I do think its a shame they removed the ability to use martial arts die for weapons. It was one of the cooler aspects monk that they could make otherwise weak weapons more viable.
It was a right decision, though. When MA dice applies to weapons, literally any magical weapon is better than fighting unarmed. In a class that is based around the idea of fighting unarmed.
But not all Monks want to fight unarmed. Imagine a Shadow Monk, characterized as a ninja, that is a tortle dual wielding katanas. Should a player feel forced into Unarmed Strikes merely because they are optimal, even if the character design or loot dropped encourage weapons? In my opinion, the design should support both weapons and Unarmed Strikes, to the point that players are satisfied with either.
I do think its a shame they removed the ability to use martial arts die for weapons. It was one of the cooler aspects monk that they could make otherwise weak weapons more viable.
It was a right decision, though. When MA dice applies to weapons, literally any magical weapon is better than fighting unarmed. In a class that is based around the idea of fighting unarmed.
It's not like a Monk will never punch again if they get their hands on a magic weapon. They still have the bonus action attack and flurry of blows to make sure their fists see some action. Removing the MA die on weapons just seems like a needless nerf.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I do think its a shame they removed the ability to use martial arts die for weapons. It was one of the cooler aspects monk that they could make otherwise weak weapons more viable.
It was a right decision, though. When MA dice applies to weapons, literally any magical weapon is better than fighting unarmed. In a class that is based around the idea of fighting unarmed.
But not all Monks want to fight unarmed. Imagine a Shadow Monk, characterized as a ninja, that is a tortle dual wielding katanas. Should a player feel forced into Unarmed Strikes merely because they are optimal, even if the character design or loot dropped encourage weapons? In my opinion, the design should support both weapons and Unarmed Strikes, to the point that players are satisfied with either.
An alternative to monk weapons is for weapons to have an alternate die at certain levels: (This upgrades weapons with a very small die, such as daggers.)
From level 5: 1d6 (Average Damage: 3.5) From level 15: 2d4 (Average Damage: 5)
In this way some weapons are benefited without equaling or surpassing unarmed blows (But perhaps it unnecessarily complexes the monk.)
I do think its a shame they removed the ability to use martial arts die for weapons. It was one of the cooler aspects monk that they could make otherwise weak weapons more viable.
It was a right decision, though. When MA dice applies to weapons, literally any magical weapon is better than fighting unarmed. In a class that is based around the idea of fighting unarmed.
But not all Monks want to fight unarmed.
That's what the Kensei subclass is for, IMO. And the Kensei _should_ get the Martial Arts die for weapon damage. But I don't see any reason that it MUST be a non-Kensei feature.
Imagine a Shadow Monk, characterized as a ninja, that is a tortle dual wielding katanas.
So, basically, Leo doesn't 100% work as a single classed D&D character. It's not like D&D is obligated to fully support non-D&D fiction. Look at the lack of a true/pure ATLA class.
For Leo, Kensei/Assassin, Kensei/Gloomstalker, or Kensei/Shadow-Sorcerer (after all, a Kensei is a "sword saint", Kensei is literally made for Leo). After all, for Donny you have to multiclass too (Artificer/Monk).
It's not like a Monk will never punch again if they get their hands on a magic weapon. They still have the bonus action attack and flurry of blows to make sure their fists see some action. Removing the MA die on weapons just seems like a needless nerf.
Plus you can solve the problem by just making unarmed magic items, like the eldritch claw tattoo, available in the base game, but with some other options.
This is something they should be doing anyway, as the mix of magic weapons has been abysmal for ages, as some weapon types have way more magic options than others (a quick magic item search shows longsword having 46, but warhammer has 16, though that's including all sources). The base selection of magic items should let a DM cater to any player, and that should include unarmed focused Monks.
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 do think its a shame they removed the ability to use martial arts die for weapons. It was one of the cooler aspects monk that they could make otherwise weak weapons more viable.
It was a right decision, though. When MA dice applies to weapons, literally any magical weapon is better than fighting unarmed. In a class that is based around the idea of fighting unarmed.
