Learn Monk Combos and finishing moves from Ragnarok Online Monks.... those would be interesting and fun
i've liked the thought of 'combo points' accruing per strike being spent on some finishing move (ala world of warcraft rogue). what you're suggesting is perhaps more like a chain of abilities: action and bonus action and free combo strike and free combo strike? would you imagine this being very much 'to hit' dependent, with misses breaking the chain?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Learn Monk Combos and finishing moves from Ragnarok Online Monks.... those would be interesting and fun
i've liked the thought of 'combo points' accruing per strike being spent on some finishing move (ala world of warcraft rogue). what you're suggesting is perhaps more like a chain of abilities: action and bonus action and free combo strike and free combo strike? would you imagine this being very much 'to hit' dependent, with misses breaking the chain?
For every successful strike u accumulate and release when u declare the end of combo to unleash a extra dmg depending on how many connected in a table and u can add special effects like shove, stun, paralysis, plain extra die dmg or something else.
The jump in emotions every time u hit or miss affecting ur final effect its interesting.
Combos are a terrible idea, as the probability of pulling them off is really low. The baseline chance to hit is 65%, this means your probability of pulling off a 3-hit combo is less than 30%. They are also super unpredictable. I'd expect there would be far more disappointment in combo getting broken than there would be happiness in combos being successful. Add to this that any interesting condition would have to be locked behind a saving throw so that Legendary creatures an resist it and you're looking at a chance to paralyze on a given turn of ~10%, whereas your chance to successfully stun is ~30-50% per attempt, and people already think stunning strike is utter trash.
Combos are a terrible idea, as the probability of pulling them off is really low. The baseline chance to hit is 65%, this means your probability of pulling off a 3-hit combo is less than 30%. They are also super unpredictable. I'd expect there would be far more disappointment in combo getting broken than there would be happiness in combos being successful. Add to this that any interesting condition would have to be locked behind a saving throw so that Legendary creatures an resist it and you're looking at a chance to paralyze on a given turn of ~10%, whereas your chance to successfully stun is ~30-50% per attempt, and people already think stunning strike is utter trash.
Combos were my thinking behind the "focus" mechanic in my attempt at an updated monk; it just avoids the disappointment of a broken chain by not caring, you simply accumulate points by hitting so the only cost of a miss is that you don't accumulate them as quickly.
Since it also got decoupled from tracking specific targets, it's now up to the player a lot more to decide what exactly it represents; so if you're attacking one target you can narrate it as pulling off a sweet combo if you want to (maybe any misses were just feints, or hitting pressure points without causing any immediate damage etc.), keeps it a bit more freeform.
In the playtesting my group and I found the idea of accumulating points this way to be a lot of fun, there's just a tonne of work to do on refining the actual effects you can trigger, how much they should cost etc. Baldur's Gate 3 is partly to blame for me not having spent more time on it, but I've finished a playthrough of that now, and I've some time before Starfield comes out… 😉
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.
Combos are a terrible idea, as the probability of pulling them off is really low. The baseline chance to hit is 65%, this means your probability of pulling off a 3-hit combo is less than 30%. They are also super unpredictable. I'd expect there would be far more disappointment in combo getting broken than there would be happiness in combos being successful. Add to this that any interesting condition would have to be locked behind a saving throw so that Legendary creatures an resist it and you're looking at a chance to paralyze on a given turn of ~10%, whereas your chance to successfully stun is ~30-50% per attempt, and people already think stunning strike is utter trash.
eh, low chance to hit isn't really a great argument against using combo-attacks. it would be adding a new system and as such would come with new things. one new thing might easily be a mechanism for increased "to-hit" of unarmed strikes. and even if not, there's something fun about the chance for burst damage occasionally.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
people already think stunning strike is utter trash.
People are dumb, what else is new? Stunning strike is excellent for its cost -- which is 1 discipline point and no action cost.
Stunning Strike is excllent for it's cost compared to the alternatives. I will now list those alternatives in order:
1: Using a Ki point and and your action AND your bonus action to make 2 extra unarmed strikes after making an attack action.
