For the Bracer of Defense's discussion, I think the simplest solution is for Bracers to be a common item that provide +1 to defense (similar to a shield providing +2) but keep both your hands free. They could be restricted to warriors (so usable by monks/barbarians but not usable by wizards/sorcerers) and can't be combined with heavy armor, medium armor, or shields. I'm not sure about whether Braces should be usable with Light Armor. Bracers can be scavenged from heavy/medium armors (including magical armors). An uncommon magical +1 bracer would provide +2 AC (just like a +1 shield provides +3 AC). No attunement, simple rules, easy to acquire, and gradual scaling.
On the subject or 4 Elements Monk (or just plain "Elemental Monk") being a 1/3 caster, what spells make sense for it?
Are you talking about the subclass writeup I did?
There are plenty of elemental cantrips such as Create Bonfire (Primal Conjuration). I am partial to Mold Earth, Shape Water, Control Flames, and Gust (Primal, Transmutation) being castable as a replacement for any unarmed strike. But I'm not seeing much for level 1 spells that fit a monk playstyle.
Absorb Elements (Abjuration, Divine, Arcane) is thematic and mechanically worthwhile. But I am not seeing it in any of the UA lists. I could be overlooking it.
Yeah, it's currently unclear what's going to happen with the spells that aren't on any of the current OneD&D spell lists. Including things like Primal Savagery, which would be an awesome cantrip for a 1/3 caster Monk to have.
Zephyr Strike (Primal, Transmutation) works for a monk, but does not sound elemental. And I do not see it in the UA lists either.
The limitations I gave included "range of self", which Zephyr Strike has. That option was there for the purpose of including self-enhancements and self-buffs. Zephyr Strike very perfectly fits that.
Shield (Arcane, Abjuration) is great for any melee combatant, but does not fit the theme.
And while it would work if there was an Arcane version, the write up I gave was mainly focused on the Primal list. That said, Shield is also a "range: self" spell.
Damage spells like Ice Knife are thematically appropriate, but show up too late for a 1/3 caster to be useful.
Since Monks are largely melee fighters, it could work as their infrequent ranged attack.
Sorry to be blunt, but have you ever played a monk? or any Dex-based martial for that matter? Ice Knife is utter trash compared to shooting enemies twice with a long bow. The Elemental Evil cantrips don't deal damage so not sure why anyone would cast any of them in combat.. they are out of combat utility spells. Primal Savagery just straight up worse than two magic fist attacks so again.. when would a monk ever cast it?
Cantrips suck compared to the Attack Action for a martial. The only combat cantrips a monk might want are Magic Stone and Shillelagh, the rest are just plain worse than their fists or a longbow.
Have I played a monk before? Yes.
Ice knife vs short bow (since the short bow is what the Monk can actually use): You’re saying 1d6 or 2d6 from the short bow, that only affects the target… is better than 1d10 + 2d6 … and 2d6 to everyone else they’re with? Can you upcast that bow? And even if they’re a kensei, you’re only increasing that to 1d8 with the longbow. So, 2d8 vs 1d10 + 2d6 maximum potential? And the longbow still isn’t going to damage everyone in a small clump.
Is Primal Savagery objectively worse than fists alone? (no spending expendable resources, and assuming all attack rolls hit)
3rd level:
fists: 1d4 non-magical fist + 1d4 bonus action fist, that is still non-magical.
vs
primal savagery: 1d10 acid.
This is the only point where spending a limited resource for flurry of blows will be of benefit, but you can’t do it all day long. But only if you’re facing a creature that isn’t resistant to non-magical bludgeoning.
Yes, clearly fists alone are better than being able to cast primal savagery as a substitute for one of your attacks (as stated in my write up of the idea: the same extra attack benefit as a bladesinger). Why would anyone ever do that? Oh, right, because you’re objectively wrong. That’s why they’d do it.
It might work if it worked like the bladesinger and it replaced one of the attacks. Like if the monks bonus action attack could be a cantrip or spell. If they keep the booming blade type spells(i hope not) count the monks fists as a weapon costing at least 1sp.
That is, in fact, what I suggested.
Edit: a mea culpa on this: it was in my draft notes, but for some reason I changed it when I posted it here. the Extra Attack for the subclass I posted here was supposed to be based on the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature.
This was the original wording in my notes for 6th and 10th level, but I think I tried to simplify it when I was posting them here:
6th Level: You gain two benefits:
You learn the ability to use the Metamagic methods "Transmute Spell" via Ki/Spirit points instead of Sorcery Points.This does not allow/imply using ki/spriit points for other Metamagic abilities you might know (except Quicken Spell at 10th level), nor the ability to use ki/spirit points for Metamagic on spells you have learned via multi classing to other classes.
When you make an attack action using your Extra Attack, you may substitute one of your attacks to cast a cantrip.
At 10th Level, you learn the Misty Step spell.This does not count against your number of spells known.You also now learn "Quicken Spell", and may use it via ki/spirit points,under the same restrictions as "Transmute Spell" at 6th level.
