Multiple casting attributes has been scrapped for Warlock
When did they say that?
The playtest 5 results video, I believe.
FFS, the only good thing they did for Warlock in the playtest, seriously? That's the thing they drop?
Doesn't make me hopeful for Monk being improved before release; now my money's on the Monk getting nerfed harder than ever before; attacking at all will now cost Discipline (so two attacks per short rest at level 2), and Stunning Strike will be a once a day ability that instantly kills the Monk and the target gets to re-roll the saving throw until they succeed. 😒
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I mean... an Artificer can have 3 dex and 3 str and be just as effective at using a Greatsword as a Barbarian with 20 Strength, and 16 Dexterity, so "realism" here is pretty relative. A Mystical monk using ki-magic and technique to punch as hard as a morningstar seems positively reasonable compared to the Artificer (or the Blade-lock).
Honestly I prioritize WIS over CON for all Monks, though typically DEX still comes first. You've got the tools to cover yourself or fall back if you're taking a lot of aggro, and honestly a lot of games are played at low enough level that an extra 1 or 2 HP per level isn't doing much for you. And, at the same time, most Monk features that use a save are either riders on hit- and so will have a good chance to play law of averages- or are sufficiently powerful/action efficient that you aren't truly risking blowing a full turn on them, so you don't need to aggressively ramp the DC like a full caster. And while Stunning Strike might not be mandatory, it is still a core class feature and they need to consider how having it can affect the overall performance of the class.
And yes, FoB blocking other options is the point; you either commit your full turn to attacking, attack and take one of the three D's, or take an alternative action on your turn and still have the option to take one of the three D's. The Open Hand bit is honestly probably by design as well; it's for setting up opponents for other players or letting you essentially Disengage while you get your FoB in.
And saying the Rogue's extra ASI is exclusively for one feat is just wrong. It might be the standard optimizer pick, but most players aren't optimizers. Which is not to say that Monk couldn't benefit from an extra one.
I don’t know if it needs to “be the point”. I understand the thinking but you are a dexterous martial artist, not some thug so having to commit you action to get your BA unarmed Strike or FoB doesn’t necessarily fit the fantasy, imo. Keep the BA unarmed attack requiring the Attack action (the commit to damage) but I would be fine with throwing out a couple punches while doing something else. It doesn’t have to be “commit to damage or run away/dodge”
It's not "the point" in a roleplay sense, it's in the gameplay balance sense. Probably the biggest point is just so that you can't combo magic item actions with attacks, and also so that those effects where if you get hit with them you can take an action to end the ongoing effect still preclude your capacity to attack on the same turn, as they're intended to. There's a certain balance to action economy that goes beyond just the potential number of attacks a character is making per turn.
Honestly sometimes I feel like a big part of the drama from Monks comes from people trying to make Dragon Ball style characters with them. Which doesn’t work because despite the ostensible emphasis on Ki and martial arts, DB fights are typically just straight up slugging matches where technique and discipline only received lip service as opposed to raw power. Monks in D&D are Jackie Chan, not Goku.
when I think monk I think of an unbridled powerhouse who can defeat dragons with his fist he's not going to be some weak hit and run character but a devasting force that the dragon should try to get away from but" oh no I can keep up with you" granted not at level one. but the theme of a monk is one that kicks ass.
The bolded part rather highlights my point about people wanting a DBZ character for a Monk. You want to be the MC who has bullets bounce of their body and can leave craters when they punch. D&D, however, is not aiming for that kind of fantasy. Martials are still mortal beings even at tier 4, not out and out demigods whose battles redecorate the landscape. Plus, if you don't want to hit and run, you can just stand there and use FoB every turn.
also in a dnd is a roleplaying game . a big frustration is players thinking oh you cant play it that way because it opposes my idea of what a monk is . how about we allow the mechanics to build both ? you want control ok specialize, it should be the same with damage as well . The weakest take imo is the one that says only fighter can be good at combat cause if you where to be good at combat "it would step on their shoes" . also monk doesn't wear shoes so no one caring who steps on theirs lol
The thing to remember is that D&D is a hard roleplaying game. That means there are limits to what roles you can play, both mechanical and conceptual. Classes are meant to emulate certain archetypes, and as a corollary that means that there will be a broad suite of archetypes that they are not meant to fit. And Monks are pretty good at damage. Even without FoB they're going to match or exceed a TWF Fighter for volume of attacks and damage dice throughout the first two tiers of play, given that they essentially natively have both the TWF Fighting Style and Dual Wielder. When we start taking into account additional features, FoB trumps Action Surge in terms of damage output, and once you get into tier 3 you've got enough points that they're still keeping pace, particularly with the MA die scaling up (the UA bump is helping that some too, but honestly unless you're contrasting a d4 with a d12 the difference between weapon dice is minimal).