2: Using a Ki Point and your bonus action to take the Dash, Disengage or Dodge action.
So using Stunning strike is very well costed compared to doing sub-par damage with sub-par weaponry utilizing your entire action economy, or doing even less damage because you were positioned poorly to begin with. In that way, yes Stunning Strike is very well costed compared to the current alternatives, which are trash.
The Monk is currently balanced entirely around Stunning Strike, a theoretically powerful class feature that realistically results in the class functioning as a very squishy and underpowered Fighter outside of a single potential optimal outcome. This is bad design. Outside of a successful Stunning Strike stopping the combat the reality is that Stunning Strike limits the Monk in multiple egregious ways by tying all of its combat ability to an expensive, low probability outcome which multiple high level enemies are outright immune to. If there were effective alternatives to Stunning Strike it would see limited usage at best. Since there are not, it has an outsized reputation because the table sees one player Stun an enemy at a critical moment but doesn't notice that the Monk is then bereft of additional ways to influence the encounter having expended most of their class resource to achieve and maintain that outcome. I would also expect the Wizard to do fairly well if it were to expend all of its spell slots immediately at the start of every encounter - and I often do with the way many tables have only one combat per long rest.
Combos are a terrible idea, as the probability of pulling them off is really low. The baseline chance to hit is 65%, this means your probability of pulling off a 3-hit combo is less than 30%. They are also super unpredictable. I'd expect there would be far more disappointment in combo getting broken than there would be happiness in combos being successful. Add to this that any interesting condition would have to be locked behind a saving throw so that Legendary creatures an resist it and you're looking at a chance to paralyze on a given turn of ~10%, whereas your chance to successfully stun is ~30-50% per attempt, and people already think stunning strike is utter trash.
eh, low chance to hit isn't really a great argument against using combo-attacks. it would be adding a new system and as such would come with new things. one new thing might easily be a mechanism for increased "to-hit" of unarmed strikes. and even if not, there's something fun about the chance for burst damage occasionally.
I would much rather decide to just sweep the leg and roll a chance based on the stats I've intentionally invested in than hope that I might have a chance after rolling a Yahtzee and expending both my Action and Bonus Action. Monks already have a lot of problems trying to make low probability outcomes occur with any consistency. They don't need even more random chance interfering with their ability to contribute in and out of combat.
Stunning Strike is excllent for it's cost compared to the alternatives.
No, it's straight up excellent for its cost. Stunned is by far the strongest condition that any attack rider can apply. The playtest version isn't strong enough to make the monk good all by itself (the spammable stun in the 2014 version is pretty broken), but it's not intended to be.
Stunning Strike is excllent for it's cost compared to the alternatives.
No, it's straight up excellent for its cost. Stunned is by far the strongest condition that any attack rider can apply. The playtest version isn't strong enough to make the monk good all by itself (the spammable stun in the 2014 version is pretty broken), but it's not intended to be.
This is about to drastically change thanks to the Topple weapon mastery. Topple is much easier to connect with, targets a less prevalent monster save (Dex), and can be done by any martial class in the party. It gives advantage to close range attacks and limits enemy movement. And notably it doesn't require Ki or any other additional class resource - it just happens if you make an attack with a Topple weapon and choose to force the save. A save which is going to be with the primary attack stat of the attacker - unlike Monks which will be forced to use their Wisdom modifier.
Stun is powerful, yes. But only if it connects. And getting it to connect with Stunning Strike is a huge opportunity cost for the Monk player because with just average rolls they are going to expend a lot of their class resource to maybe force one save. Once Stunning Strike no longer has the monopoly on temporarily debilitating monsters at low and mid levels it is going to disappear at most tables.