I can see that argument, but I also think the fantasy of a monk-type character using weapons is a popular enough archetype to support it in the base rules. I wouldve been behind the change if the kensei subclass was included, but it appears it isnt.
Considering the monks relationship to weapons has fundamentally changed, including an updated "weapons monk" seems like an obvious choice
It's not like a Monk will never punch again if they get their hands on a magic weapon. They still have the bonus action attack and flurry of blows to make sure their fists see some action. Removing the MA die on weapons just seems like a needless nerf.
Plus you can solve the problem by just making unarmed magic items, like the eldritch claw tattoo, available in the base game, but with some other options.
This is something they should be doing anyway, as the mix of magic weapons has been abysmal for ages, as some weapon types have way more magic options than others (a quick magic item search shows longsword having 46, but warhammer has 16, though that's including all sources). The base selection of magic items should let a DM cater to any player, and that should include unarmed focused Monks.
My thought has been to remove the weapon from the magic type; make it mix and match. So say any weapon can have the flame tongue property. Or any slashing weapon can be vorpal. Or even better, make the enchantment movable. So if you have a DM who rolls for treasure, and you get some +1 weapon no one can use, you can move it to another weapon. Like a rune system or something. I wouldn’t want to be able to stack them, but moving that +1 from one weapon to another would be great. And at that point, it would be easy to implement something like hand wraps or gloves (or boots or a headband or whatever floats your unarmed boat) to put that +1 onto for monks.
...I don't see why Heightened Metabolism needs to be 7th level. It could be part of the 2nd level Martial Discipline feature. It scales automatically and Tier 1 is where you need more Discipline points...
they can't put it at level 2 for the multiclass dips. but I don't see why it's restricted to one (per long rest) at 7th or whatever.
Almost nothing regens on a SR now though except for monk points. So it doesn't matter if other classes dip to get it.
We don’t know that for sure until the UA5 revised warlock and other classes comes out. It could change back just like some other things. As far as HM goes it could be worded to only work for either discipline points or monk features (in case they have other monk subclasses that will benefit from it)
And Action Surge still resets on SR, which I don’t mind. I’m not too worried about a 2 level monk dip just for HM.
ua5 was exactly what I was thinking... second wind, action surge, and arcane recovery. also relentless rage and sorcerous restoration, if lvl15 matters.
ua6 would be bard's font of inspiration, cleric channel divinity, war priest stuff I didn't read, wildshape, aaand that's when I ran out of time
It's not like a Monk will never punch again if they get their hands on a magic weapon. They still have the bonus action attack and flurry of blows to make sure their fists see some action. Removing the MA die on weapons just seems like a needless nerf.
Plus you can solve the problem by just making unarmed magic items, like the eldritch claw tattoo, available in the base game, but with some other options.
This is something they should be doing anyway, as the mix of magic weapons has been abysmal for ages, as some weapon types have way more magic options than others (a quick magic item search shows longsword having 46, but warhammer has 16, though that's including all sources). The base selection of magic items should let a DM cater to any player, and that should include unarmed focused Monks.
My thought has been to remove the weapon from the magic type; make it mix and match. So say any weapon can have the flame tongue property. Or any slashing weapon can be vorpal.
You already can. The DMG already encourages DMs to alter properties of magic items, including which weapon is the underlying part of the magic weapon. If you want to do it in a very crunchy way, 3e had a very extensive system for it...it wouldn't translate completely, but porting the detailed rules could be done.
Or even better, make the enchantment movable. So if you have a DM who rolls for treasure, and you get some +1 weapon no one can use, you can move it to another weapon. Like a rune system or something.
Or a Gem Socket system like Diablo II? I don't recall how well the Diablo II rules for 2e did with that, but it shouldn't be too hard to use the 3e rules to make that workable.
I wouldn’t want to be able to stack them, but moving that +1 from one weapon to another would be great. And at that point, it would be easy to implement something like hand wraps or gloves (or boots or a headband or whatever floats your unarmed boat) to put that +1 onto for monks.