Also, if your heart is really dead set on doing an STR and CON Monk, go for it. You can use STR on Martial Arts attacks. Granted, your AC will be low, but as has been repeatedly said, you can always just go Barbarian and either dip Fighter or take a feat for the Unarmed Fighting Style. Then you've got your nice beefy brawler.
I was listening to Matt Colville's recent YouTube video on my way to work this morning (the video about dice for their TTRPG they are working on) and one of the things that I thought was interesting, and seemed relevant to this thread, was when he talked about Surges. A mechanic on the dice so when you roll a surge you can do something cool. But they realized, since all of their classes also have class resources that they can use to do cool things, that surges were unnecessary because, sure, you can do something cool, but it's the same "something cool" that everyone else can do. But the class resource can be unique to each class and be more flavorful while reinforcing what the fantasy of your class is.
In the past, I too thought that it would be nice to have the option for a STR based monk. But in a class-based game, like D&D, each class has a certain fantasy the class is built around. And STR is not part of the monk fantasy, the way it is designed in D&D. You might want to play against type, and you certainly can, but you may not be as effective as someone who plays within that type. It's the same reason many didn't like Paladins smiting with ranged weapons in the Druid/Paladin UA. The class fantasy is more along the Knight in shining armor. Smiting on ranged weapons just doesn't fit that fantasy.
Now, I'm all for playing a character however you like. Personally, I basically look at classes as just a "bag of mechanics". If I play a Swashbuckler Rogue, I don't feel like I have to be that charismatic rapier wielding witty scoundrel performing acts of derring-do because the name gives that impression. I can play them as a dark brooding edgelord assassin who can intimidate almost anyone with their dark menacing presence. Or however I like. The key is, I can add CHA to initiative. I can do more damage if I am one-on-one with an opponent (sneak attack) so I can single out an opponent, like a cheetah separating the weak from the herd. But I don't assume I can play a swashbuckler with an 18 STR wielding a greatsword. And I don't expect the Rogue class to be altered to allow that type of playstyle.
You can play an armor wearing great weapon wielding monk if you like. A thread here shows one example.
Totally agree. All that flavor crap charged of idealism and prejudices forcing you the way of YOUR character makes me sick.
Set mechanics and limits, but abuse of guiding is frustrating.
I felt much more like a Magician or a Monk ninja-like in Rolemaster certainly, with no need of so much speech about crippling options so much for the sake of the flavor that someone has in its mind.
My “flavor” is not hard-written with blood, give me a base to work and I’ll make my own flavor, as each character, as person, is unique. But instead we seems forced to create clones of the flavor, or simply assume the lack of effectiveness if you decide something else.
Totally agree. All that flavor crap charged of idealism and prejudices forcing you the way of YOUR character makes me sick.
Set mechanics and limits, but abuse of guiding is frustrating.
I felt much more like a Magician or a Monk ninja-like in Rolemaster certainly, with no need of so much speech about crippling options so much for the sake of the flavor that someone has in its mind.
My “flavor” is not hard-written with blood, give me a base to work and I’ll make my own flavor, as each character, as person, is unique. But instead we seems forced to create clones of the flavor, or simply assume the lack of effectiveness if you decide something else.
Which again returns to the idea that ultimately you want to play under a whole other system. D&D is designed to operate around classes, not a grab bag of substantially independent traits. Neither system is better or worse than the other, but if you object this strenuously to the idea that classes should operate within designated parameters, you'll probably just find more enjoyment in playing under a different system.
Totally agree. All that flavor crap charged of idealism and prejudices forcing you the way of YOUR character makes me sick.
Set mechanics and limits, but abuse of guiding is frustrating.
I felt much more like a Magician or a Monk ninja-like in Rolemaster certainly, with no need of so much speech about crippling options so much for the sake of the flavor that someone has in its mind.
My “flavor” is not hard-written with blood, give me a base to work and I’ll make my own flavor, as each character, as person, is unique. But instead we seems forced to create clones of the flavor, or simply assume the lack of effectiveness if you decide something else.
Which again returns to the idea that ultimately you want to play under a whole other system. D&D is designed to operate around classes, not a grab bag of substantially independent traits. Neither system is better or worse than the other, but if you object this strenuously to the idea that classes should operate within designated parameters, you'll probably just find more enjoyment in playing under a different system.