Combos are a terrible idea, as the probability of pulling them off is really low. The baseline chance to hit is 65%, this means your probability of pulling off a 3-hit combo is less than 30%. They are also super unpredictable. I'd expect there would be far more disappointment in combo getting broken than there would be happiness in combos being successful. Add to this that any interesting condition would have to be locked behind a saving throw so that Legendary creatures an resist it and you're looking at a chance to paralyze on a given turn of ~10%, whereas your chance to successfully stun is ~30-50% per attempt, and people already think stunning strike is utter trash.
eh, low chance to hit isn't really a great argument against using combo-attacks. it would be adding a new system and as such would come with new things. one new thing might easily be a mechanism for increased "to-hit" of unarmed strikes. and even if not, there's something fun about the chance for burst damage occasionally.
I would much rather decide to just sweep the leg and roll a chance based on the stats I've intentionally invested in than hope that I might have a chance after rolling a Yahtzee and expending both my Action and Bonus Action. Monks already have a lot of problems trying to make low probability outcomes occur with any consistency. They don't need even more random chance interfering with their ability to contribute in and out of combat.
It's probably not the best mechanic, but if it's just an additional rider as part of Martial Arts then is it really harming anything? The way I think of it is if you are going to make 4 attacks anyway (5th level+ with FoB) why not have, similar to weapon masteries but scaling, riders that if you hit the same target twice on your turn you can do A (maybe A is add a MA die in damage), if you hit the same target three times you can do A or B, if you hit four you can do A, B, or C. Not sure what A, B, or C should be, but I'm sure someone can come up with variations. It's just an add-on, like a weapon mastery where if you hit you can push or topple or nick, etc.. You are not aiming to do A, B, or C (calling the shot), but it just happens, if you want, when you hit the appropriate number of times.
A way back, when the "Next Evolution" of D&D was announced I had a thread about the monk where I mentioned an idea where if a monk got a critical hit, they regained 1 Ki point as they draw out the energy of Ki from their opponent. Some people didn't like it as it isn't likely to happen. But it's not like you are building the class around it, lose another class feature to make room for it, or have to balance anything around it. It would just be something that happens, as part of the monk Ki (UA6 Martial Discipline) ability. Again, maybe not the best mechanic, but it's just a rider effect.
It's probably not the best mechanic, but if it's just an additional rider as part of Martial Arts then is it really harming anything? The way I think of it is if you are going to make 4 attacks anyway (5th level+ with FoB) why not have, similar to weapon masteries but scaling, riders that if you hit the same target twice on your turn you can do A (maybe A is add a MA die in damage), if you hit the same target three times you can do A or B, if you hit four you can do A, B, or C. Not sure what A, B, or C should be, but I'm sure someone can come up with variations. It's just an add-on, like a weapon mastery where if you hit you can push or topple or nick, etc.. You are not aiming to do A, B, or C (calling the shot), but it just happens, if you want, when you hit the appropriate number of times.
A way back, when the "Next Evolution" of D&D was announced I had a thread about the monk where I mentioned an idea where if a monk got a critical hit, they regained 1 Ki point as they draw out the energy of Ki from their opponent. Some people didn't like it as it isn't likely to happen. But it's not like you are building the class around it, lose another class feature to make room for it, or have to balance anything around it. It would just be something that happens, as part of the monk Ki (UA6 Martial Discipline) ability. Again, maybe not the best mechanic, but it's just a rider effect.
A big part of the problem with effects that only occur on critical hit is that because they happen rarely it's really easy to forget about them, which I think is part of the problem with those rather than the idea as such.
I doubt it'll surprise anyone to learn I like the idea of combo effects (just said it in my last post), having it constrained only to the current turn does avoid extra book-keeping, but it does mean you're also limited to only what you can do on that turn, i.e- if you miss completely or only hit once then now it's a bad turn for multiple reasons. That same issue applies to the Focus idea I've been toying with, though I have other triggers for it (being missed) and hopefully you'll have a good turn later and still build it up over time if you want to.
That's not necessarily a major problem though since the idea is clearly to boost a monk's offensive potential in a way that's a bit more interesting than just boosting damage, which it should do, and maybe keeping it closer to Weapon Mastery is more viable as a suggestion?