Gloves/Gauntlets/Bracers with Runes or Gems. Runes as tattoos. Fist wraps or sleeves with runes or tattoo patterns on them.
Or a Gem Socket system like Diablo II? I don't recall how well the Diablo II rules for 2e did with that, but it shouldn't be too hard to use the 3e rules to make that workable.
It's not like a Monk will never punch again if they get their hands on a magic weapon. They still have the bonus action attack and flurry of blows to make sure their fists see some action. Removing the MA die on weapons just seems like a needless nerf.
Plus you can solve the problem by just making unarmed magic items, like the eldritch claw tattoo, available in the base game, but with some other options.
This is something they should be doing anyway, as the mix of magic weapons has been abysmal for ages, as some weapon types have way more magic options than others (a quick magic item search shows longsword having 46, but warhammer has 16, though that's including all sources). The base selection of magic items should let a DM cater to any player, and that should include unarmed focused Monks.
The 3e model of magic weapons worked better imo. +s, flaming etc just determine if they can be used at range or just melee and allow them to be applied to items freely including unarmed.
...I don't see why Heightened Metabolism needs to be 7th level. It could be part of the 2nd level Martial Discipline feature. It scales automatically and Tier 1 is where you need more Discipline points...
they can't put it at level 2 for the multiclass dips. but I don't see why it's restricted to one (per long rest) at 7th or whatever.
Almost nothing regens on a SR now though except for monk points. So it doesn't matter if other classes dip to get it.
We don’t know that for sure until the UA5 revised warlock and other classes comes out. It could change back just like some other things. As far as HM goes it could be worded to only work for either discipline points or monk features (in case they have other monk subclasses that will benefit from it)
And Action Surge still resets on SR, which I don’t mind. I’m not too worried about a 2 level monk dip just for HM.
ua5 was exactly what I was thinking... second wind, action surge, and arcane recovery. also relentless rage and sorcerous restoration, if lvl15 matters.
ua6 would be bard's font of inspiration, cleric channel divinity, war priest stuff I didn't read, wildshape, aaand that's when I ran out of time
Instead of placing it at level 2 have it swap places with slow fall, so level 4. This is pretty much exactly what i wanted for warlock instead of the 1/2caster+ model. If this and the warlocks version were at level 4 its less attractive as a dip and for warlock and other casters they'd have to give up 9th level spells to get it and 2 spell levels if taken as they are leveling up. And it would really slow a fighters 3rd attack, strop them from getting a 4th etc.
It's not like a Monk will never punch again if they get their hands on a magic weapon. They still have the bonus action attack and flurry of blows to make sure their fists see some action. Removing the MA die on weapons just seems like a needless nerf.
Plus you can solve the problem by just making unarmed magic items, like the eldritch claw tattoo, available in the base game, but with some other options.
This is something they should be doing anyway, as the mix of magic weapons has been abysmal for ages, as some weapon types have way more magic options than others (a quick magic item search shows longsword having 46, but warhammer has 16, though that's including all sources). The base selection of magic items should let a DM cater to any player, and that should include unarmed focused Monks.
My thought has been to remove the weapon from the magic type; make it mix and match. So say any weapon can have the flame tongue property. Or any slashing weapon can be vorpal.
You already can. The DMG already encourages DMs to alter properties of magic items, including which weapon is the underlying part of the magic weapon. If you want to do it in a very crunchy way, 3e had a very extensive system for it...it wouldn't translate completely, but porting the detailed rules could be done.
Or even better, make the enchantment movable. So if you have a DM who rolls for treasure, and you get some +1 weapon no one can use, you can move it to another weapon. Like a rune system or something.
Or a Gem Socket system like Diablo II? I don't recall how well the Diablo II rules for 2e did with that, but it shouldn't be too hard to use the 3e rules to make that workable.
I wouldn’t want to be able to stack them, but moving that +1 from one weapon to another would be great. And at that point, it would be easy to implement something like hand wraps or gloves (or boots or a headband or whatever floats your unarmed boat) to put that +1 onto for monks.
