So why should the monk be so much superior at lower levels?
What are you talking about? taking 1 feat and using a particular type of weapon (that can be trivially bought with starting background gold) isn't a "build" it's taking 1 feat. The vast majority of tables play with feats and in One D&D feats aren't even an optional rule anymore they are basic rules and choosing not to use feats is optional. And the Fighter would also get extra reaction attacks from PAM, making them not equal to the monk but superior. I want a Monk to be able to spend a DP (finite resource) to be only slightly worse than a Fighter that doesn't have to spend any resources at all. Even with my suggestions the Monk would be inferior to a Fighter.
So you are going to ignore the fact that taking a feat means not increasing your full ASI. You are going to ignore that choosing a pole arm means not choosing a shield. Your Nick monk spends 1 dp which it gets back on a short rest to have 3 attacks per turn at level 2. A fighter can’t even have a PAM at that level and the best it can do is dual wield for tow attacks and action surge once per short rest for 3 attacks, but if it does this at 2nd level it makes the transition to PAM a little more difficult. Most DMs let you change your fighting styles when you level and the rules favor this as well, so it may be a minor inconvenience. At 4th they can take PAM thus not gaining ASI, switch from two weapon fighting style to something more favorable, thus building, also it not an extra reaction it’s an additional reaction trigger. With your suggestion at 4th level the monk has 3 turns per short rest were it could take 4 attacks and can take 3 attacks per turn every turn. The fighter can take 3 attacks per turn every turn, and 4 attacks per turn once per short rest with action surge. The only time the monk is worse is if you have a tricky DM that runs combats without giving you a short rest but makes sure 10 minutes have passed since your last battle.
Fighters are less MAD. A fighter can start with a 17 in their strength and the feat takes them to 18. Unless monk wants bad armor class and bad stunning strike it needs a 16 in both dex and wis. Fighter also gets another feat at 6 and another at 8 meaning they take a feat at 4,6 and 8 and still have the same to hit as the monk who just starts 16 and 16 and takes nothing but ASI.
Fighter can be 17 str, 14 dex, 14 con, 12,10,8 distrbuted as they wish and be good to go.
Monk needs 16 dex, 16 wis and wants 14 con still which leaves with with 10,10,8 with point buy.
Then fighter gets more "ASI" so they can afford feats.
Also it would be 5 attacks once per short rest for fighter not 4. Scales more at higher levels.
When arguing one class vs another it really helps to understand both classes.
A fighter can keep doing its PAM attacks all day every day, increasing to 2d10+d4 at level 5 for 24 damage, 3d10+d4 at level 11 for 34, and 4d10+d4 at level 20 for 44, and can do so with a base AC of 19 (full plate and defensive fighting style). 17 Str at start is common for people planning a PAM build, and they can get to 18 at level 4. 20 Str at level 6 (or 8 if they take Great Weapon Master and Sentinel).
A monk can be doing 3(d8) at level 5 for 24 damage, 3(d10) at level 11 for 30, and 3(d12) at level 17 for 36. It doesn't get 19AC until level 12. They won't have 20 Dex until level 8. If they burn ki they're getting an extra strike each turn. As long as they burn ki they can surpass Fighter damage.
If you do use weapons then the best weapon combinations is likely a hand axe and dagger. They're both light weapons, and the dagger gives them nick, but because they can't have the two weapon fighting style they'll never be doing more than d4 damage with it. That's okay on a Rogue, where you might need a backup attack to get Sneak Attack damage off, but it's of marginal value to a Monk. You're also limited to 2(d6+5)+d4 damage, which is on par with the 2(d8+5) they'd be getting at level 8, both doing 26 potential damage.
As long as Monk is burning ki they can keep up with and surpass the Fighter's baseline. However when they run out they're worse. Monk is the most short rest dependent class in the game, and short rests aren't reliable.
A fighter can keep doing its PAM attacks all day every day, increasing to 2d10+d4 at level 5 for 24 damage, 3d10+d4 at level 11 for 34, and 4d10+d4 at level 20 for 44, and can do so with a base AC of 19 (full plate and defensive fighting style). 17 Str at start is common for people planning a PAM build, and they can get to 18 at level 4. 20 Str at level 6 (or 8 if they take Great Weapon Master and Sentinel).
A monk can be doing 3(d8) at level 5 for 24 damage, 3(d10) at level 11 for 30, and 3(d12) at level 17 for 36. It doesn't get 19AC until level 12. They won't have 20 Dex until level 8. If they burn ki they're getting an extra strike each turn. As long as they burn ki they can surpass Fighter damage.