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.
Combos are a terrible idea, as the probability of pulling them off is really low. The baseline chance to hit is 65%, this means your probability of pulling off a 3-hit combo is less than 30%. They are also super unpredictable. I'd expect there would be far more disappointment in combo getting broken than there would be happiness in combos being successful. Add to this that any interesting condition would have to be locked behind a saving throw so that Legendary creatures an resist it and you're looking at a chance to paralyze on a given turn of ~10%, whereas your chance to successfully stun is ~30-50% per attempt, and people already think stunning strike is utter trash.
eh, low chance to hit isn't really a great argument against using combo-attacks. it would be adding a new system and as such would come with new things. one new thing might easily be a mechanism for increased "to-hit" of unarmed strikes. and even if not, there's something fun about the chance for burst damage occasionally.
I would much rather decide to just sweep the leg and roll a chance based on the stats I've intentionally invested in than hope that I might have a chance after rolling a Yahtzee and expending both my Action and Bonus Action. Monks already have a lot of problems trying to make low probability outcomes occur with any consistency. They don't need even more random chance interfering with their ability to contribute in and out of combat.
It's probably not the best mechanic, but if it's just an additional rider as part of Martial Arts then is it really harming anything? The way I think of it is if you are going to make 4 attacks anyway (5th level+ with FoB) why not have, similar to weapon masteries but scaling, riders that if you hit the same target twice on your turn you can do A (maybe A is add a MA die in damage), if you hit the same target three times you can do A or B, if you hit four you can do A, B, or C. Not sure what A, B, or C should be, but I'm sure someone can come up with variations. It's just an add-on, like a weapon mastery where if you hit you can push or topple or nick, etc.. You are not aiming to do A, B, or C (calling the shot), but it just happens, if you want, when you hit the appropriate number of times.
A way back, when the "Next Evolution" of D&D was announced I had a thread about the monk where I mentioned an idea where if a monk got a critical hit, they regained 1 Ki point as they draw out the energy of Ki from their opponent. Some people didn't like it as it isn't likely to happen. But it's not like you are building the class around it, lose another class feature to make room for it, or have to balance anything around it. It would just be something that happens, as part of the monk Ki (UA6 Martial Discipline) ability. Again, maybe not the best mechanic, but it's just a rider effect.
The problem is the following:
The Monk is already dealing with a lot of competition for what it does with its actions and bonus actions. A big reason for this is that many of the Monk's bonus actions already have a sort of combo system in place - you can only make the BA Unarmed Strike or Flurry of Blows if you already took the Attack action.So to make use of those very important features, you have to commit in advance.
A combo system that offers dubious rewards in exchange for limited player resources is going to inventivize players to use those tools even when it's not beneficial - and that's going to lead to negative play experiences not only for them but also for the rest of the party. This is already a problem with Stunning Strike, the Stunned condition is very powerful but it makes Monks who don't succeed feel like they just wasted a lot of their limited Ki for nothing. Putting even more focus on luck of the die mechanics isn't going to feel good on a class where consistency is already lacking.
Compare this to the Rogue or Paladin. A Rogue doesn't have to satisfy any new conditions once it sets up a Sneak Attack beyond successfully hitting the target. To this end a Rogue wants to use bonus action attacks or new features like the Nick mastery to confirm the attack is successful - and when it is Sneak Attack just happens. A Monk is already dealing with a lot of consistency issues. It hits? Ok. What's the damage roll? Ok. How good is your save DC? Not great? Is it worth gambling a Ki point for Stunning Strike or Hands of Harm or something else? A combo system where Monks start feeling bad in advance because a previous roll wasn't good enough to get what they really wanted is not going to solve this problem.