Gloves/Gauntlets/Bracers with Runes or Gems. Runes as tattoos. Fist wraps or sleeves with runes or tattoo patterns on them.
DMs already have “permission” to do what they want, so, to my mind explicitly saying they can do what they want in this specific context isn’t really helpful. (Not that you aren’t being helpful, I’m criticizing the DMG for saying they can do something they already can do, That’s what’s not helpful).
And, I was thinking more like Dragon Age Origins, but sure Diablo could work, too. But really in a tabletop context, there doesn’t need to be a tangible object to move around. It can just be, at the end of this long rest, I move the +1 from the greatsword no one uses to this rapier. There’d be some other conditions to add, like saying ammunition can’t be used to turn 10 +1 bolts into 10 +1 swords. But some kind of mobility would be really nice. Especially since I can see lots of people in 1D&D building around certain weapons, because they want certain properties (nick in particular) and it would suck to choose between the character concept you want or a mechanically superior weapon. Or we end up back at 1 and 2e golf bag where you use your nick weapon most of the time, but then against something with resistance you have to switch. I guess there’s people who would enjoy that and consider it a tactical choice. But, well, I already played 1 and 2e and don’t really want to do that again.
This I agree with, but not for the reason you gave (solely for weapons). It should be there for the other Fighting Styles, and a few of them should be reworded to be more Monk compatible.
Reword Defense so that you get the +1 AC benefit if you are wearing armor OR have the Unarmored Defense feature.
Reword "Dueling" to "When you are wielding a melee weapon with one hand, and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage with that Melee Weapon. If you are not wielding any melee weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage with your unarmed strikes."
Reword Protection and Interception so that the Unarmored Defense feature will qualify as a substitute for a Shield. "must be wielding a shield OR have the Unarmored Defense feature and have a free hand."
"Two Weapon Fighting" isn't that useful to a Monk, but I wouldn't change it. It's just not one a Monk will need/take.
Blind Fighting, Superior Technique, and Unarmed Fighting styles all have utility for the Monk and don't need to be re-written IMO. I might add a note to "Superior Technique" that the Martial Arts feature can substitute for a weapon requirement for whichever maneuver you select.
Archery, Great Weapon Fighting, and Thrown Weapon Fighting styles are still viable for a Monk if they're choosing weapons over unarmed strikes. I wouldn't change those.
Add it to the Monk's 1sts level features. Maybe at the expense of their increased damage die compared to the 2014 Monk (because the new Dueling wording, or Unarmed Fighting style, both make up for it using the lower damage die progression). Though, if Dueling were to be reworded as above, then I would probably pick Dueling over Unarmed Fighting. But making this change basically lets the Monk choose whether they want to focus on raw damage improvement with the die boost OR flexibility with other maneuvers.
I'm less in favor of adding it to the Barbarian. Barbarians aren't about learned skilled Fighting Style, which is why I think they never got it in the pre-OneD&D rules. Barbarians are about rage and brute power as their fighting methods. But I _would_ change the requirements for the Fighting Style Feats to be "Warrior Group OR Fighting Style Feature." So I wouldn't give it to them for free, but I would let them go out of their way to get it via a Feat.
I do think its a shame they removed the ability to use martial arts die for weapons. It was one of the cooler aspects monk that they could make otherwise weak weapons more viable.
I agree. I'm not upset about it, because it causes the monk to be EXTRA focused on their unarmed strikes, which is very genre appropriate for the class's origins. But I do agree that this was a nice extra touch for the Monk, in the past. I expect that this will become a part of the Kensei subclass. If it doesn't come back to the Monk class in later revisions (at least in a Tasha style optional rule), it absolutely should be part of the Kensei subclass: For a Kensei, for all Monk weapons and the Kensei weapons, the player should get to choose between the weapon's normal damage dice or the Monk's Martial Arts die. Where the non-Kensei being more focused on unarmed strikes is more source appropriate, the Kensei being more weapon focused is also appropriate.
True. Expanding the fighting styles could help to fit in much more cases.