If you do use weapons then the best weapon combinations is likely a hand axe and dagger. They're both light weapons, and the dagger gives them nick, but because they can't have the two weapon fighting style they'll never be doing more than d4 damage with it. That's okay on a Rogue, where you might need a backup attack to get Sneak Attack damage off, but it's of marginal value to a Monk. You're also limited to 2(d6+5)+d4 damage, which is on par with the 2(d8+5) they'd be getting at level 8, both doing 26 potential damage.
As long as Monk is burning ki they can keep up with and surpass the Fighter's baseline. However when they run out they're worse. Monk is the most short rest dependent class in the game, and short rests aren't reliable.
Your math for the hand axe dagger is a little off. You can hand axe attack and dagger attack for just one attack and then go back to unarmed mostly just to take advantage of nick because you only get 1 nick attack so you dont want to attack more than once with each of the weapons and then return to unarmed. I showed the math of a level 5 monk using no ki vs a pole arm master fighter at level 5 no action surge against enemies with a 15 AC. Already with graze in there.
Your hit odds are off a bit. If you have a 65% to hit you have a 35% to miss not 45.
I will also say Monk's masteries do matter. Dagger and hand axe duo with nick does more than 1 unarmed strike. So it should be 1d4+1d6+2d8+12 and one of the unarmed strikes should have a slightly higher chance to hit since if you hit with the axe than the unarmed will have advantage.
So given this the monk damage should be.
1d4+1d6+1d8+8*.65 +(1d8+4)*.8) +(1d4+1d6+1d8*.05) +(1d8*.08)= 19.06 without using ki.
The monk should be able to use 1 ki per round so will want to do so based on what they are fighting a mage with low con stun will be best against a typical monster flurry will add another 5.75
Edit: watch out for the axe gang. Lol.
Edit2: thus the fighter should be .65(2d10+1d4+(3*str)) +.35(3*str)+.05(2d10+1d4)=21.45
While optimal yes, I doubt most monks will be using the handaxe x dagger duo since if you want to use weapons most other classes will do it better. Even in 5e, using a weapon is more optimal for a monk than using armed strikes, yet almost every monk I have DMed for chooses to use unarmed strikes. So, I go back to the original calculation using the corrected chance to miss:
Level 5: Monk: 0.65*(4.5+4)*3 = 16.6, with FoB = 22.1 Fighter (Glaive+PAM): 0.65*((5.5+4)*2+2.5+4)+0.35*(4*3) = 21 Fighter (Greataxe+GWM): 0.65*(6.5+4)*2.5 + 0.9*3 = 20 [Assumption: between Cleave and GWM bonus attacks you're getting a 3rd attack 50% of the time] Fighter (Two-Weapon Fighting + Dual Wielder using Rapiers): 0.8*(4.5+4)*3 = 20.4
Hence if you use FoB every round - and thus giving up all other things a Monk can do (including stun) and managing to get a SR in between every fight despite no one else in the party wanting one - you can manage 1 dpr higher than a Glaive using Fighter or ~2 dpr higher than a Greataxe using Fighter - note this is ignoring the benefit of GWF fighting style (which adds typically ~0.8 to the damage roll) and ignoring Action Surge. Even vs the Two-weapon fighting Fighter the Monk need to use FoB 70% of the time just to match their DPR without accounting for Action Surge.
If we assume the Monk can FoB every round, then the Fighter can Action Surge 1/5 rounds. This would mean the DPR of each of the above is actually: Fighter (Glaive+PAM): 0.65*((5.5+4+0.8)*2+2.5+4+0.5)+0.35*(4*3) + 0.2*(0.65*(5.5+4+0.8)*2 + 0.35*(4*2)) = 25.4 Fighter (Greataxe+GWM): 0.65*(6.5+4+0.8)*2.5 + 0.2*(0.65*(6.5+4+0.8)*2) + 0.9*3 = 24 Fighter (Rapiers + Dual Wielder): 0.8*(4.5+4)*3 + 0.2*0.8*(4.5+4)*2 = 23.1 Fighter (Longsword & Board + Shield Master): 0.65*(5.5+6) + 0.5*0.88*(5.5+6)+0.5*0.65*(5.5+6)+0.2*0.88*(5.5+6)*2 = 20 [Assumption: 50% of the time SM succeeds in knocking the enemy prone on the first attack]
i.e. Fighter is dealing more damage than Monk when both are using their limited use abilities with the perfect number of rounds to favour Monk, with the exception of Sword & Board which deals 2 dpr less in exchange for +2 AC.
Note that if there are either more than 5 rounds of combat between SRs or fewer than 5 rounds of combat between SRs then the math swings in the favour of Fighter over Monk.