Combos are a terrible idea, as the probability of pulling them off is really low. The baseline chance to hit is 65%, this means your probability of pulling off a 3-hit combo is less than 30%. They are also super unpredictable. I'd expect there would be far more disappointment in combo getting broken than there would be happiness in combos being successful. Add to this that any interesting condition would have to be locked behind a saving throw so that Legendary creatures an resist it and you're looking at a chance to paralyze on a given turn of ~10%, whereas your chance to successfully stun is ~30-50% per attempt, and people already think stunning strike is utter trash.
eh, low chance to hit isn't really a great argument against using combo-attacks. it would be adding a new system and as such would come with new things. one new thing might easily be a mechanism for increased "to-hit" of unarmed strikes. and even if not, there's something fun about the chance for burst damage occasionally.
I would much rather decide to just sweep the leg and roll a chance based on the stats I've intentionally invested in than hope that I might have a chance after rolling a Yahtzee and expending both my Action and Bonus Action. Monks already have a lot of problems trying to make low probability outcomes occur with any consistency. They don't need even more random chance interfering with their ability to contribute in and out of combat.
It's probably not the best mechanic, but if it's just an additional rider as part of Martial Arts then is it really harming anything? The way I think of it is if you are going to make 4 attacks anyway (5th level+ with FoB) why not have, similar to weapon masteries but scaling, riders that if you hit the same target twice on your turn you can do A (maybe A is add a MA die in damage), if you hit the same target three times you can do A or B, if you hit four you can do A, B, or C. Not sure what A, B, or C should be, but I'm sure someone can come up with variations. It's just an add-on, like a weapon mastery where if you hit you can push or topple or nick, etc.. You are not aiming to do A, B, or C (calling the shot), but it just happens, if you want, when you hit the appropriate number of times.
Why wouldn't you be aiming to do them? If they are good effects then you will want to do them and will try to set yourself up in order to do them. If they are bad effects then you'll probably just forget about them or not bother with them. Class features that players forget they have are bad.
Regarding the question of “when is Stunning Strike worth attempting?”, the answer is “whenever you’re fighting a boss that isn’t immune to Stunned”. The base value of a Ki point is 1 Martial Arts attack, imo, and so the value of SS vs FoB is what portion of the enemy’s HP that represents vs their damage output. Against a bunch of mooks or a basic monster that ratio favors rapid HP reduction, but once you’re up to three attacks a round with Legendary Actions, something in the neighborhood of possibly 10 damage a round carries a lot less weight than potentially either forcing the boss to burn an LR or outright stopping everything they can do for a round. Ultimately I think the biggest issue with Monks is just that people want to be able to use everything at once, partially because Rogues can Disengage/Dash at no cost. Really, though, most Ki applications are secondary features and meant to be limited and situational.
This is about to drastically change thanks to the Topple weapon mastery. Topple is much easier to connect with, targets a less prevalent monster save (Dex), and can be done by any martial class in the party.
Calling prone comparable to stunned is laughable. The multi-save on topple is a bit of a problem, but the reality is, applying prone is a liability for a substantial number of parties (since it means all your ranged attackers have disadvantage).
This is about to drastically change thanks to the Topple weapon mastery. Topple is much easier to connect with, targets a less prevalent monster save (Dex), and can be done by any martial class in the party.
Calling prone comparable to stunned is laughable. The multi-save on topple is a bit of a problem, but the reality is, applying prone is a liability for a substantial number of parties (since it means all your ranged attackers have disadvantage).
Plus prone only lasts until the creature’s turn and doesn’t stop it from acting, whereas stun in this instance will last for an entire round and leaves the creature unable to do anything.
Topple is actually a Constitution save, just the same as Stunning Strike. (The DC is based on whatever stat the attacker used, a clause which only applies if a Fighter applies the mastery to a ranged weapon.)
Actually it's specifically critical for Monk because you can Topple with a Quarterstaff.
Also per UA6 Topple is a Dex save.
Finally, yes a prone creature can get back up. But until they do, melee attacks and close range melee attacks have advantage. Which is a big deal for any other melee martial characters in the party. So even without a Monk, 2 martial characters that can Topple are going to be setting up brutal 1-2 combos for each other and stun won't be useful except on the surprisingly small selection of creatures that cannot be knocked prone.