No no, in other systems there are classes, with very hard restrictions. But setting a base, how “fast” you learn things, options. My favorite system by far is Rolemaster, with strict classes but at the same time many possibilities for character creation.
I understand that simplification from D&D 3.5 (skipping the 4e) limit some things, OK. But the game has 10 years and now had the opportunity to relax it something, it started in the good direction, like the Warlock getting it stat, or the Mystic Arcanum. But recently they regreed and seems taking the opposite way, increasing the restrictions, Fighting Styles ONLY for a few that already have, the FS for Ranger and Paladin limited to a list!!, seriously? The Rogue which is Dex based even more Dex based (with Cunning Strike using Dex).
Not few people says about new revision that is going to homebrew a lot, me included. But if the homebrew is excessive, well what is the utility of the game itself?
Frustrating as there is potential, with DMG, Xanathar and etc. there are options, but they limit themselves. In Xanathar we have what could be good rules for alchemy and crafting, but again imposing HOW IT MUST WORK the world, they cut the chance. I am talking about the use of materials for crafting, in the own manual excludes things about using them, so they are saying you that you can only make money and convert it magically in the “shop” into potions. Seriously? Cannot understand.
Honestly sometimes I feel like a big part of the drama from Monks comes from people trying to make Dragon Ball style characters with them. Which doesn’t work because despite the ostensible emphasis on Ki and martial arts, DB fights are typically just straight up slugging matches where technique and discipline only received lip service as opposed to raw power. Monks in D&D are Jackie Chan, not Goku.
when I think monk I think of an unbridled powerhouse who can defeat dragons with his fist he's not going to be some weak hit and run character but a devasting force that the dragon should try to get away from but" oh no I can keep up with you" granted not at level one. but the theme of a monk is one that kicks ass.
The bolded part rather highlights my point about people wanting a DBZ character for a Monk. You want to be the MC who has bullets bounce of their body and can leave craters when they punch. D&D, however, is not aiming for that kind of fantasy. Martials are still mortal beings even at tier 4, not out and out demigods whose battles redecorate the landscape. Plus, if you don't want to hit and run, you can just stand there and use FoB every turn.
also in a dnd is a roleplaying game . a big frustration is players thinking oh you cant play it that way because it opposes my idea of what a monk is . how about we allow the mechanics to build both ? you want control ok specialize, it should be the same with damage as well . The weakest take imo is the one that says only fighter can be good at combat cause if you where to be good at combat "it would step on their shoes" . also monk doesn't wear shoes so no one caring who steps on theirs lol
The thing to remember is that D&D is a hard roleplaying game. That means there are limits to what roles you can play, both mechanical and conceptual. Classes are meant to emulate certain archetypes, and as a corollary that means that there will be a broad suite of archetypes that they are not meant to fit. And Monks are pretty good at damage. Even without FoB they're going to match or exceed a TWF Fighter for volume of attacks and damage dice throughout the first two tiers of play, given that they essentially natively have both the TWF Fighting Style and Dual Wielder. When we start taking into account additional features, FoB trumps Action Surge in terms of damage output, and once you get into tier 3 you've got enough points that they're still keeping pace, particularly with the MA die scaling up (the UA bump is helping that some too, but honestly unless you're contrasting a d4 with a d12 the difference between weapon dice is minimal).
Also, if your heart is really dead set on doing an STR and CON Monk, go for it. You can use STR on Martial Arts attacks. Granted, your AC will be low, but as has been repeatedly said, you can always just go Barbarian and either dip Fighter or take a feat for the Unarmed Fighting Style. Then you've got your nice beefy brawler.
and this is what I worry about. the current status quo is what you are arguing for. to me your trying to restrain the monk into your small square of what it should be . you see the difference is I think there should be a mechanical way you can play your monk . I just want more choice and really hope wotc allows me to sidestep such attitudes it reminds me of wow and being forced into healing roles if you were a hyrbid. . why don't I Play a fighter? cause I like monk flavor and feel and I should be able to do damage if I want to and be competitive. also my monk view is based on 3.5 monk not goku. also tier 4 characters are near demigods .especially if I'm sacrificing other options . how is this even an argument?
The bolded part rather highlights my point about people wanting a DBZ character for a Monk. You want to be the MC who has bullets bounce of their body and can leave craters when they punch. D&D, however, is not aiming for that kind of fantasy. Martials are still mortal beings even at tier 4, not out and out demigods whose battles redecorate the landscape.
Which is the core problem for martials vs casters, because casters are out and out demigods whose battles redecorate the landscape.