Dude you're completely ignoring that weapon attacks add your Dex modifier but spells do not. So e.g.
level 5:
Shortbow : 2*0.65*(2d6+4) = 9.75 - for FREE using 0 resources + at 5th level it's generally not too difficult to pick up a +1 weapon which would make this 11.9 DPR with a +1 shortbow. Ice Knife (level 2) : 1d10*0.65+0.5*(3d6) = 8.825 - high likelihood of hitting one of your allies if you're doing focus fire, and low chance of getting a second target in the AoE. Cold damage is the second most resisted damage type after fire.
I didn’t forget it, I left it out because it’s not a uniform bonus: not everyone will have an 18 Dex.
And the point was why would they ever cast it compared to shooting a bow? because you’re casting it at a clump and not a lone target. Bows aren’t very good at that. If you’re not using it on a clump of targets, that’s not a deficiency in the spell problem, that’s a player not knowing what their own repertoire problem. Or you making a straw man argument because you don’t know what the spell is actually for.
Cold damage is the second most resisted damage type after fire.
Then use a ki point to transmute it to whichever basic energy type your enemy isn't resistant to. Since, you know, that was in the proposed subclass (both in my original notes and in what actually made it into the post).
Or .. and this is important and incredibly simple: do both. Use whichever makes the most sense in the situation. Bows are trying to damage an entire clump of enemies (your weak attempt to counter that by assuming a mixed mosh of targets doesn't change that: if it's an actual clump of enemies, use Ice Knife, not the bow) in a single action. Use the bow when it shines, use ice knife when it shines. Is that such a difficult concept?
And then close in to use which ever melee cantrip you have for one of your attacks, and martial arts (fists and/or monk weapons) for the rest of your attacks.
The Elemental Evil cantrips don't deal damage so not sure why anyone would cast any of them in combat..
Not everything that you might want to do in combat is limited to things that deal damage. Use Shape Water to make a square less traversable by freezing the water someone would have to cross in order to flank you. Or do the same by making a fire expand across a square using Control Flames. Take away a non-darkvision target's ability to see by extinguishing its torch. Push or pull a lever that has less than a 5lb pull with Gust, maybe blocking a flank or escape if the lever controls a trap or gate. Create difficult terrain, with Mold Earth, to slow/inhibit enemy movement (or make difficult terrain into non-difficult terrain for you and your allies to make it easier to create a flanking situation). What all of these have in common is: using your imagination to do things that might be beneficial during combat, even if they aren't inflicting damage.
And, you say none of the Elemental Evil cantrips do damage, yet Create Bonfire, Frostbite, Magic Stone, and Thunderclap (all Elemental Evil cantrips) do exactly that.
they are out of combat utility spells.
Then why do they have combat based casting times (1 Action, or 1 Bonus Action for Magic Stone), instead of casting times that aren't practical to use in combat (like 1 or more minutes, etc.)? Clearly someone thought they were to be cast during the initiative cycle (ie. during combat) instead of only being cast outside of that.
Without playtesting and seeing the whole monk class I am not sure if it would be balanced but it would at least be cool. Punch, punch, shocking grasp, shuriken, shuriken, firebolt etc. The 1/3 caster part would likely be best for utility/buffs, but here and there a spell for attacks might be the right call.
I didn’t forget it, I left it out because it’s not a uniform bonus: not everyone will have an 18 Dex.
Even for the 16 base is +3 and the best thing is it stacks, so for multi-attack is +6, +9... The other nice thing is that is a fixed damage, not probability dependant, so is more reliable about what to expect from it. The ability score bonus can never be ignored.
In fact I miss it for cantrips, changing die roll if required, for reliability, you can have 2d12 damage but if you roll 1, 2 is garbage. Not very good when you feel that have wasted your turn. With the ability score at least you know to inflict a minimum.
About the monk, no, is a warrior class, so unless some subclass, it does not fit with spells and cantrips at all.
And, when comparing, think that the monk is usually better with a weapon, i.e. using a quarterstaff with both hands at lvl 5 can do 2x(1d8 + dex) + (1d6 + dex) with no need of fighting style, which is not bad at all. With enough space, monks are good using their extra movement + number of attacks, as could alternate each round:
- Close and make 3 attacks, the foe can respond with 2-3 attacks (depending style). In this turn the monk could use the patient defense.
- Make 3 attacks and move away 40 feet, the foe can respond with 1 attack (opportunity).
By this way, for each 2 rounds the monk made 5-6 attacks, and the foe 3-4, with the multi-ones with disadvantage if the monk uses 1 point of Ki.
With the old Mobile feat is much worse, but with the revised one they removed that you negates the opportunity attacks I think.
I continually read that the monk is bad or weak, and reading more I see that the reason is because when spamming flurry of blows and stunning strike you get out of Ki and then is bad. But that is not the way to play a monk at all, those skills are pretended to be great if used correctly:
- Flurry of blows: if you see a very injured target and think you can kill with the extra attack, then try and is great if you remove a foe in that turn with it.
- Stunning strike: make the foe caster lose its turn, or any other target which really dangerous skills and no high constitution saving throw.
But the monk Ki should be usually used in patient defense and subclass skills, not spamming these two that is what I usually read from users and the reason they argue against it.
Played a Shadow Monk and it was really easy, granting +10 stealth to the party so all fights was with surprise, and in combat didn't feel bad at all with the previous.