Topple is actually a Constitution save, just the same as Stunning Strike. (The DC is based on whatever stat the attacker used, a clause which only applies if a Fighter applies the mastery to a ranged weapon.)
Actually it's specifically critical for Monk because you can Topple with a Quarterstaff.
Also per UA6 Topple is a Dex save.
Finally, yes a prone creature can get back up. But until they do, melee attacks and close range melee attacks have advantage. Which is a big deal for any other melee martial characters in the party. So even without a Monk, 2 martial characters that can Topple are going to be setting up brutal 1-2 combos for each other and stun won't be useful except on the surprisingly small selection of creatures that cannot be knocked prone.
Again, stun literally stops all actions from a creature. This includes Legendary and Lair actions. That is huge against major boss tier creatures, and you are not getting nearly that kind of effect from prone. How effective prone is will massively depend on how the turn order shook out, while stunned will last for an entire round. Yes, Topple is a nice option, but Stunning Strikes objectively delivers a more powerful condition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
i've liked the thought of 'combo points' accruing per strike being spent on some finishing move (ala world of warcraft rogue). what you're suggesting is perhaps more like a chain of abilities: action and bonus action and free combo strike and free combo strike? would you imagine this being very much 'to hit' dependent, with misses breaking the chain?
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
For every successful strike u accumulate and release when u declare the end of combo to unleash a extra dmg depending on how many connected in a table and u can add special effects like shove, stun, paralysis, plain extra die dmg or something else.
The jump in emotions every time u hit or miss affecting ur final effect its interesting.
Combos are a terrible idea, as the probability of pulling them off is really low. The baseline chance to hit is 65%, this means your probability of pulling off a 3-hit combo is less than 30%. They are also super unpredictable. I'd expect there would be far more disappointment in combo getting broken than there would be happiness in combos being successful. Add to this that any interesting condition would have to be locked behind a saving throw so that Legendary creatures an resist it and you're looking at a chance to paralyze on a given turn of ~10%, whereas your chance to successfully stun is ~30-50% per attempt, and people already think stunning strike is utter trash.
Eh, they could be fun in the same way critical hits are fun, though I agree they shouldn't be core damage assumptions.
People are dumb, what else is new? Stunning strike is excellent for its cost -- which is 1 discipline point and no action cost.
Weird thought. Not sure where to go with this, but it just popped into my head reading this thread.
What if successful strikes *generated* Ki?
i.e. Hit enough times normally, and it triggers a 'Flurry of Blows'.
Hit enough times overall, you get 'Stunning Strike'...
Yeah, I'm not sure this is worth it. It's just something that popped into my head and I needed to get it out. :)
Combos were my thinking behind the "focus" mechanic in my attempt at an updated monk; it just avoids the disappointment of a broken chain by not caring, you simply accumulate points by hitting so the only cost of a miss is that you don't accumulate them as quickly.
Since it also got decoupled from tracking specific targets, it's now up to the player a lot more to decide what exactly it represents; so if you're attacking one target you can narrate it as pulling off a sweet combo if you want to (maybe any misses were just feints, or hitting pressure points without causing any immediate damage etc.), keeps it a bit more freeform.
In the playtesting my group and I found the idea of accumulating points this way to be a lot of fun, there's just a tonne of work to do on refining the actual effects you can trigger, how much they should cost etc. Baldur's Gate 3 is partly to blame for me not having spent more time on it, but I've finished a playthrough of that now, and I've some time before Starfield comes out… 😉
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.
eh, low chance to hit isn't really a great argument against using combo-attacks. it would be adding a new system and as such would come with new things. one new thing might easily be a mechanism for increased "to-hit" of unarmed strikes. and even if not, there's something fun about the chance for burst damage occasionally.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Stunning Strike is excllent for it's cost compared to the alternatives. I will now list those alternatives in order:
1: Using a Ki point and and your action AND your bonus action to make 2 extra unarmed strikes after making an attack action.
2: Using a Ki Point and your bonus action to take the Dash, Disengage or Dodge action.