Honestly I prioritize WIS over CON for all Monks, though typically DEX still comes first. You've got the tools to cover yourself or fall back if you're taking a lot of aggro, and honestly a lot of games are played at low enough level that an extra 1 or 2 HP per level isn't doing much for you. And, at the same time, most Monk features that use a save are either riders on hit- and so will have a good chance to play law of averages- or are sufficiently powerful/action efficient that you aren't truly risking blowing a full turn on them, so you don't need to aggressively ramp the DC like a full caster. And while Stunning Strike might not be mandatory, it is still a core class feature and they need to consider how having it can affect the overall performance of the class.
And yes, FoB blocking other options is the point; you either commit your full turn to attacking, attack and take one of the three D's, or take an alternative action on your turn and still have the option to take one of the three D's. The Open Hand bit is honestly probably by design as well; it's for setting up opponents for other players or letting you essentially Disengage while you get your FoB in.
And saying the Rogue's extra ASI is exclusively for one feat is just wrong. It might be the standard optimizer pick, but most players aren't optimizers. Which is not to say that Monk couldn't benefit from an extra one.
I think we have a different opinion on what the most important factor for a monk playstyle is, mine is subclass and yours seem to be the main class, that's fine, not everyone has to play a character the same way.
FoB does not just block other options, it rules over your main action. If you commit to an aggresive turn, then yes, you can then take one of the 3 D's (FoB, SoW and PD), but if you are not attacking, you don't have all options of the 3 D's, you have 2 options (SoW and PD). As much as I'd like FoB to be independant, even more so for the Open Hand, I'll be honest here, Open Hand Technique should apply to ALL unarmed attacks. Period. But, what about balance? In 5e, a monk would be trading damage for control, it'd go from dealing a d8 (or d10 if using Tasha's) to the MA die + the rider effect they try to attempt, and FoB is still encouraged to use since it'd mean more chances to apply OHT.
I did say 'ALMOST exclusively', I mean a Swashbuckler certainly does not need Mobile, nor does any Rogue that plays ranged or one that doesn't dual wield. And the new Shadow and Elements monk are also fine without taking Mobile. Ironically, a Shadow monk's Shadow Step is completely independant from the main action and it even allows for a free unarmed strike within the same bonus action teleport, so the monk can teleport in, attack and disengage/dodge with no DP cost, Wis investment, or feats; but a Hand monk needs the Attack action to trigger the FoB, it needs to spend a DP for FoB and it needs Wis even more than Dex for the sake of pulling off any of the OHT effects.
I did say 'ALMOST exclusively', I mean a Swashbuckler certainly does not need Mobile, nor does any Rogue that plays ranged or one that doesn't dual wield.
Or that use an offhand weapon with the Nick property. Which is to say, basically zero rogues need the Mobile feat. It's a decent feat, but quite thoroughly optional.
FoB does not just block other options, it rules over your main action. If you commit to an aggresive turn, then yes, you can then take one of the 3 D's (FoB, SoW and PD), but if you are not attacking, you don't have all options of the 3 D's, you have 2 options (SoW and PD). As much as I'd like FoB to be independant, even more so for the Open Hand, I'll be honest here, Open Hand Technique should apply to ALL unarmed attacks. Period. But, what about balance? In 5e, a monk would be trading damage for control, it'd go from dealing a d8 (or d10 if using Tasha's) to the MA die + the rider effect they try to attempt, and FoB is still encouraged to use since it'd mean more chances to apply OHT.
Umm, you have all three D's when you don't commit all out to attack: Dodge, Disengage, and Dash. SoW gives you both Dash and Disengage, and PD gives you Dodge. And, as I believe I pointed out already, Open Hand is about supporting other players more than just setting someone up for your own combo move. But, honestly, I really truly don't care one way or the other, because the class functions well either way. And if your argument is that a subclass feature is undercut by a main class feature, then that's just a casualty of design priority; first they hash out how the main class features work, and then they build the subclass features based on those. Your whole argument isn't "this is bad", it just seems to be "this is less awesome than I want it to be".
Why am I reading people arguing to make monks go back to 3e were they required Str, Dex, and Wis. sure let’s make them more Mad, because that’s fun.
In 3e were accumulative? Because I am not arguing using ONLY Str and Dex. In additive way it opens options like more points to distribute for other stats (you can get the same +3 with a +2 and +1 having more balanced distribution and losing nothing), you can specialize (focusing in both), compensates at long-term and the option to use the feat to get a feat instead always the ASI.
Why am I reading people arguing to make monks go back to 3e were they required Str, Dex, and Wis. sure let’s make them more Mad, because that’s fun.