At Level 11 : Build Notes - Fighters have 17 in their attack stat at level 1, turn it into 18 at level 4 with a feat, max it out at level 6 with another ASI, then take a non-combat related feat at level 8. Fighters take the offensive Fighting Style relevant to their weapon(s) of choice. Monk maxes out Dex at level 8.
Combat Assumptions: 10 rounds between SRs (for math simplicity), Monk FoB every turn, Fighter Action Surges at an opportune moment.
Again all the Fighters have higher DPR than the Monk and the gap is substantially wider now than at level 5. This is without considering that the Fighter is likely to have a magical weapon by level 11. Sure the Monk has evasion and the purity of body feature, but Fighter could have proficiency in a third saving throw from their additional feat, and Indomitable making them far more likely to simply make the save against a fear/charm/poison effect rather than have to use a BA to remove it.
Your hit odds are off a bit. If you have a 65% to hit you have a 35% to miss not 45.
I will also say Monk's masteries do matter. Dagger and hand axe duo with nick does more than 1 unarmed strike. So it should be 1d4+1d6+2d8+12 and one of the unarmed strikes should have a slightly higher chance to hit since if you hit with the axe than the unarmed will have advantage.
So given this the monk damage should be.
1d4+1d6+1d8+8*.65 +(1d8+4)*.8) +(1d4+1d6+1d8*.05) +(1d8*.08)= 19.06 without using ki.
The monk should be able to use 1 ki per round so will want to do so based on what they are fighting a mage with low con stun will be best against a typical monster flurry will add another 5.75
Edit: watch out for the axe gang. Lol.
Edit2: thus the fighter should be .65(2d10+1d4+(3*str)) +.35(3*str)+.05(2d10+1d4)=21.45
While optimal yes, I doubt most monks will be using the handaxe x dagger duo since if you want to use weapons most other classes will do it better. Even in 5e, using a weapon is more optimal for a monk than using armed strikes, yet almost every monk I have DMed for chooses to use unarmed strikes. So, I go back to the original calculation using the corrected chance to miss:
Level 5: Monk: 0.65*(4.5+4)*3 = 16.6, with FoB = 22.1 Fighter (Glaive+PAM): 0.65*((5.5+4)*2+2.5+4)+0.35*(4*3) = 21 Fighter (Greataxe+GWM): 0.65*(6.5+4)*2.5 + 0.9*3 = 20 [Assumption: between Cleave and GWM bonus attacks you're getting a 3rd attack 50% of the time] Fighter (Two-Weapon Fighting + Dual Wielder using Rapiers): 0.8*(4.5+4)*3 = 20.4
Hence if you use FoB every round - and thus giving up all other things a Monk can do (including stun) and managing to get a SR in between every fight despite no one else in the party wanting one - you can manage 1 dpr higher than a Glaive using Fighter or ~2 dpr higher than a Greataxe using Fighter - note this is ignoring the benefit of GWF fighting style (which adds typically ~0.8 to the damage roll) and ignoring Action Surge. Even vs the Two-weapon fighting Fighter the Monk need to use FoB 70% of the time just to match their DPR without accounting for Action Surge.
If we assume the Monk can FoB every round, then the Fighter can Action Surge 1/5 rounds. This would mean the DPR of each of the above is actually: Fighter (Glaive+PAM): 0.65*((5.5+4+0.8)*2+2.5+4+0.5)+0.35*(4*3) + 0.2*(0.65*(5.5+4+0.8)*2 + 0.35*(4*2)) = 25.4 Fighter (Greataxe+GWM): 0.65*(6.5+4+0.8)*2.5 + 0.2*(0.65*(6.5+4+0.8)*2) + 0.9*3 = 24 Fighter (Rapiers + Dual Wielder): 0.8*(4.5+4)*3 + 0.2*0.8*(4.5+4)*2 = 23.1 Fighter (Longsword & Board + Shield Master): 0.65*(5.5+6) + 0.5*0.88*(5.5+6)+0.5*0.65*(5.5+6)+0.2*0.88*(5.5+6)*2 = 20 [Assumption: 50% of the time SM succeeds in knocking the enemy prone on the first attack]
i.e. Fighter is dealing more damage than Monk when both are using their limited use abilities with the perfect number of rounds to favour Monk, with the exception of Sword & Board which deals 2 dpr less in exchange for +2 AC.
Note that if there are either more than 5 rounds of combat between SRs or fewer than 5 rounds of combat between SRs then the math swings in the favour of Fighter over Monk.
Why would we assume optimal build and play for a fighter while assuming sub-optimal play and building from a monk? This is why I included the Dagger and Hand axe. People may WANT the monk to be pure unarmed fighter, but it currently isn't. Old monk unarmed was much more viable than this monk because after a certain level the unarmed would do the same damage as the armed. Now because of masteries it doesn't.