The Two-weapon fighting is nice for monk, getting double Kunai (Dagger) with Nick it can attack up to 4 times at level 5 (attack, extra attack, off-hand attack not using Bonus Action, and MA attack) adding in all of them your Dex bonus to damage.
Another uses are great weapon fighting, to use quarterstaff and spear, rerolling 1 and 2. If not, once you get the d8 for MA, is there any reason to use any of those weapons? The monk weapons should be a help, even on MA they are, maybe not as required as without MA. And we always have the extra MA attack with the Bonus Action.
Once you master martial arts (when the MA die is high), you could consider fighting only with your bare hands, like the masters. Then you could directly change your style to the range one.
It's not like a Monk will never punch again if they get their hands on a magic weapon. They still have the bonus action attack and flurry of blows to make sure their fists see some action. Removing the MA die on weapons just seems like a needless nerf.
Plus you can solve the problem by just making unarmed magic items, like the eldritch claw tattoo, available in the base game, but with some other options.
This is something they should be doing anyway, as the mix of magic weapons has been abysmal for ages, as some weapon types have way more magic options than others (a quick magic item search shows longsword having 46, but warhammer has 16, though that's including all sources). The base selection of magic items should let a DM cater to any player, and that should include unarmed focused Monks.
My thought has been to remove the weapon from the magic type; make it mix and match. So say any weapon can have the flame tongue property. Or any slashing weapon can be vorpal.
You already can. The DMG already encourages DMs to alter properties of magic items, including which weapon is the underlying part of the magic weapon. If you want to do it in a very crunchy way, 3e had a very extensive system for it...it wouldn't translate completely, but porting the detailed rules could be done.
Or even better, make the enchantment movable. So if you have a DM who rolls for treasure, and you get some +1 weapon no one can use, you can move it to another weapon. Like a rune system or something.
Or a Gem Socket system like Diablo II? I don't recall how well the Diablo II rules for 2e did with that, but it shouldn't be too hard to use the 3e rules to make that workable.
I wouldn’t want to be able to stack them, but moving that +1 from one weapon to another would be great. And at that point, it would be easy to implement something like hand wraps or gloves (or boots or a headband or whatever floats your unarmed boat) to put that +1 onto for monks.
Gloves/Gauntlets/Bracers with Runes or Gems. Runes as tattoos. Fist wraps or sleeves with runes or tattoo patterns on them.
DMs already have “permission” to do what they want, so, to my mind explicitly saying they can do what they want in this specific context isn’t really helpful. (Not that you aren’t being helpful, I’m criticizing the DMG for saying they can do something they already can do, That’s what’s not helpful).
And, I was thinking more like Dragon Age Origins, but sure Diablo could work, too. But really in a tabletop context, there doesn’t need to be a tangible object to move around. It can just be, at the end of this long rest, I move the +1 from the greatsword no one uses to this rapier. There’d be some other conditions to add, like saying ammunition can’t be used to turn 10 +1 bolts into 10 +1 swords. But some kind of mobility would be really nice. Especially since I can see lots of people in 1D&D building around certain weapons, because they want certain properties (nick in particular) and it would suck to choose between the character concept you want or a mechanically superior weapon. Or we end up back at 1 and 2e golf bag where you use your nick weapon most of the time, but then against something with resistance you have to switch. I guess there’s people who would enjoy that and consider it a tactical choice. But, well, I already played 1 and 2e and don’t really want to do that again.
I like the idea of being able to move around enchantments, but I don't think it should be something you just do during a long rest (except maybe as a ribbon Artificer feature). There should be guidelines for going to an enchanter and paying money to get certain enchantments taken from one weapon and given to another. Maybe something like a fourth of the value of the item.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I like the idea of being able to move around enchantments, but I don't think it should be something you just do during a long rest (except maybe as a ribbon Artificer feature). There should be guidelines for going to an enchanter and paying money to get certain enchantments taken from one weapon and given to another. Maybe something like a fourth of the value of the item.