In 3e were accumulative? Because I am not arguing using ONLY Str and Dex. In additive way it opens options like more points to distribute for other stats (you can get the same +3 with a +2 and +1 having more balanced distribution and losing nothing), you can specialize (focusing in both), compensates at long-term and the option to use the feat to get a feat instead always the ASI.
The math doesn’t work, especially for people who want to focus on one thing. If MA is based on Str+Dex it means neither stat can ever be less than 10 or the negative would make your attacks weaker. Rolling stats would be problematic because Monks with above average stats will be over powered in combat at early levels. 16 Str and 16 Dex at lvl 1 is equivalent to having a +6 to attack and damage rolls. Something impossible for all other classes.
Why am I reading people arguing to make monks go back to 3e were they required Str, Dex, and Wis. sure let’s make them more Mad, because that’s fun.
In 3e were accumulative? Because I am not arguing using ONLY Str and Dex. In additive way it opens options like more points to distribute for other stats (you can get the same +3 with a +2 and +1 having more balanced distribution and losing nothing), you can specialize (focusing in both), compensates at long-term and the option to use the feat to get a feat instead always the ASI.
The math doesn’t work, especially for people who want to focus on one thing. If MA is based on Str+Dex it means neither stat can ever be less than 10 or the negative would make your attacks weaker. Rolling stats would be problematic because Monks with above average stats will be over powered in combat at early levels. 16 Str and 16 Dex at lvl 1 is equivalent to having a +6 to attack and damage rolls. Something impossible for all other classes.
Add only positive values, like when using Dex with heavy armor not taking into account negative ones.
At first is true but later we know the monk is left behind in ways like DPR and the lack of magical items usage, so it compensates. Also using +6 for Str/Dex would left a low Con and Wis, so even getting advantage at one specific thing at lower levels, at long term is a sacrifice of you HP and monk skills like Stunning Strike because the DC.
And “impossible for all other classes” is really an issue? Because any other class has something like that, so the monk has no right?, being a glass canon. If I am not mistaken there are classes like Artificier adding their Int to attack, getting many other features including spells. I’d be worried if it shows to be unbalanced in practice, but not because other classes cannot achieve it.
Why am I reading people arguing to make monks go back to 3e were they required Str, Dex, and Wis. sure let’s make them more Mad, because that’s fun.
In 3e were accumulative? Because I am not arguing using ONLY Str and Dex. In additive way it opens options like more points to distribute for other stats (you can get the same +3 with a +2 and +1 having more balanced distribution and losing nothing), you can specialize (focusing in both), compensates at long-term and the option to use the feat to get a feat instead always the ASI.
The math doesn’t work, especially for people who want to focus on one thing. If MA is based on Str+Dex it means neither stat can ever be less than 10 or the negative would make your attacks weaker. Rolling stats would be problematic because Monks with above average stats will be over powered in combat at early levels. 16 Str and 16 Dex at lvl 1 is equivalent to having a +6 to attack and damage rolls. Something impossible for all other classes.
Add only positive values, like when using Dex with heavy armor not taking into account negative ones.
At first is true but later we know the monk is left behind in ways like DPR and the lack of magical items usage, so it compensates. Also using +6 for Str/Dex would left a low Con and Wis, so even getting advantage at one specific thing at lower levels, at long term is a sacrifice of you HP and monk skills like Stunning Strike because the DC.
And “impossible for all other classes” is really an issue? Because any other class has something like that, so the monk has no right?, being a glass canon. If I am not mistaken there are classes like Artificier adding their Int to attack, getting many other features including spells. I’d be worried if it shows to be unbalanced in practice, but not because other classes cannot achieve it.
It doesn’t since most players don’t play passed lvl 10. So anytime you try to balance the game based on late game it doesn’t work. Also you wouldn’t have low con and wisdom you would could dump wisdom since it isn’t used until level 5. Also bounded accuracy is an important feature of the game especially at low levels. So now you have a tier 1 monster with point buy who breaks bounded accuracy. Additionally the bigger problem is with rolled creation. Now if a player has 18 Str and 18 Dex it doesn’t matter because it isn’t additive. They will use those stats for rolls individually. Your monk would have a +8 to attack and damage rolls. Also since the monk has more attacks it makes it even worse. The only class that I can think of that adds Int to its attacks in bladesinger at level 14 and only while blade song is active. Artificer can choose to use Int instead of another stat. Str or Dex or Int or etc all work the same individually, but once you say add two it breaks bounded accuracy. It’s a feature that is only added at high levels and limited use.
The rolling stats is a good argument and would be excessive.