So using Stunning strike is very well costed compared to doing sub-par damage with sub-par weaponry utilizing your entire action economy, or doing even less damage because you were positioned poorly to begin with. In that way, yes Stunning Strike is very well costed compared to the current alternatives, which are trash.
The Monk is currently balanced entirely around Stunning Strike, a theoretically powerful class feature that realistically results in the class functioning as a very squishy and underpowered Fighter outside of a single potential optimal outcome. This is bad design. Outside of a successful Stunning Strike stopping the combat the reality is that Stunning Strike limits the Monk in multiple egregious ways by tying all of its combat ability to an expensive, low probability outcome which multiple high level enemies are outright immune to. If there were effective alternatives to Stunning Strike it would see limited usage at best. Since there are not, it has an outsized reputation because the table sees one player Stun an enemy at a critical moment but doesn't notice that the Monk is then bereft of additional ways to influence the encounter having expended most of their class resource to achieve and maintain that outcome. I would also expect the Wizard to do fairly well if it were to expend all of its spell slots immediately at the start of every encounter - and I often do with the way many tables have only one combat per long rest.
I would much rather decide to just sweep the leg and roll a chance based on the stats I've intentionally invested in than hope that I might have a chance after rolling a Yahtzee and expending both my Action and Bonus Action. Monks already have a lot of problems trying to make low probability outcomes occur with any consistency. They don't need even more random chance interfering with their ability to contribute in and out of combat.
No, it's straight up excellent for its cost. Stunned is by far the strongest condition that any attack rider can apply. The playtest version isn't strong enough to make the monk good all by itself (the spammable stun in the 2014 version is pretty broken), but it's not intended to be.
This is about to drastically change thanks to the Topple weapon mastery. Topple is much easier to connect with, targets a less prevalent monster save (Dex), and can be done by any martial class in the party. It gives advantage to close range attacks and limits enemy movement. And notably it doesn't require Ki or any other additional class resource - it just happens if you make an attack with a Topple weapon and choose to force the save. A save which is going to be with the primary attack stat of the attacker - unlike Monks which will be forced to use their Wisdom modifier.
Stun is powerful, yes. But only if it connects. And getting it to connect with Stunning Strike is a huge opportunity cost for the Monk player because with just average rolls they are going to expend a lot of their class resource to maybe force one save. Once Stunning Strike no longer has the monopoly on temporarily debilitating monsters at low and mid levels it is going to disappear at most tables.
It's probably not the best mechanic, but if it's just an additional rider as part of Martial Arts then is it really harming anything? The way I think of it is if you are going to make 4 attacks anyway (5th level+ with FoB) why not have, similar to weapon masteries but scaling, riders that if you hit the same target twice on your turn you can do A (maybe A is add a MA die in damage), if you hit the same target three times you can do A or B, if you hit four you can do A, B, or C. Not sure what A, B, or C should be, but I'm sure someone can come up with variations. It's just an add-on, like a weapon mastery where if you hit you can push or topple or nick, etc.. You are not aiming to do A, B, or C (calling the shot), but it just happens, if you want, when you hit the appropriate number of times.
A way back, when the "Next Evolution" of D&D was announced I had a thread about the monk where I mentioned an idea where if a monk got a critical hit, they regained 1 Ki point as they draw out the energy of Ki from their opponent. Some people didn't like it as it isn't likely to happen. But it's not like you are building the class around it, lose another class feature to make room for it, or have to balance anything around it. It would just be something that happens, as part of the monk Ki (UA6 Martial Discipline) ability. Again, maybe not the best mechanic, but it's just a rider effect.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
A big part of the problem with effects that only occur on critical hit is that because they happen rarely it's really easy to forget about them, which I think is part of the problem with those rather than the idea as such.