5e Monk is essentially the martial equivalent of a warlock. The Way of the Four Elements just needs the ki cost of many of its abilities reduced a little and some passive abilities at higher levels like all the other subclasses: https://www.dndbeyond.com/subclasses/1005611-elemental-bender
Personally I’m not a fan of making 4E monk a 1/3 caster. I know it’s an easy solution but I like 4E the way it is. It just needs a rework. I did a revised 4E monk a long time ago (it was overpowered but I think there may have been some good ideas in it, all Elemental Disciplines were unique abilities not just “you cast X spell for X Ki”. But I’m biased of course hehe)
Elemental Attunement should just be a class feature you always have. Elemental Disciplines should be either similar to Warlock Invocations and you get more of them. Or you just have access to them all, if you meet the level requirements. Ki costs need adjustment, depending on what they do with Ki Points in the UA.
As far as the 1/3 caster, (sorry, at work so didn’t go through the whole post so I may be asking questions you already answered) which spell list do you use from the UA? And what spell schools do you have access to? EK and AT have restricted school lists so I would assume. Primal doesn’t have much that fits, in the UA. Arcane would probably work best with Evocation (although many Evocation spells don’t fit the theme) and maybe Transmutation?
the way they are doing spell lists makes it harder to customize which is why I prefer better ED for the 4E monk or making them more like invocations
Edit: I went back and reviewed the revision on 4E monk johnkzin did. I just don’t think it works well with the more streamlined approach WotC has been going with. Picking spells based on schools is one thing but then having to choose “elemental” type spells just seems cumbersome. I mean it’s not that hard but I’m sure there are going to be some questions when you leave it to what someone considers thematic. Not sure if acid should be there for elemental type. That kind of stuff. Using Bladesinger extra attack is a good idea though.
I didn’t forget it, I left it out because it’s not a uniform bonus: not everyone will have an 18 Dex.
Even for the 16 base
You also can't count on every Monk having a 16. Which part of "not a uniform bonus" do you not get? Strictly speaking, RAW, you can't count on a single classed character having _any_ particular stat values, not even for their class's primary stats. Will knowledgable players optimize around certain things? yes. But it changes not even one slight thing about what I said.
About the monk, no, is a warrior class, so unless some subclass, it does not fit with spells and cantrips at all.
Exactly: we're talking about a subclass that replaces the Four Elements Monk with a 1/3 caster subclass.
Personally I’m not a fan of making 4E monk a 1/3 caster. I know it’s an easy solution but I like 4E the way it is. It just needs a rework. I did a revised 4E monk a long time ago (it was overpowered but I think there may have been some good ideas in it, all Elemental Disciplines were unique abilities not just “you cast X spell for X Ki”. But I’m biased of course hehe)
While you're absolutely right about none of the lists really fitting all that well, I do wonder if we'll see some bigger changes to them soon; I'm hoping for some new spells, or old spells becoming either a choice of elements, or just weaker ones being rebalanced, to give us more flexibility, especially around building casters themed around only one or two elements. Currently some elements are far better represented than others, either because they have more spells, or their spells are just better overall. It'd also be nice if Primal got some more single-target spells to help with "literally my entire party charged in ahead of me and all I can choose from are area effects" syndrome (exaggerating a bit obviously, but there aren't many single target damage spells in the Druid's arsenal in 5e).
If they solved these problems with the Primal list I could see a school restricted Primal third-caster working if they still got some unique Ki powered magic effects as sub-class features, e.g- a multi-element version of Fangs of the Fire Snake, an air ability that can push or let you to levitate/fly, etc.
But yeah, if they don't make big changes to the spell lists and spells, the better way to go will be unique Ki-powered magic features. Personally I'd cut the list down a bit but make more chosen elemental effects with either a universal rider, or an element specific rider (fire does secondary burn damage, bludgeoning can either push (air) or pull (water) etc.). In the latter case they could maybe make these a common feature (i.e- all disciplines dealing elemental damage have the same rider effects so they don't need to be unique to each ability).
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.
Personally I’m not a fan of making 4E monk a 1/3 caster. I know it’s an easy solution but I like 4E the way it is. It just needs a rework. I did a revised 4E monk a long time ago (it was overpowered but I think there may have been some good ideas in it, all Elemental Disciplines were unique abilities not just “you cast X spell for X Ki”. But I’m biased of course hehe)
You could easily do this idea along side the existing one. I just think it's kind of a weak attempt at giving spells to a martial, when the EK and AT did it much better (and should be the model for such subclasses).
As far as the 1/3 caster, (sorry, at work so didn’t go through the whole post so I may be asking questions you already answered) which spell list do you use from the UA?
The main example I gave was from Primal. But I also noted that there could also be Arcane and Divine versions (though Divine makes for a big decision about the spell choice limitation, because the one I gave is less compatible with the Divine list).
And what spell schools do you have access to? EK and AT have restricted school lists so I would assume.
I didn't base it on schools. I based it on the nature of the spell itself. It has to meet one of the following four categories:
1- The Spell has to deal with Elements (earth, air, fire, water), OR
2- The Spell has to deal with basic energy types (the ones that work with Transmute Spell: Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, Poison, Thunder), OR
3- The spell has to have a range of Self (for those mystical things a wuxia/wire-fu type martial artist might do to self-buff), OR
4- The spell has to have a range of Touch involving touching a weapon.
And like the EK, a limited number of the spells can be exceptions that don't meet the given restriction(s).