Every so often, Homebrewers accidentally create Pathfinder 2e again. I'm joking, of course, but a system to move enchantments around from undesirable weapons to desired ones like PF2e does would be a better system. For a different, Monk unique method, I once suggested as a fix was that they could use their Ki to copy a weapon or armor's enchantments onto their body, thus ensuring magical loot isn't unimportant to them.
I also thought that Monk would get the ability to put a Weapon Mastery onto their unarmed strikes. It seems like the most obvious choice for the Monk, who is a member of the Warrior group which are supposed to be the masters of mundane combat, to be able to interact with the Weapon Mastery system a little more. But no, if you wanna punch someone, it can't be more complicated than bigger dice.
But not all Monks want to fight unarmed. Imagine a Shadow Monk, characterized as a ninja, that is a tortle dual wielding katanas. Should a player feel forced into Unarmed Strikes merely because they are optimal, even if the character design or loot dropped encourage weapons? In my opinion, the design should support both weapons and Unarmed Strikes, to the point that players are satisfied with either.
Weapons don't need any extra support. Find a +3 quarterstaff, and you deal an average 7 damage, which is better than unarmed d12, has an additional +3 to hit over unarmed fighting, weapon mastery, and god knows what additional effects. Bare fists have to compete with magic weapons, otherwise they'll always be subpar and never used in a class that is supposed to be about fighting unarmed first and foremost. Because for people who want to fight with weapons, almost any class will work, even wizard. But for people who want to fight unarmed, there was just one option - to play monk and suck. Now there's dancer bard, though.
Weapons don't need any extra support. Find a +3 quarterstaff, and you deal an average 7 damage, which is better than unarmed d12, has an additional +3 to hit over unarmed fighting, weapon mastery, and god knows what additional effects. Bare fists have to compete with magic weapons, otherwise they'll always be subpar and never used in a class that is supposed to be about fighting unarmed first and foremost. Because for people who want to fight with weapons, almost any class will work, even wizard. But for people who want to fight unarmed, there was just one option - to play monk and suck. Now there's dancer bard, though.
Excluding weapons from the Martial Arts dice doesn't solve that problem though, as we still don't have an equivalent to a +3 weapon, and there are plenty of weapons that already have the same or better damage dice anyway so it's not like this really closes the gap.
If the problem is not enough magic weapon equivalents for unarmed, then the solution is more magic weapon equivalents for unarmed; any other "solution" is just avoiding the real issue. Because you can't fix a magic item related problem with class features, as the rate at which DMs hand out magic items is entirely separate (some are more generous than others, some will give tailored items, others random etc.).
This is why magic items need a rethink; I'd love a modular system, but I'd settle for the mix simply being more balanced between casters and non-casters, and more balanced between weapon types (with unarmed considered to be a weapon in its own right).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
There's no going around the magical weapon issue. Bare fists have to compete or they'll be useless. Regarding the rate at which they're given - yes, it's up to DM, but it's pretty standartized in published adventures, all according to magic item rarity rable in the DMG.
I think I could live with MA die not on weapons, depending on how they revise weapon masteries.
Also I think the two handed restriction to use DEX instead of STR on simple weapons is not needed. Spear and quarterstaff do d8 (WM lets you use d8 one handed). And the feature is restricted to Simple Weapons anyway so even if you could get martial proficiency you still couldn’t use DEX on two handed martial weapons.
But not all Monks want to fight unarmed. Imagine a Shadow Monk, characterized as a ninja, that is a tortle dual wielding katanas. Should a player feel forced into Unarmed Strikes merely because they are optimal, even if the character design or loot dropped encourage weapons? In my opinion, the design should support both weapons and Unarmed Strikes, to the point that players are satisfied with either.
It's not like a Monk will never punch again if they get their hands on a magic weapon. They still have the bonus action attack and flurry of blows to make sure their fists see some action. Removing the MA die on weapons just seems like a needless nerf.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
An alternative to monk weapons is for weapons to have an alternate die at certain levels: (This upgrades weapons with a very small die, such as daggers.)