I doubt it'll surprise anyone to learn I like the idea of combo effects (just said it in my last post), having it constrained only to the current turn does avoid extra book-keeping, but it does mean you're also limited to only what you can do on that turn, i.e- if you miss completely or only hit once then now it's a bad turn for multiple reasons. That same issue applies to the Focus idea I've been toying with, though I have other triggers for it (being missed) and hopefully you'll have a good turn later and still build it up over time if you want to.
That's not necessarily a major problem though since the idea is clearly to boost a monk's offensive potential in a way that's a bit more interesting than just boosting damage, which it should do, and maybe keeping it closer to Weapon Mastery is more viable as a suggestion?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The problem is the following:
The Monk is already dealing with a lot of competition for what it does with its actions and bonus actions. A big reason for this is that many of the Monk's bonus actions already have a sort of combo system in place - you can only make the BA Unarmed Strike or Flurry of Blows if you already took the Attack action.So to make use of those very important features, you have to commit in advance.
A combo system that offers dubious rewards in exchange for limited player resources is going to inventivize players to use those tools even when it's not beneficial - and that's going to lead to negative play experiences not only for them but also for the rest of the party. This is already a problem with Stunning Strike, the Stunned condition is very powerful but it makes Monks who don't succeed feel like they just wasted a lot of their limited Ki for nothing. Putting even more focus on luck of the die mechanics isn't going to feel good on a class where consistency is already lacking.
Compare this to the Rogue or Paladin. A Rogue doesn't have to satisfy any new conditions once it sets up a Sneak Attack beyond successfully hitting the target. To this end a Rogue wants to use bonus action attacks or new features like the Nick mastery to confirm the attack is successful - and when it is Sneak Attack just happens. A Monk is already dealing with a lot of consistency issues. It hits? Ok. What's the damage roll? Ok. How good is your save DC? Not great? Is it worth gambling a Ki point for Stunning Strike or Hands of Harm or something else? A combo system where Monks start feeling bad in advance because a previous roll wasn't good enough to get what they really wanted is not going to solve this problem.
Why wouldn't you be aiming to do them? If they are good effects then you will want to do them and will try to set yourself up in order to do them. If they are bad effects then you'll probably just forget about them or not bother with them. Class features that players forget they have are bad.
Regarding the question of “when is Stunning Strike worth attempting?”, the answer is “whenever you’re fighting a boss that isn’t immune to Stunned”. The base value of a Ki point is 1 Martial Arts attack, imo, and so the value of SS vs FoB is what portion of the enemy’s HP that represents vs their damage output. Against a bunch of mooks or a basic monster that ratio favors rapid HP reduction, but once you’re up to three attacks a round with Legendary Actions, something in the neighborhood of possibly 10 damage a round carries a lot less weight than potentially either forcing the boss to burn an LR or outright stopping everything they can do for a round. Ultimately I think the biggest issue with Monks is just that people want to be able to use everything at once, partially because Rogues can Disengage/Dash at no cost. Really, though, most Ki applications are secondary features and meant to be limited and situational.
Calling prone comparable to stunned is laughable. The multi-save on topple is a bit of a problem, but the reality is, applying prone is a liability for a substantial number of parties (since it means all your ranged attackers have disadvantage).
Plus prone only lasts until the creature’s turn and doesn’t stop it from acting, whereas stun in this instance will last for an entire round and leaves the creature unable to do anything.
Actually it's specifically critical for Monk because you can Topple with a Quarterstaff.
Also per UA6 Topple is a Dex save.
Finally, yes a prone creature can get back up. But until they do, melee attacks and close range melee attacks have advantage. Which is a big deal for any other melee martial characters in the party. So even without a Monk, 2 martial characters that can Topple are going to be setting up brutal 1-2 combos for each other and stun won't be useful except on the surprisingly small selection of creatures that cannot be knocked prone.
Again, stun literally stops all actions from a creature. This includes Legendary and Lair actions. That is huge against major boss tier creatures, and you are not getting nearly that kind of effect from prone. How effective prone is will massively depend on how the turn order shook out, while stunned will last for an entire round. Yes, Topple is a nice option, but Stunning Strikes objectively delivers a more powerful condition.