Primal doesn’t have much that fits, in the UA.
Even if we limit it to the spells currently listed in OneD&D, and assume NONE of the other Druid or Ranger spells are going to come back, and just looking at Cantrips and 1st level (not even going onto higher level spells), we've got:
Cantrips: Druidcraft, Poison Spray, Produce Flame, Shillelagh
1st: Create/Destroy Water, Detect Magic, Detect Poison/Disease, Ensnaring Strike, Fog Cloud is a maybe (air and water are both parts of fog), Hail of Thorns, Purify Food/Drink (water), Speak w/Animals, Thunderwave
That's plenty of choices.
Edit: I went back and reviewed the revision on 4E monk johnkzin did. I just don’t think it works well with the more streamlined approach WotC has been going with. Picking spells based on schools is one thing but then having to choose “elemental” type spells just seems cumbersome. I mean it’s not that hard but I’m sure there are going to be some questions when you leave it to what someone considers thematic. Not sure if acid should be there for elemental type. That kind of stuff. Using Bladesinger extra attack is a good idea though.
Elements are easy: Earth, Water, Air, Fire. Energies are also easy: pinned it to the same ones as what works with Transmute Spell, since they can use that as part of their 6th level subclass benefit. That way there's symmetry to the two things.
The only gotcha is: if a DM REALLY wants to use a more East Asian flavor to the elements, there's a system that puts forward the FIVE elements as Earth, Metal, Wood, Fire, Water (notice that it doesn't include Air; that particular philosophy makes Air a spiritual thing and not a physical element). That definitely opens up the number of spells a bit further, but I haven't look at how many more. It's a "caution: switching away from D&D's use of the 4 hermetic elements could cause problems" type thing.
I didn’t forget it, I left it out because it’s not a uniform bonus: not everyone will have an 18 Dex.
Even for the 16 base
You also can't count on every Monk having a 16. Which part of "not a uniform bonus" do you not get? Strictly speaking, RAW, you can't count on a single classed character having _any_ particular stat values, not even for their class's primary stats. Will knowledgable players optimize around certain things? yes. But it changes not even one slight thing about what I said.
About the monk, no, is a warrior class, so unless some subclass, it does not fit with spells and cantrips at all.
Exactly: we're talking about a subclass that replaces the Four Elements Monk with a 1/3 caster subclass.
Well, the same than if you have any other character with a base 13. It is not only applied to damage. Lower stats, less efficiency, that’s for anything. So don’t get the point, you can put what you want at your stats, but don’t expect the same in all cases. If you have lower spell ability score, you will also miss more attacks and worse saving throws for your spells, so everything scales with it, then they must to be added to the comparison.
So your stats are up to you, but don’t use it as excuse to remove them from the formulae.
.So your stats are up to you, but don’t use it as excuse to remove them from the formulae.
If you don’t know what the value is going to be, because it’s not a uniform value, then it’s just a blank in the formula. That’s why I left it out. I’m not removing it from the formula in play, I’m saying that when speaking in generalities, it’s an unknown and left that way.
Also: 13 is still not the base. In 5e, a single classes character can have lower than 13 in their class’s prime stat(s). It can even be a value that has a negative modifier (which is why some class special abilities say things like “+ your stat modifier (minimum 1)” … in case the stat is 9 or lower). A multiclass character can’t do that, but a single classed character can. It’s not advisable, but it is possible. Which is why the stat modifier is an unknown when generalizing.
If we were talking about dissertations instead of casual analysis, sure, put in a +/- N … but that’s still not a +4, nor a +3, nor even a +1. And at maximum benefit of 17+ level, 3d10 + 3N, even with a 20 Dex (N=5), will max out at 45 damage, with an average of 31.5. Meanwhile, the Primal Savagery side of it gets 6d10 + 2N, which maxes out at 70, with an average of 43. Is quibbling over an unknown value really changing the argument at all? No, not even slightly.
.So your stats are up to you, but don’t use it as excuse to remove them from the formulae.
If you don’t know what the value is going to be, because it’s not a uniform value, then it’s just a blank in the formula. That’s why I left it out. I’m not removing it from the formula in play, I’m saying that when speaking in generalities, it’s an unknown and left that way.
Also: 13 is still not the base. In 5e, a single classes character can have lower than 13 in their class’s prime stat(s). It can even be a value that has a negative modifier (which is why some class special abilities say things like “+ your stat modifier (minimum 1)” … in case the stat is 9 or lower). A multiclass character can’t do that, but a single classed character can. It’s not advisable, but it is possible. Which is why the stat modifier is an unknown when generalizing.
If we were talking about dissertations instead of casual analysis, sure, put in a +/- N … but that’s still not a +4, nor a +3, nor even a +1. And at maximum benefit of 17+ level, 3d10 + 3N, even with a 20 Dex (N=5), will max out at 45 damage, with an average of 31.5. Meanwhile, the Primal Savagery side of it gets 6d10 + 2N, which maxes out at 70, with an average of 43. Is quibbling over an unknown value really changing the argument at all? No, not even slightly.
I get what you are saying but, and I know some will have issues with this, but if you are not putting at least a 16 in your primary stat for any character (assuming the 15 from standard array with +1 from background/racial ASI) you’re playing that character wrong. So for Monk, 16 DEX is a very good possibility unless monk is not your primary class in a multiclass build
That or you are more concerned with RP than combat so the whole argument is moot.