The problem is that with Weapon Masteries the MA combined with the monk capabilities are left behind even more. And the lack of ki at low level is another, with no option to make things without them.
Looked at Pathfinder and FoB grants more attacks (like the Fighter in 5E) with level. Another option could be allow to use it not spending ki with a penalty to attack.
Honestly if people are that worried about the DC issue, they could maybe break DCs up into "Martial Arts" saves that use DEX and "Ki/Discipline" saves that use WIS. Granted, Stunning Strike would definitely still be one that uses WIS, as would most of the subclass features outside of Hand, so I'm not sure this would actually do much. Weapon masteries account for some of this as well, though that of course undercuts the ability to be a pure unarmed build. Hmm, they could always have Martial Arts say something like "After every long rest, choose one Mastery property you have from a Simple Melee weapon. You can apply that property to your unarmed attacks." That gives you four options to choose from, including giving your next attack advantage or giving the target disadvantage. Flex and Nick don't work because Unarmed Attacks are neither Versatile nor Light, but Flex is not exactly a popular one to being with, I believe, and Nick is already potentially a bit broken on a Monk.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
FFS, the only good thing they did for Warlock in the playtest, seriously? That's the thing they drop?
Doesn't make me hopeful for Monk being improved before release; now my money's on the Monk getting nerfed harder than ever before; attacking at all will now cost Discipline (so two attacks per short rest at level 2), and Stunning Strike will be a once a day ability that instantly kills the Monk and the target gets to re-roll the saving throw until they succeed. 😒
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I mean... an Artificer can have 3 dex and 3 str and be just as effective at using a Greatsword as a Barbarian with 20 Strength, and 16 Dexterity, so "realism" here is pretty relative. A Mystical monk using ki-magic and technique to punch as hard as a morningstar seems positively reasonable compared to the Artificer (or the Blade-lock).
It's not "the point" in a roleplay sense, it's in the gameplay balance sense. Probably the biggest point is just so that you can't combo magic item actions with attacks, and also so that those effects where if you get hit with them you can take an action to end the ongoing effect still preclude your capacity to attack on the same turn, as they're intended to. There's a certain balance to action economy that goes beyond just the potential number of attacks a character is making per turn.
The bolded part rather highlights my point about people wanting a DBZ character for a Monk. You want to be the MC who has bullets bounce of their body and can leave craters when they punch. D&D, however, is not aiming for that kind of fantasy. Martials are still mortal beings even at tier 4, not out and out demigods whose battles redecorate the landscape. Plus, if you don't want to hit and run, you can just stand there and use FoB every turn.
The thing to remember is that D&D is a hard roleplaying game. That means there are limits to what roles you can play, both mechanical and conceptual. Classes are meant to emulate certain archetypes, and as a corollary that means that there will be a broad suite of archetypes that they are not meant to fit. And Monks are pretty good at damage. Even without FoB they're going to match or exceed a TWF Fighter for volume of attacks and damage dice throughout the first two tiers of play, given that they essentially natively have both the TWF Fighting Style and Dual Wielder. When we start taking into account additional features, FoB trumps Action Surge in terms of damage output, and once you get into tier 3 you've got enough points that they're still keeping pace, particularly with the MA die scaling up (the UA bump is helping that some too, but honestly unless you're contrasting a d4 with a d12 the difference between weapon dice is minimal).
Also, if your heart is really dead set on doing an STR and CON Monk, go for it. You can use STR on Martial Arts attacks. Granted, your AC will be low, but as has been repeatedly said, you can always just go Barbarian and either dip Fighter or take a feat for the Unarmed Fighting Style. Then you've got your nice beefy brawler.
I was listening to Matt Colville's recent YouTube video on my way to work this morning (the video about dice for their TTRPG they are working on) and one of the things that I thought was interesting, and seemed relevant to this thread, was when he talked about Surges. A mechanic on the dice so when you roll a surge you can do something cool. But they realized, since all of their classes also have class resources that they can use to do cool things, that surges were unnecessary because, sure, you can do something cool, but it's the same "something cool" that everyone else can do. But the class resource can be unique to each class and be more flavorful while reinforcing what the fantasy of your class is.
In the past, I too thought that it would be nice to have the option for a STR based monk. But in a class-based game, like D&D, each class has a certain fantasy the class is built around. And STR is not part of the monk fantasy, the way it is designed in D&D. You might want to play against type, and you certainly can, but you may not be as effective as someone who plays within that type. It's the same reason many didn't like Paladins smiting with ranged weapons in the Druid/Paladin UA. The class fantasy is more along the Knight in shining armor. Smiting on ranged weapons just doesn't fit that fantasy.