From level 5: 1d6 (Average Damage: 3.5)
From level 15: 2d4 (Average Damage: 5)
In this way some weapons are benefited without equaling or surpassing unarmed blows (But perhaps it unnecessarily complexes the monk.)
That's what the Kensei subclass is for, IMO. And the Kensei _should_ get the Martial Arts die for weapon damage. But I don't see any reason that it MUST be a non-Kensei feature.
So, basically, Leo doesn't 100% work as a single classed D&D character. It's not like D&D is obligated to fully support non-D&D fiction. Look at the lack of a true/pure ATLA class.
For Leo, Kensei/Assassin, Kensei/Gloomstalker, or Kensei/Shadow-Sorcerer (after all, a Kensei is a "sword saint", Kensei is literally made for Leo). After all, for Donny you have to multiclass too (Artificer/Monk).
Plus you can solve the problem by just making unarmed magic items, like the eldritch claw tattoo, available in the base game, but with some other options.
This is something they should be doing anyway, as the mix of magic weapons has been abysmal for ages, as some weapon types have way more magic options than others (a quick magic item search shows longsword having 46, but warhammer has 16, though that's including all sources). The base selection of magic items should let a DM cater to any player, and that should include unarmed focused Monks.
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 can see that argument, but I also think the fantasy of a monk-type character using weapons is a popular enough archetype to support it in the base rules. I wouldve been behind the change if the kensei subclass was included, but it appears it isnt.
Considering the monks relationship to weapons has fundamentally changed, including an updated "weapons monk" seems like an obvious choice
My thought has been to remove the weapon from the magic type; make it mix and match. So say any weapon can have the flame tongue property. Or any slashing weapon can be vorpal.
Or even better, make the enchantment movable. So if you have a DM who rolls for treasure, and you get some +1 weapon no one can use, you can move it to another weapon. Like a rune system or something. I wouldn’t want to be able to stack them, but moving that +1 from one weapon to another would be great.
And at that point, it would be easy to implement something like hand wraps or gloves (or boots or a headband or whatever floats your unarmed boat) to put that +1 onto for monks.
ua5 was exactly what I was thinking... second wind, action surge, and arcane recovery. also relentless rage and sorcerous restoration, if lvl15 matters.
ua6 would be bard's font of inspiration, cleric channel divinity, war priest stuff I didn't read, wildshape, aaand that's when I ran out of time
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!
You already can. The DMG already encourages DMs to alter properties of magic items, including which weapon is the underlying part of the magic weapon.
If you want to do it in a very crunchy way, 3e had a very extensive system for it...it wouldn't translate completely, but porting the detailed rules could be done.
Or a Gem Socket system like Diablo II? I don't recall how well the Diablo II rules for 2e did with that, but it shouldn't be too hard to use the 3e rules to make that workable.
Gloves/Gauntlets/Bracers with Runes or Gems. Runes as tattoos. Fist wraps or sleeves with runes or tattoo patterns on them.
Or just declare it that way. Ruby of the War Mage already exists as a template.
The 3e model of magic weapons worked better imo. +s, flaming etc just determine if they can be used at range or just melee and allow them to be applied to items freely including unarmed.
Instead of placing it at level 2 have it swap places with slow fall, so level 4. This is pretty much exactly what i wanted for warlock instead of the 1/2caster+ model. If this and the warlocks version were at level 4 its less attractive as a dip and for warlock and other casters they'd have to give up 9th level spells to get it and 2 spell levels if taken as they are leveling up. And it would really slow a fighters 3rd attack, strop them from getting a 4th etc.
DMs already have “permission” to do what they want, so, to my mind explicitly saying they can do what they want in this specific context isn’t really helpful. (Not that you aren’t being helpful, I’m criticizing the DMG for saying they can do something they already can do, That’s what’s not helpful).
And, I was thinking more like Dragon Age Origins, but sure Diablo could work, too. But really in a tabletop context, there doesn’t need to be a tangible object to move around. It can just be, at the end of this long rest, I move the +1 from the greatsword no one uses to this rapier. There’d be some other conditions to add, like saying ammunition can’t be used to turn 10 +1 bolts into 10 +1 swords. But some kind of mobility would be really nice.