16 is a very plausible starting point and ignoring stat bonuses when comparing damage is pretty much a waste of math
.So your stats are up to you, but don’t use it as excuse to remove them from the formulae.
If you don’t know what the value is going to be, because it’s not a uniform value, then it’s just a blank in the formula. That’s why I left it out. I’m not removing it from the formula in play, I’m saying that when speaking in generalities, it’s an unknown and left that way.
Also: 13 is still not the base. In 5e, a single classes character can have lower than 13 in their class’s prime stat(s). It can even be a value that has a negative modifier (which is why some class special abilities say things like “+ your stat modifier (minimum 1)” … in case the stat is 9 or lower). A multiclass character can’t do that, but a single classed character can. It’s not advisable, but it is possible. Which is why the stat modifier is an unknown when generalizing.
If we were talking about dissertations instead of casual analysis, sure, put in a +/- N … but that’s still not a +4, nor a +3, nor even a +1. And at maximum benefit of 17+ level, 3d10 + 3N, even with a 20 Dex (N=5), will max out at 45 damage, with an average of 31.5. Meanwhile, the Primal Savagery side of it gets 6d10 + 2N, which maxes out at 70, with an average of 43. Is quibbling over an unknown value really changing the argument at all? No, not even slightly.
I get what you are saying but, and I know some will have issues with this, but if you are not putting at least a 16 in your primary stat for any character (assuming the 15 from standard array with +1 from background/racial ASI) you’re playing that character wrong. So for Monk, 16 DEX is a very good possibility unless monk is not your primary class in a multiclass build
That or you are more concerned with RP than combat so the whole argument is moot.
16 is a very plausible starting point and ignoring stat bonuses when comparing damage is pretty much a waste of math
A person who is doing that is not playing them wrong. They are playing them sub-optimally. Which is neither right nor wrong. Nor does it necessarily have anything to do with RP or not. The campaign might have been set up with rolling stats in order (old school style).
1- pick race
2- pick class
3- determine state (roll, in order).
Or rolled and assigned however you want, but their best result was low.
There are people who _like_ to play that way, making do with, and improvisation from, a sub-optimal situation. It’s not my cup of tea, but there are lots of them out there. You can’t rule them out from a generalization.
And, as I pointed out, it doesn’t actually change the premise of this specific conversation, anyway.
.So your stats are up to you, but don’t use it as excuse to remove them from the formulae.
If you don’t know what the value is going to be, because it’s not a uniform value, then it’s just a blank in the formula. That’s why I left it out. I’m not removing it from the formula in play, I’m saying that when speaking in generalities, it’s an unknown and left that way.
Also: 13 is still not the base. In 5e, a single classes character can have lower than 13 in their class’s prime stat(s). It can even be a value that has a negative modifier (which is why some class special abilities say things like “+ your stat modifier (minimum 1)” … in case the stat is 9 or lower). A multiclass character can’t do that, but a single classed character can. It’s not advisable, but it is possible. Which is why the stat modifier is an unknown when generalizing.
If we were talking about dissertations instead of casual analysis, sure, put in a +/- N … but that’s still not a +4, nor a +3, nor even a +1. And at maximum benefit of 17+ level, 3d10 + 3N, even with a 20 Dex (N=5), will max out at 45 damage, with an average of 31.5. Meanwhile, the Primal Savagery side of it gets 6d10 + 2N, which maxes out at 70, with an average of 43. Is quibbling over an unknown value really changing the argument at all? No, not even slightly.
I get what you are saying but, and I know some will have issues with this, but if you are not putting at least a 16 in your primary stat for any character (assuming the 15 from standard array with +1 from background/racial ASI) you’re playing that character wrong. So for Monk, 16 DEX is a very good possibility unless monk is not your primary class in a multiclass build
That or you are more concerned with RP than combat so the whole argument is moot.
16 is a very plausible starting point and ignoring stat bonuses when comparing damage is pretty much a waste of math
A person who is doing that is not playing them wrong. They are playing them sub-optimally. Which is neither right nor wrong. Nor does it necessarily have anything to do with RP or not. The campaign might have been set up with rolling stats in order (old school style).
1- pick race
2- pick class
3- determine state (roll, in order).
Or rolled and assigned however you want, but their best result was low.
There are people who _like_ to play that way, making do with, and improvisation from, a sub-optimal situation. It’s not my cup of tea, but there are lots of them out there. You can’t rule them out from a generalization.
And, as I pointed out, it doesn’t actually change the premise of this specific conversation, anyway.
Ok, so my statement was a bit hyperbolic but I think ignoring any stat bonus because someone might be playing sub-optimally or they just rolled bad and their best score was a 10 or they just like playing a paladin with high INT and WIS but dump STR, CON, CHA, is a bit misleading.
On average, you can expect there to be some bonus to their primary stat. And usually when comparing damage you are using averages.
Have I played a monk before? Yes.
Ice knife vs short bow (since the short bow is what the Monk can actually use): You’re saying 1d6 or 2d6 from the short bow, that only affects the target… is better than 1d10 + 2d6 … and 2d6 to everyone else they’re with? Can you upcast that bow? And even if they’re a kensei, you’re only increasing that to 1d8 with the longbow. So, 2d8 vs 1d10 + 2d6 maximum potential? And the longbow still isn’t going to damage everyone in a small clump.