Now, I'm all for playing a character however you like. Personally, I basically look at classes as just a "bag of mechanics". If I play a Swashbuckler Rogue, I don't feel like I have to be that charismatic rapier wielding witty scoundrel performing acts of derring-do because the name gives that impression. I can play them as a dark brooding edgelord assassin who can intimidate almost anyone with their dark menacing presence. Or however I like. The key is, I can add CHA to initiative. I can do more damage if I am one-on-one with an opponent (sneak attack) so I can single out an opponent, like a cheetah separating the weak from the herd. But I don't assume I can play a swashbuckler with an 18 STR wielding a greatsword. And I don't expect the Rogue class to be altered to allow that type of playstyle.
You can play an armor wearing great weapon wielding monk if you like. A thread here shows one example.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Totally agree. All that flavor crap charged of idealism and prejudices forcing you the way of YOUR character makes me sick.
Set mechanics and limits, but abuse of guiding is frustrating.
I felt much more like a Magician or a Monk ninja-like in Rolemaster certainly, with no need of so much speech about crippling options so much for the sake of the flavor that someone has in its mind.
My “flavor” is not hard-written with blood, give me a base to work and I’ll make my own flavor, as each character, as person, is unique. But instead we seems forced to create clones of the flavor, or simply assume the lack of effectiveness if you decide something else.
Which again returns to the idea that ultimately you want to play under a whole other system. D&D is designed to operate around classes, not a grab bag of substantially independent traits. Neither system is better or worse than the other, but if you object this strenuously to the idea that classes should operate within designated parameters, you'll probably just find more enjoyment in playing under a different system.
No no, in other systems there are classes, with very hard restrictions. But setting a base, how “fast” you learn things, options. My favorite system by far is Rolemaster, with strict classes but at the same time many possibilities for character creation.
I understand that simplification from D&D 3.5 (skipping the 4e) limit some things, OK. But the game has 10 years and now had the opportunity to relax it something, it started in the good direction, like the Warlock getting it stat, or the Mystic Arcanum. But recently they regreed and seems taking the opposite way, increasing the restrictions, Fighting Styles ONLY for a few that already have, the FS for Ranger and Paladin limited to a list!!, seriously? The Rogue which is Dex based even more Dex based (with Cunning Strike using Dex).
Not few people says about new revision that is going to homebrew a lot, me included. But if the homebrew is excessive, well what is the utility of the game itself?
Frustrating as there is potential, with DMG, Xanathar and etc. there are options, but they limit themselves. In Xanathar we have what could be good rules for alchemy and crafting, but again imposing HOW IT MUST WORK the world, they cut the chance. I am talking about the use of materials for crafting, in the own manual excludes things about using them, so they are saying you that you can only make money and convert it magically in the “shop” into potions. Seriously? Cannot understand.
and this is what I worry about. the current status quo is what you are arguing for. to me your trying to restrain the monk into your small square of what it should be . you see the difference is I think there should be a mechanical way you can play your monk . I just want more choice and really hope wotc allows me to sidestep such attitudes it reminds me of wow and being forced into healing roles if you were a hyrbid. . why don't I Play a fighter? cause I like monk flavor and feel and I should be able to do damage if I want to and be competitive. also my monk view is based on 3.5 monk not goku. also tier 4 characters are near demigods .especially if I'm sacrificing other options . how is this even an argument?
Which is the core problem for martials vs casters, because casters are out and out demigods whose battles redecorate the landscape.
I think we have a different opinion on what the most important factor for a monk playstyle is, mine is subclass and yours seem to be the main class, that's fine, not everyone has to play a character the same way.
FoB does not just block other options, it rules over your main action. If you commit to an aggresive turn, then yes, you can then take one of the 3 D's (FoB, SoW and PD), but if you are not attacking, you don't have all options of the 3 D's, you have 2 options (SoW and PD). As much as I'd like FoB to be independant, even more so for the Open Hand, I'll be honest here, Open Hand Technique should apply to ALL unarmed attacks. Period. But, what about balance? In 5e, a monk would be trading damage for control, it'd go from dealing a d8 (or d10 if using Tasha's) to the MA die + the rider effect they try to attempt, and FoB is still encouraged to use since it'd mean more chances to apply OHT.