Especially since I can see lots of people in 1D&D building around certain weapons, because they want certain properties (nick in particular) and it would suck to choose between the character concept you want or a mechanically superior weapon. Or we end up back at 1 and 2e golf bag where you use your nick weapon most of the time, but then against something with resistance you have to switch. I guess there’s people who would enjoy that and consider it a tactical choice. But, well, I already played 1 and 2e and don’t really want to do that again.
True. Expanding the fighting styles could help to fit in much more cases.
The Two-weapon fighting is nice for monk, getting double Kunai (Dagger) with Nick it can attack up to 4 times at level 5 (attack, extra attack, off-hand attack not using Bonus Action, and MA attack) adding in all of them your Dex bonus to damage.
Another uses are great weapon fighting, to use quarterstaff and spear, rerolling 1 and 2. If not, once you get the d8 for MA, is there any reason to use any of those weapons? The monk weapons should be a help, even on MA they are, maybe not as required as without MA. And we always have the extra MA attack with the Bonus Action.
Once you master martial arts (when the MA die is high), you could consider fighting only with your bare hands, like the masters. Then you could directly change your style to the range one.
I like the idea of being able to move around enchantments, but I don't think it should be something you just do during a long rest (except maybe as a ribbon Artificer feature). There should be guidelines for going to an enchanter and paying money to get certain enchantments taken from one weapon and given to another. Maybe something like a fourth of the value of the item.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Every so often, Homebrewers accidentally create Pathfinder 2e again. I'm joking, of course, but a system to move enchantments around from undesirable weapons to desired ones like PF2e does would be a better system. For a different, Monk unique method, I once suggested as a fix was that they could use their Ki to copy a weapon or armor's enchantments onto their body, thus ensuring magical loot isn't unimportant to them.
I also thought that Monk would get the ability to put a Weapon Mastery onto their unarmed strikes. It seems like the most obvious choice for the Monk, who is a member of the Warrior group which are supposed to be the masters of mundane combat, to be able to interact with the Weapon Mastery system a little more. But no, if you wanna punch someone, it can't be more complicated than bigger dice.
Weapons don't need any extra support. Find a +3 quarterstaff, and you deal an average 7 damage, which is better than unarmed d12, has an additional +3 to hit over unarmed fighting, weapon mastery, and god knows what additional effects. Bare fists have to compete with magic weapons, otherwise they'll always be subpar and never used in a class that is supposed to be about fighting unarmed first and foremost. Because for people who want to fight with weapons, almost any class will work, even wizard. But for people who want to fight unarmed, there was just one option - to play monk and suck. Now there's dancer bard, though.
Excluding weapons from the Martial Arts dice doesn't solve that problem though, as we still don't have an equivalent to a +3 weapon, and there are plenty of weapons that already have the same or better damage dice anyway so it's not like this really closes the gap.
If the problem is not enough magic weapon equivalents for unarmed, then the solution is more magic weapon equivalents for unarmed; any other "solution" is just avoiding the real issue. Because you can't fix a magic item related problem with class features, as the rate at which DMs hand out magic items is entirely separate (some are more generous than others, some will give tailored items, others random etc.).
This is why magic items need a rethink; I'd love a modular system, but I'd settle for the mix simply being more balanced between casters and non-casters, and more balanced between weapon types (with unarmed considered to be a weapon in its own right).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
There's no going around the magical weapon issue. Bare fists have to compete or they'll be useless. Regarding the rate at which they're given - yes, it's up to DM, but it's pretty standartized in published adventures, all according to magic item rarity rable in the DMG.
I think I could live with MA die not on weapons, depending on how they revise weapon masteries.
Also I think the two handed restriction to use DEX instead of STR on simple weapons is not needed. Spear and quarterstaff do d8 (WM lets you use d8 one handed). And the feature is restricted to Simple Weapons anyway so even if you could get martial proficiency you still couldn’t use DEX on two handed martial weapons.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?