Is Primal Savagery objectively worse than fists alone? (no spending expendable resources, and assuming all attack rolls hit)
3rd level:
fists: 1d4 non-magical fist + 1d4 bonus action fist, that is still non-magical.
vs
primal savagery: 1d10 acid.
This is the only point where spending a limited resource for flurry of blows will be of benefit, but you can’t do it all day long. But only if you’re facing a creature that isn’t resistant to non-magical bludgeoning.
6th level:
fists alone: 2 x 1d6 magical fist + 1d6 bonus action = 3d6
vs
primal savagery as a substitute for one of your attack action attacks: 1x 1d6 magical fist + 2d10 acid from casting + 1d6 bonus action = 2d6 + 2d10
And both can get another 1d6 potential damage with spending the ki point for flurry of blows, so even that isn’t helping you).
11th level:
fists alone: 2x 1d8 + 1d8 bonus action = 3d8
primal savagery: 1d8 fist + 3d10 acid + 1d8 bonus action = 2d8 + 3d10
(and again, flurry of blows is an equal benefit to both strategies)
17th level:
fists: 2x 1d10 + 1d10 bonus action = 3d10
vs
primal savagery: 1d10 fist + 4d10 acid + 1d10 bonus action = 5d10
Yes, clearly fists alone are better than being able to cast primal savagery as a substitute for one of your attacks (as stated in my write up of the idea: the same extra attack benefit as a bladesinger). Why would anyone ever do that? Oh, right, because you’re objectively wrong. That’s why they’d do it.
That is, in fact, what I suggested.
Edit: a mea culpa on this: it was in my draft notes, but for some reason I changed it when I posted it here. the Extra Attack for the subclass I posted here was supposed to be based on the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature.
This was the original wording in my notes for 6th and 10th level, but I think I tried to simplify it when I was posting them here:
Dude you're completely ignoring that weapon attacks add your Dex modifier but spells do not. So e.g.
level 5:
Shortbow : 2*0.65*(2d6+4) = 9.75 - for FREE using 0 resources + at 5th level it's generally not too difficult to pick up a +1 weapon which would make this 11.9 DPR with a +1 shortbow.
Ice Knife (level 2) : 1d10*0.65+0.5*(3d6) = 8.825 - high likelihood of hitting one of your allies if you're doing focus fire, and low chance of getting a second target in the AoE. Cold damage is the second most resisted damage type after fire.
I didn’t forget it, I left it out because it’s not a uniform bonus: not everyone will have an 18 Dex.
And the point was why would they ever cast it compared to shooting a bow? because you’re casting it at a clump and not a lone target. Bows aren’t very good at that. If you’re not using it on a clump of targets, that’s not a deficiency in the spell problem, that’s a player not knowing what their own repertoire problem. Or you making a straw man argument because you don’t know what the spell is actually for.
Then use a ki point to transmute it to whichever basic energy type your enemy isn't resistant to. Since, you know, that was in the proposed subclass (both in my original notes and in what actually made it into the post).
Or .. and this is important and incredibly simple: do both. Use whichever makes the most sense in the situation. Bows are trying to damage an entire clump of enemies (your weak attempt to counter that by assuming a mixed mosh of targets doesn't change that: if it's an actual clump of enemies, use Ice Knife, not the bow) in a single action. Use the bow when it shines, use ice knife when it shines. Is that such a difficult concept?
And then close in to use which ever melee cantrip you have for one of your attacks, and martial arts (fists and/or monk weapons) for the rest of your attacks.
Forgot this little gem:
Not everything that you might want to do in combat is limited to things that deal damage. Use Shape Water to make a square less traversable by freezing the water someone would have to cross in order to flank you. Or do the same by making a fire expand across a square using Control Flames. Take away a non-darkvision target's ability to see by extinguishing its torch. Push or pull a lever that has less than a 5lb pull with Gust, maybe blocking a flank or escape if the lever controls a trap or gate. Create difficult terrain, with Mold Earth, to slow/inhibit enemy movement (or make difficult terrain into non-difficult terrain for you and your allies to make it easier to create a flanking situation). What all of these have in common is: using your imagination to do things that might be beneficial during combat, even if they aren't inflicting damage.
And, you say none of the Elemental Evil cantrips do damage, yet Create Bonfire, Frostbite, Magic Stone, and Thunderclap (all Elemental Evil cantrips) do exactly that.
Then why do they have combat based casting times (1 Action, or 1 Bonus Action for Magic Stone), instead of casting times that aren't practical to use in combat (like 1 or more minutes, etc.)? Clearly someone thought they were to be cast during the initiative cycle (ie. during combat) instead of only being cast outside of that.
Without playtesting and seeing the whole monk class I am not sure if it would be balanced but it would at least be cool. Punch, punch, shocking grasp, shuriken, shuriken, firebolt etc. The 1/3 caster part would likely be best for utility/buffs, but here and there a spell for attacks might be the right call.
Even for the 16 base is +3 and the best thing is it stacks, so for multi-attack is +6, +9... The other nice thing is that is a fixed damage, not probability dependant, so is more reliable about what to expect from it. The ability score bonus can never be ignored.