I did say 'ALMOST exclusively', I mean a Swashbuckler certainly does not need Mobile, nor does any Rogue that plays ranged or one that doesn't dual wield. And the new Shadow and Elements monk are also fine without taking Mobile. Ironically, a Shadow monk's Shadow Step is completely independant from the main action and it even allows for a free unarmed strike within the same bonus action teleport, so the monk can teleport in, attack and disengage/dodge with no DP cost, Wis investment, or feats; but a Hand monk needs the Attack action to trigger the FoB, it needs to spend a DP for FoB and it needs Wis even more than Dex for the sake of pulling off any of the OHT effects.
Or that use an offhand weapon with the Nick property. Which is to say, basically zero rogues need the Mobile feat. It's a decent feat, but quite thoroughly optional.
Umm, you have all three D's when you don't commit all out to attack: Dodge, Disengage, and Dash. SoW gives you both Dash and Disengage, and PD gives you Dodge. And, as I believe I pointed out already, Open Hand is about supporting other players more than just setting someone up for your own combo move. But, honestly, I really truly don't care one way or the other, because the class functions well either way. And if your argument is that a subclass feature is undercut by a main class feature, then that's just a casualty of design priority; first they hash out how the main class features work, and then they build the subclass features based on those. Your whole argument isn't "this is bad", it just seems to be "this is less awesome than I want it to be".
Why am I reading people arguing to make monks go back to 3e were they required Str, Dex, and Wis. sure let’s make them more Mad, because that’s fun.
In 3e were accumulative? Because I am not arguing using ONLY Str and Dex. In additive way it opens options like more points to distribute for other stats (you can get the same +3 with a +2 and +1 having more balanced distribution and losing nothing), you can specialize (focusing in both), compensates at long-term and the option to use the feat to get a feat instead always the ASI.
The math doesn’t work, especially for people who want to focus on one thing. If MA is based on Str+Dex it means neither stat can ever be less than 10 or the negative would make your attacks weaker. Rolling stats would be problematic because Monks with above average stats will be over powered in combat at early levels. 16 Str and 16 Dex at lvl 1 is equivalent to having a +6 to attack and damage rolls. Something impossible for all other classes.
Add only positive values, like when using Dex with heavy armor not taking into account negative ones.
At first is true but later we know the monk is left behind in ways like DPR and the lack of magical items usage, so it compensates. Also using +6 for Str/Dex would left a low Con and Wis, so even getting advantage at one specific thing at lower levels, at long term is a sacrifice of you HP and monk skills like Stunning Strike because the DC.
And “impossible for all other classes” is really an issue? Because any other class has something like that, so the monk has no right?, being a glass canon. If I am not mistaken there are classes like Artificier adding their Int to attack, getting many other features including spells. I’d be worried if it shows to be unbalanced in practice, but not because other classes cannot achieve it.
It doesn’t since most players don’t play passed lvl 10. So anytime you try to balance the game based on late game it doesn’t work. Also you wouldn’t have low con and wisdom you would could dump wisdom since it isn’t used until level 5. Also bounded accuracy is an important feature of the game especially at low levels. So now you have a tier 1 monster with point buy who breaks bounded accuracy. Additionally the bigger problem is with rolled creation. Now if a player has 18 Str and 18 Dex it doesn’t matter because it isn’t additive. They will use those stats for rolls individually. Your monk would have a +8 to attack and damage rolls. Also since the monk has more attacks it makes it even worse. The only class that I can think of that adds Int to its attacks in bladesinger at level 14 and only while blade song is active. Artificer can choose to use Int instead of another stat. Str or Dex or Int or etc all work the same individually, but once you say add two it breaks bounded accuracy. It’s a feature that is only added at high levels and limited use.
The rolling stats is a good argument and would be excessive.
The problem is that with Weapon Masteries the MA combined with the monk capabilities are left behind even more. And the lack of ki at low level is another, with no option to make things without them.
Looked at Pathfinder and FoB grants more attacks (like the Fighter in 5E) with level. Another option could be allow to use it not spending ki with a penalty to attack.
Honestly if people are that worried about the DC issue, they could maybe break DCs up into "Martial Arts" saves that use DEX and "Ki/Discipline" saves that use WIS. Granted, Stunning Strike would definitely still be one that uses WIS, as would most of the subclass features outside of Hand, so I'm not sure this would actually do much. Weapon masteries account for some of this as well, though that of course undercuts the ability to be a pure unarmed build. Hmm, they could always have Martial Arts say something like "After every long rest, choose one Mastery property you have from a Simple Melee weapon. You can apply that property to your unarmed attacks." That gives you four options to choose from, including giving your next attack advantage or giving the target disadvantage. Flex and Nick don't work because Unarmed Attacks are neither Versatile nor Light, but Flex is not exactly a popular one to being with, I believe, and Nick is already potentially a bit broken on a Monk.