At level 11 if you are assuming 5 rounds of combat than you should be assuming FoB AND Stunning strike every round. The DC of a 20 dex 16 wis Monk (which will be common for level 11) is 15 and the average Con save of CR 13's and lower is around 6, which puts the high around 8 and the low around 4. A monster with a 4 will fail 50% of the time, a 6 will fail 40% of the time and an 8 will fail 30% of the time. If they do fail all subsequent attacks will be at advantage.
So at level 11 it should be 60% chance 1d4+5, 60% 1d6, 77% 1d10+5 (crit chance 8%), creature with +8 would be 2d10+10x.68 with a crit chance of 6.5% Essentially the odds of hitting ONE of the first 3 attacks is close to 100% if any hit than stunning strike is used with a +8 has a 30% chance of giving the last attacks advantage. The third attack (which is an unarmed attack that comes after the hand axe vex) does not have its accuracy effected by whether or not the creature fails the save because it will have advantage if the hand ax hits regardless if the creature saves or not. The only thing that does affect all this is if you actually hit and stun on the first attack, but the odds are low enough that I didn't bother calculating.
Against the Average +6 it is 60% chance 1d4+5, 60% 1d6, 77 1d10+5, (2d10+10)x.71 crit chance 7% and against a creature with a +4 the final 2 attacks chance change to 73.5% with a crit chance of 7.5%
Ultimately against a +8 con creature the Monks DPR is 30.42, against a creature with the average +6 it is 31.1 and against a squishy +4 it is 31.7
You can't get two weapon fighting as a feat for Monk in current playtest. The prerequisite for fighting style feats was changed to having the fighting style feature so monks no longer qualify for fighting style feats unless they take a level of fighter or 2 levels of ranger.
Or two levels of paladin, and so what? Your entire proposal boils down to stripping away the bonus action attack. It's still a nerf. I can't imagine anyone wouldn't rather have the option to wield two weapons, attack up to three times with them, and still get in at least one unarmed strike. Yes, even at the cost of a bonus action. Because you're not getting in four attacks.
It's a dumb change for the playtest that is going to be walked back by WotC or ignored by most groups if it survives to publication. Because, as it stands, it's an inferior feat for anyone 4th-level or higher. They're all still 1st-level feats, and the only class which can take one at 1st-level is the fighter.
Your pedantry is getting you nowhere.
I didn't say Paladin because the multi-classing with Monk requires are a 13 in Strength, Dex, Wis and Cha making it an unrealistic multi-class to begin with. and I MADE no suggestions. I was just saying what the flaw was with your argument.
My suggestions have been give back monk weapons (make weapons use the martial arts die). Give monks the ability to use dex for grapple and shove parts of unarmed strikes. Remove Ki cost from Patient defense, step of the wind (revert step of the wind to original effect, but no ki cost), remove cost for Flurry of blows, but push flurry of blows to level 5. In doing so Ki is less of an issue thus Metabolism can be replaced with some other feature, possibly the level 9 feature getting bumped down to 7 could be cool. And finally Monks need some form of better scaling into 11 and higher than just Martial arts die increase.
I am talking about THIS playtest right now, because we have no way of knowing what will and won't work later. THIS playtest has done everything it can to make sure monk gets access to as little as possible. It can't use martial weapons, it can't use fighting styles, it has a very limited access to masteries. It reduces Stunning strike uses down to once per turn. It really feels like wizards do not like monks.
IMO the monk should not require martial weapons to be feasible. They could help as have many mastery options, but not requiring it as much. The issue here is a poor design. I.e:
What? You cannot charge with unarmed attack? Then why it required martial weapon proficiency? As we can notice, this one is simply perfect fit for the monk mobility, looks like a monk feat, instead a fighter feat.
All these issues could be solved:
1) Add the "or Warrior class" to all the feats requiring martial weapons.
2) As I suggested previously, give the monk 1 martial weapon proficiency at level 1, then add another one on each ASI.
And then we need to change the unarmored defense so you could get those feats which increase 1 your Dex, and not losing so much AC for not increasing Wis at the same time. So replace Wis modifier by monk class level proficiency bonus for auto-increase one of the numbers for AC. The Barbarian can wear shield while unarmored defense, also uses d12 hit die, and has resistance to damage, so I think giving the monk this unarmored defense version does not break anything, but gives the class much more versatility and fun as you can get feats instead investing all on plain increasing Dex and Wis with no ability added.
Why not just change the Bonus Unarmed Strike part of Martial Arts to the following:
Flexable Style: When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or simple weapon on your turn, as a bonus action you can either make one Unarmed strike or take a Defensive Stance. When you take a Defensive Stance, until the start of your next turn, the first melee attack that targets you each turn is made with disadvantage.