In fact I miss it for cantrips, changing die roll if required, for reliability, you can have 2d12 damage but if you roll 1, 2 is garbage. Not very good when you feel that have wasted your turn. With the ability score at least you know to inflict a minimum.
About the monk, no, is a warrior class, so unless some subclass, it does not fit with spells and cantrips at all.
And, when comparing, think that the monk is usually better with a weapon, i.e. using a quarterstaff with both hands at lvl 5 can do 2x(1d8 + dex) + (1d6 + dex) with no need of fighting style, which is not bad at all. With enough space, monks are good using their extra movement + number of attacks, as could alternate each round:
- Close and make 3 attacks, the foe can respond with 2-3 attacks (depending style). In this turn the monk could use the patient defense.
- Make 3 attacks and move away 40 feet, the foe can respond with 1 attack (opportunity).
By this way, for each 2 rounds the monk made 5-6 attacks, and the foe 3-4, with the multi-ones with disadvantage if the monk uses 1 point of Ki.
With the old Mobile feat is much worse, but with the revised one they removed that you negates the opportunity attacks I think.
I continually read that the monk is bad or weak, and reading more I see that the reason is because when spamming flurry of blows and stunning strike you get out of Ki and then is bad. But that is not the way to play a monk at all, those skills are pretended to be great if used correctly:
- Flurry of blows: if you see a very injured target and think you can kill with the extra attack, then try and is great if you remove a foe in that turn with it.
- Stunning strike: make the foe caster lose its turn, or any other target which really dangerous skills and no high constitution saving throw.
But the monk Ki should be usually used in patient defense and subclass skills, not spamming these two that is what I usually read from users and the reason they argue against it.
Played a Shadow Monk and it was really easy, granting +10 stealth to the party so all fights was with surprise, and in combat didn't feel bad at all with the previous.
5e Monk is essentially the martial equivalent of a warlock. The Way of the Four Elements just needs the ki cost of many of its abilities reduced a little and some passive abilities at higher levels like all the other subclasses: https://www.dndbeyond.com/subclasses/1005611-elemental-bender
That is a subclass, not the monk class.
Using Ki to create some effects got from spells is not the same than casting spells in any case.
Personally I’m not a fan of making 4E monk a 1/3 caster. I know it’s an easy solution but I like 4E the way it is. It just needs a rework. I did a revised 4E monk a long time ago (it was overpowered but I think there may have been some good ideas in it, all Elemental Disciplines were unique abilities not just “you cast X spell for X Ki”. But I’m biased of course hehe)
Elemental Attunement should just be a class feature you always have. Elemental Disciplines should be either similar to Warlock Invocations and you get more of them. Or you just have access to them all, if you meet the level requirements. Ki costs need adjustment, depending on what they do with Ki Points in the UA.
As far as the 1/3 caster, (sorry, at work so didn’t go through the whole post so I may be asking questions you already answered) which spell list do you use from the UA? And what spell schools do you have access to? EK and AT have restricted school lists so I would assume. Primal doesn’t have much that fits, in the UA. Arcane would probably work best with Evocation (although many Evocation spells don’t fit the theme) and maybe Transmutation?
the way they are doing spell lists makes it harder to customize which is why I prefer better ED for the 4E monk or making them more like invocations
Edit: I went back and reviewed the revision on 4E monk johnkzin did. I just don’t think it works well with the more streamlined approach WotC has been going with. Picking spells based on schools is one thing but then having to choose “elemental” type spells just seems cumbersome. I mean it’s not that hard but I’m sure there are going to be some questions when you leave it to what someone considers thematic. Not sure if acid should be there for elemental type. That kind of stuff. Using Bladesinger extra attack is a good idea though.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
You also can't count on every Monk having a 16. Which part of "not a uniform bonus" do you not get? Strictly speaking, RAW, you can't count on a single classed character having _any_ particular stat values, not even for their class's primary stats. Will knowledgable players optimize around certain things? yes. But it changes not even one slight thing about what I said.
Exactly: we're talking about a subclass that replaces the Four Elements Monk with a 1/3 caster subclass.
While you're absolutely right about none of the lists really fitting all that well, I do wonder if we'll see some bigger changes to them soon; I'm hoping for some new spells, or old spells becoming either a choice of elements, or just weaker ones being rebalanced, to give us more flexibility, especially around building casters themed around only one or two elements. Currently some elements are far better represented than others, either because they have more spells, or their spells are just better overall. It'd also be nice if Primal got some more single-target spells to help with "literally my entire party charged in ahead of me and all I can choose from are area effects" syndrome (exaggerating a bit obviously, but there aren't many single target damage spells in the Druid's arsenal in 5e).
If they solved these problems with the Primal list I could see a school restricted Primal third-caster working if they still got some unique Ki powered magic effects as sub-class features, e.g- a multi-element version of Fangs of the Fire Snake, an air ability that can push or let you to levitate/fly, etc.
But yeah, if they don't make big changes to the spell lists and spells, the better way to go will be unique Ki-powered magic features. Personally I'd cut the list down a bit but make more chosen elemental effects with either a universal rider, or an element specific rider (fire does secondary burn damage, bludgeoning can either push (air) or pull (water) etc.). In the latter case they could maybe make these a common feature (i.e- all disciplines dealing elemental damage have the same rider effects so they don't need to be unique to each ability).