Since each of the warrior classes have their own key characteristics for staying in combat (Barbarian: high hp & damage resistance but low AC, Fighter: high AC, middling hp, flexible build options) why not make simply being very hard to hit in melee one of the Monk’s key characteristics? You can improve this feature at higher levels by allowing the monk to do both options at the same time or by keeping the choice but improve both options.
This would give monks a defensive option to use in combat from lvl 1, whilst also keeping their option to do additional damage open. It also wouldn’t take much away from the Martial Disciplines as they give stronger effects for the cost of a discipline point.
Also, as a side thing - I’ve been thinking about a new ability that, I think, seems really fitting for the monk but haven’t been able to find the right wording on it. I’m wondering if you could help?
Your Strength is your Weakness - when an enemy is targeted by one of your monk abilities and are required to make a saving throw using either their STR or DEX modifier, they must use whichever of those modifiers is lower.
Cheers
So? A Fighter can do the same by picking up PAM at level 4 and using a Halberd. Only they would be dealing 1d10+4 on a hit for two of those attacks and 1d4+4 for the third, whereas the monk would deal 1d6+4 on each of the three attacks on a hit. Why should Monks be inferior to Fighter?
Monks and paladins are thematically, if not mechanically, two sides of the same coin. And with Divine Smite synergizing with unarmed strikes, I'm expecting some multiclass shenanigans. It's not difficult to get 13s in four ability scores. As for the rest, I'm not going to go back and comb through 24 pages worth of comments. I simply quoted your reply to my post and pointed out why it's a bad idea. Removing unarmed strikes from the bonus action and giving them the Nick mastery doesn't solve any problems. It actually makes things worse, and since you brought up your other suggestions...
Removing the "dp" cost to baseline abilities means delaying the feature until 3rd-level when Deflect Missiles and their subclass come up. Because there's no point in making that resource pool a 2nd-level feature. That turns "dp" into a resource primarily for subclasses, not the core class. If you're going to do that, just get rid of "dp" and give each subclass its own resource; if any. And shifting Flurry of Blows to 5th-level, when they're already getting Extra Attack, feels too much like an explosion when you can spread those gains out across earlier levels.
Your proposal would mean a fresh monk can't use a javelin, mace, quarterstaff, or spear without also giving up their unarmed strike. They would always have Patient Defense or Step of the Wind from 2nd-level on, but why? They don't always need to dart around, and if the goal is to "tank" then Patient Defense defeats the purpose of grappling. And what problem are you attempting to solve by locking them out of other tactical options? You would remove Sap and a ranged Slow as viable choices, at least early on. Looking at the UA RAW, I'm not sure the 1d4 is actually worth it without adding their Dexterity modifier to damage. A rogue doesn't need that modifier as badly, since it can at least have a second chance to use its Sneak Attack. The monk doesn't have anything like that until Stunning Strike, at 5th-level, so it needs something at 1st-level to make Nick worth it because 1d6 and advantage on 1d4 isn't it. It's too small. The option for a fighting style, whether through a class feature or 1st-level feat for being a warrior, needs to be there.
Maybe what the monk needs is Stunning Strike to grow like Cunning Strike; using "dp" to impose a variety of conditions. Because while stunned is a respectable debuff, forcing a Constitution saving throw to avoid it isn't practical against every enemy.
Monks have insane speed. As a grappler, the can reposition targets better than anyone else. They need reliable grappling, even if it ends up being a Strength-based focus. And why not? Rangers have access to all martial weapons and medium armor training. There should be a viable Strength-based path for monks, and if a monk picks up Martial Weapon Proficiency then they should be able to use those with Martial Arts. I would love to see ways for their unarmed strikes to synergize with weapon mastery for supplemental effects, and I'm afraid it won't happen. That said, Haravikk is right. The monk should be the best at unarmed strikes, and that means more than just raw damage. Don't get me wrong, I still want Flurry of Blows to get an additional hit in at 11th-level (and possibly 17th). And since that improves, so should Patient Defense and Step of the Wind. Lastly, a real relationship between Martial Arts, Tavern Brawler, and the Unarmed Fighting Style─combining for bigger damage─would be awesome. Not just for monks, but for anyone who wants to go down that path. I don't know what that would look like, but I see potential and would prefer not to see it wasted.
If you're going to fill out the survey, you should probably think further ahead than just the most recent playtest packet.