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.
You could easily do this idea along side the existing one. I just think it's kind of a weak attempt at giving spells to a martial, when the EK and AT did it much better (and should be the model for such subclasses).
The main example I gave was from Primal. But I also noted that there could also be Arcane and Divine versions (though Divine makes for a big decision about the spell choice limitation, because the one I gave is less compatible with the Divine list).
I didn't base it on schools. I based it on the nature of the spell itself. It has to meet one of the following four categories:
1- The Spell has to deal with Elements (earth, air, fire, water), OR
2- The Spell has to deal with basic energy types (the ones that work with Transmute Spell: Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, Poison, Thunder), OR
3- The spell has to have a range of Self (for those mystical things a wuxia/wire-fu type martial artist might do to self-buff), OR
4- The spell has to have a range of Touch involving touching a weapon.
And like the EK, a limited number of the spells can be exceptions that don't meet the given restriction(s).
Even if we limit it to the spells currently listed in OneD&D, and assume NONE of the other Druid or Ranger spells are going to come back, and just looking at Cantrips and 1st level (not even going onto higher level spells), we've got:
Cantrips: Druidcraft, Poison Spray, Produce Flame, Shillelagh
1st: Create/Destroy Water, Detect Magic, Detect Poison/Disease, Ensnaring Strike, Fog Cloud is a maybe (air and water are both parts of fog), Hail of Thorns, Purify Food/Drink (water), Speak w/Animals, Thunderwave
That's plenty of choices.
Elements are easy: Earth, Water, Air, Fire.
Energies are also easy: pinned it to the same ones as what works with Transmute Spell, since they can use that as part of their 6th level subclass benefit. That way there's symmetry to the two things.
The only gotcha is: if a DM REALLY wants to use a more East Asian flavor to the elements, there's a system that puts forward the FIVE elements as Earth, Metal, Wood, Fire, Water (notice that it doesn't include Air; that particular philosophy makes Air a spiritual thing and not a physical element). That definitely opens up the number of spells a bit further, but I haven't look at how many more. It's a "caution: switching away from D&D's use of the 4 hermetic elements could cause problems" type thing.
Well, the same than if you have any other character with a base 13. It is not only applied to damage. Lower stats, less efficiency, that’s for anything. So don’t get the point, you can put what you want at your stats, but don’t expect the same in all cases. If you have lower spell ability score, you will also miss more attacks and worse saving throws for your spells, so everything scales with it, then they must to be added to the comparison.
So your stats are up to you, but don’t use it as excuse to remove them from the formulae.
If you don’t know what the value is going to be, because it’s not a uniform value, then it’s just a blank in the formula. That’s why I left it out. I’m not removing it from the formula in play, I’m saying that when speaking in generalities, it’s an unknown and left that way.
Also: 13 is still not the base. In 5e, a single classes character can have lower than 13 in their class’s prime stat(s). It can even be a value that has a negative modifier (which is why some class special abilities say things like “+ your stat modifier (minimum 1)” … in case the stat is 9 or lower). A multiclass character can’t do that, but a single classed character can. It’s not advisable, but it is possible. Which is why the stat modifier is an unknown when generalizing.
If we were talking about dissertations instead of casual analysis, sure, put in a +/- N … but that’s still not a +4, nor a +3, nor even a +1. And at maximum benefit of 17+ level, 3d10 + 3N, even with a 20 Dex (N=5), will max out at 45 damage, with an average of 31.5. Meanwhile, the Primal Savagery side of it gets 6d10 + 2N, which maxes out at 70, with an average of 43. Is quibbling over an unknown value really changing the argument at all? No, not even slightly.
I get what you are saying but, and I know some will have issues with this, but if you are not putting at least a 16 in your primary stat for any character (assuming the 15 from standard array with +1 from background/racial ASI) you’re playing that character wrong. So for Monk, 16 DEX is a very good possibility unless monk is not your primary class in a multiclass build
That or you are more concerned with RP than combat so the whole argument is moot.
16 is a very plausible starting point and ignoring stat bonuses when comparing damage is pretty much a waste of math
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
A person who is doing that is not playing them wrong. They are playing them sub-optimally. Which is neither right nor wrong. Nor does it necessarily have anything to do with RP or not. The campaign might have been set up with rolling stats in order (old school style).
1- pick race
2- pick class
3- determine state (roll, in order).
Or rolled and assigned however you want, but their best result was low.
There are people who _like_ to play that way, making do with, and improvisation from, a sub-optimal situation. It’s not my cup of tea, but there are lots of them out there. You can’t rule them out from a generalization.
And, as I pointed out, it doesn’t actually change the premise of this specific conversation, anyway.
For uncertain values you put the variable there, not removing it.
So it should be i.e.: 1d6 + Dex, instead only 1d6. Then each one puts its own Dex bonus at Dex in formulae.
Removing them is like cheat solitaire.
Ok, so my statement was a bit hyperbolic but I think ignoring any stat bonus because someone might be playing sub-optimally or they just rolled bad and their best score was a 10 or they just like playing a paladin with high INT and WIS but dump STR, CON, CHA, is a bit misleading.
On average, you can expect there to be some bonus to their primary stat. And usually when comparing damage you are using averages.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?