More options to improve combat choice for monks
Add this bullet to the Martial Arts feature
You just said level 4, taking a feat and a specific weapon build the fighter is superior, but you want the monk with no feat, no specific build to be far superior with 3 attacks at level 2. Also how did the fighter get the +4 since he had to take PAM at level 4 where did he get the ASI. Shouldn’t he be at +3 still. The monk is at +4, has 3 attacks and can flurry of blows 3 times for an additional attack. Your fighter could action surge for one additional attack. So why should the monk be so much superior at lower levels?
What are you talking about? taking 1 feat and using a particular type of weapon (that can be trivially bought with starting background gold) isn't a "build" it's taking 1 feat. The vast majority of tables play with feats and in One D&D feats aren't even an optional rule anymore they are basic rules and choosing not to use feats is optional. And the Fighter would also get extra reaction attacks from PAM, making them not equal to the monk but superior. I want a Monk to be able to spend a DP (finite resource) to be only slightly worse than a Fighter that doesn't have to spend any resources at all. Even with my suggestions the Monk would be inferior to a Fighter.
I would have included a feat for the Monk if there was literally any feat available to monks that would boost their damage output. There isn't thus I didn't. You are ignoring weapon masteries when you only compare the damage dice of monk vs fighter.
Fighter + Glaive = 0.65*(2d10+1d4+3*STR) + 0.45*(3*STR) = 22 damage
Monk + Fists = 0.65*(3d8+3*DEX) = 16.6 damage
This is why Monks must get full access to all the weapon masteries for their fists to remain competitive with weapon-using martials.
Your hit odds are off a bit. If you have a 65% to hit you have a 35% to miss not 45.
I will also say Monk's masteries do matter. Dagger and hand axe duo with nick does more than 1 unarmed strike. So it should be 1d4+1d6+2d8+12 and one of the unarmed strikes should have a slightly higher chance to hit since if you hit with the axe than the unarmed will have advantage.
So given this the monk damage should be.
1d4+1d6+1d8+8*.65 +(1d8+4)*.8) +(1d4+1d6+1d8*.05) +(1d8*.08)= 19.06 without using ki.
The monk should be able to use 1 ki per round so will want to do so based on what they are fighting a mage with low con stun will be best against a typical monster flurry will add another 5.75
Edit: watch out for the axe gang. Lol.
Edit2: thus the fighter should be .65(2d10+1d4+(3*str)) +.35(3*str)+.05(2d10+1d4)=21.45
So you are going to ignore the fact that taking a feat means not increasing your full ASI. You are going to ignore that choosing a pole arm means not choosing a shield. Your Nick monk spends 1 dp which it gets back on a short rest to have 3 attacks per turn at level 2. A fighter can’t even have a PAM at that level and the best it can do is dual wield for tow attacks and action surge once per short rest for 3 attacks, but if it does this at 2nd level it makes the transition to PAM a little more difficult. Most DMs let you change your fighting styles when you level and the rules favor this as well, so it may be a minor inconvenience. At 4th they can take PAM thus not gaining ASI, switch from two weapon fighting style to something more favorable, thus building, also it not an extra reaction it’s an additional reaction trigger. With your suggestion at 4th level the monk has 3 turns per short rest were it could take 4 attacks and can take 3 attacks per turn every turn. The fighter can take 3 attacks per turn every turn, and 4 attacks per turn once per short rest with action surge. The only time the monk is worse is if you have a tricky DM that runs combats without giving you a short rest but makes sure 10 minutes have passed since your last battle.
Fighters are less MAD. A fighter can start with a 17 in their strength and the feat takes them to 18. Unless monk wants bad armor class and bad stunning strike it needs a 16 in both dex and wis. Fighter also gets another feat at 6 and another at 8 meaning they take a feat at 4,6 and 8 and still have the same to hit as the monk who just starts 16 and 16 and takes nothing but ASI.
Fighter can be 17 str, 14 dex, 14 con, 12,10,8 distrbuted as they wish and be good to go.
Monk needs 16 dex, 16 wis and wants 14 con still which leaves with with 10,10,8 with point buy.
Then fighter gets more "ASI" so they can afford feats.
Also it would be 5 attacks once per short rest for fighter not 4. Scales more at higher levels.
When arguing one class vs another it really helps to understand both classes.
A fighter can keep doing its PAM attacks all day every day, increasing to 2d10+d4 at level 5 for 24 damage, 3d10+d4 at level 11 for 34, and 4d10+d4 at level 20 for 44, and can do so with a base AC of 19 (full plate and defensive fighting style). 17 Str at start is common for people planning a PAM build, and they can get to 18 at level 4. 20 Str at level 6 (or 8 if they take Great Weapon Master and Sentinel).
A monk can be doing 3(d8) at level 5 for 24 damage, 3(d10) at level 11 for 30, and 3(d12) at level 17 for 36. It doesn't get 19AC until level 12. They won't have 20 Dex until level 8. If they burn ki they're getting an extra strike each turn. As long as they burn ki they can surpass Fighter damage.
If you do use weapons then the best weapon combinations is likely a hand axe and dagger. They're both light weapons, and the dagger gives them nick, but because they can't have the two weapon fighting style they'll never be doing more than d4 damage with it. That's okay on a Rogue, where you might need a backup attack to get Sneak Attack damage off, but it's of marginal value to a Monk. You're also limited to 2(d6+5)+d4 damage, which is on par with the 2(d8+5) they'd be getting at level 8, both doing 26 potential damage.
As long as Monk is burning ki they can keep up with and surpass the Fighter's baseline. However when they run out they're worse. Monk is the most short rest dependent class in the game, and short rests aren't reliable.
Your math for the hand axe dagger is a little off. You can hand axe attack and dagger attack for just one attack and then go back to unarmed mostly just to take advantage of nick because you only get 1 nick attack so you dont want to attack more than once with each of the weapons and then return to unarmed. I showed the math of a level 5 monk using no ki vs a pole arm master fighter at level 5 no action surge against enemies with a 15 AC. Already with graze in there.
While optimal yes, I doubt most monks will be using the handaxe x dagger duo since if you want to use weapons most other classes will do it better. Even in 5e, using a weapon is more optimal for a monk than using armed strikes, yet almost every monk I have DMed for chooses to use unarmed strikes. So, I go back to the original calculation using the corrected chance to miss:
Level 5:
Monk: 0.65*(4.5+4)*3 = 16.6, with FoB = 22.1
Fighter (Glaive+PAM): 0.65*((5.5+4)*2+2.5+4)+0.35*(4*3) = 21
Fighter (Greataxe+GWM): 0.65*(6.5+4)*2.5 + 0.9*3 = 20 [Assumption: between Cleave and GWM bonus attacks you're getting a 3rd attack 50% of the time]
Fighter (Two-Weapon Fighting + Dual Wielder using Rapiers): 0.8*(4.5+4)*3 = 20.4
Hence if you use FoB every round - and thus giving up all other things a Monk can do (including stun) and managing to get a SR in between every fight despite no one else in the party wanting one - you can manage 1 dpr higher than a Glaive using Fighter or ~2 dpr higher than a Greataxe using Fighter - note this is ignoring the benefit of GWF fighting style (which adds typically ~0.8 to the damage roll) and ignoring Action Surge. Even vs the Two-weapon fighting Fighter the Monk need to use FoB 70% of the time just to match their DPR without accounting for Action Surge.
If we assume the Monk can FoB every round, then the Fighter can Action Surge 1/5 rounds. This would mean the DPR of each of the above is actually:
Fighter (Glaive+PAM): 0.65*((5.5+4+0.8)*2+2.5+4+0.5)+0.35*(4*3) + 0.2*(0.65*(5.5+4+0.8)*2 + 0.35*(4*2)) = 25.4
Fighter (Greataxe+GWM): 0.65*(6.5+4+0.8)*2.5 + 0.2*(0.65*(6.5+4+0.8)*2) + 0.9*3 = 24
Fighter (Rapiers + Dual Wielder): 0.8*(4.5+4)*3 + 0.2*0.8*(4.5+4)*2 = 23.1
Fighter (Longsword & Board + Shield Master): 0.65*(5.5+6) + 0.5*0.88*(5.5+6)+0.5*0.65*(5.5+6)+0.2*0.88*(5.5+6)*2 = 20 [Assumption: 50% of the time SM succeeds in knocking the enemy prone on the first attack]
i.e. Fighter is dealing more damage than Monk when both are using their limited use abilities with the perfect number of rounds to favour Monk, with the exception of Sword & Board which deals 2 dpr less in exchange for +2 AC.
Note that if there are either more than 5 rounds of combat between SRs or fewer than 5 rounds of combat between SRs then the math swings in the favour of Fighter over Monk.
Adding in Critical hits...
Monk (FoB): 0.65*(4.5+4)*4+0.05*4*4.5 = 23
Fighter (Glaive+PAM): (0.05*(5.5+0.8)+0.65*(5.5+4+0.8))*2+(0.65*(2.5+4+0.5)+0.05*(2.5+0.5))+0.35*(4*3) + 0.2*((0.05*(5.5+0.8)+0.65*(5.5+4+0.8))*2 + 0.35*(4*2)) = 26.3
Fighter (Greataxe+GWM): (0.05*(6.5+0.8)+ 0.65*(6.5+4+0.8))*2.5 + 0.2*(0.05*(6.5+0.8)+0.65*(6.5+4+0.8))*2 + 0.9*3 = 25
Fighter (Rapiers + Dual Wielder): 0.8*(4.5+4)*3 + 0.1*4.5*3 + 0.2*(0.8*(4.5+4)*2+0.1*4.5*2) = 24.7
Fighter (Longsword & Board + Shield Master): 0.65*(5.5+6) +0.05*5.5 + 0.5*(0.88*(5.5+6)+0.1*5.5)+0.5*(0.65*(5.5+6)+0.05*5.5)+0.2*(0.88*(5.5+6)+0.1*5.5)*2 = 23.7
And now all of the Fighters have higher DPR than the Monk even when the Monk is using FoB on every turn.
At Level 11 : Build Notes - Fighters have 17 in their attack stat at level 1, turn it into 18 at level 4 with a feat, max it out at level 6 with another ASI, then take a non-combat related feat at level 8. Fighters take the offensive Fighting Style relevant to their weapon(s) of choice. Monk maxes out Dex at level 8.
Combat Assumptions: 10 rounds between SRs (for math simplicity), Monk FoB every turn, Fighter Action Surges at an opportune moment.
Monk (FoB): 0.65*(5.5+5)*4+0.05*4*5.5 = 28.4 dpr
Fighter (Glaive+PAM): (0.05*(5.5+0.8)+0.65*(5.5+5+0.8))*3+(0.65*(2.5+5+0.5)+0.05*(2.5+0.5))+0.35*(5*4) + 0.1*((0.05*(5.5+0.8)+0.65*(5.5+4+0.8))*3 + 0.35*(5*3)) = 38.1
Fighter (Greataxe+GWM): (0.05*(6.5+0.8)+ 0.65*(6.5+5+0.8))*3.5 + 0.1*(0.05*(6.5+0.8)+0.65*(6.5+5+0.8))*3 + 0.9*4 = 35.4
Fighter (Rapiers + Dual Wielder): 0.8*(4.5+5)*4 + 0.1*4.5*4 + 0.1*(0.8*(4.5+5)*3+0.1*4.5*3) = 34.6
Fighter (Longsword & Board + Shield Master): 0.65*(5.5+7) +0.05*5.5 + 0.5*(0.88*(5.5+7)+0.1*5.5)*2+0.5*(0.65*(5.5+7)+0.05*5.5)*2+0.1*(0.88*(5.5+7)+0.1*5.5)*3 = 31.7
Again all the Fighters have higher DPR than the Monk and the gap is substantially wider now than at level 5. This is without considering that the Fighter is likely to have a magical weapon by level 11. Sure the Monk has evasion and the purity of body feature, but Fighter could have proficiency in a third saving throw from their additional feat, and Indomitable making them far more likely to simply make the save against a fear/charm/poison effect rather than have to use a BA to remove it.
Why would we assume optimal build and play for a fighter while assuming sub-optimal play and building from a monk? This is why I included the Dagger and Hand axe. People may WANT the monk to be pure unarmed fighter, but it currently isn't. Old monk unarmed was much more viable than this monk because after a certain level the unarmed would do the same damage as the armed. Now because of masteries it doesn't.
At level 11 if you are assuming 5 rounds of combat than you should be assuming FoB AND Stunning strike every round. The DC of a 20 dex 16 wis Monk (which will be common for level 11) is 15 and the average Con save of CR 13's and lower is around 6, which puts the high around 8 and the low around 4. A monster with a 4 will fail 50% of the time, a 6 will fail 40% of the time and an 8 will fail 30% of the time. If they do fail all subsequent attacks will be at advantage.
So at level 11 it should be 60% chance 1d4+5, 60% 1d6, 77% 1d10+5 (crit chance 8%), creature with +8 would be 2d10+10x.68 with a crit chance of 6.5% Essentially the odds of hitting ONE of the first 3 attacks is close to 100% if any hit than stunning strike is used with a +8 has a 30% chance of giving the last attacks advantage. The third attack (which is an unarmed attack that comes after the hand axe vex) does not have its accuracy effected by whether or not the creature fails the save because it will have advantage if the hand ax hits regardless if the creature saves or not. The only thing that does affect all this is if you actually hit and stun on the first attack, but the odds are low enough that I didn't bother calculating.
Against the Average +6 it is 60% chance 1d4+5, 60% 1d6, 77 1d10+5, (2d10+10)x.71 crit chance 7% and against a creature with a +4 the final 2 attacks chance change to 73.5% with a crit chance of 7.5%
Ultimately against a +8 con creature the Monks DPR is 30.42, against a creature with the average +6 it is 31.1 and against a squishy +4 it is 31.7