I've always thought that, to compare martials and casters, it is more accurate to
1.) start with a fresh character following a long rest
2.) write each item separately (instead of writing "20 arrows" or whatever)
3.) set e = some percentage
4.) go down the list of expendable items and roll a percentile die. If you roll over e, that line item is counted as expended.
5.) show what remains on each character sheet and write the value of e
with the [perceived power of] martial [classes] vs [the perceived power of] caster [classes] context, is this a recommendation that spell component stores should degrade faster in the field than most tables account for?
* quiver of arrows ... 73% * sharpening stone ... 92% * lock picks ... 47% * beeswax and bat guano ... 23% (critically low!) * fist discipline ... 102% * etc...
I've always thought that, to compare martials and casters, it is more accurate to
1.) start with a fresh character following a long rest
2.) write each item separately (instead of writing "20 arrows" or whatever)
3.) set e = some percentage
4.) go down the list of expendable items and roll a percentile die. If you roll over e, that line item is counted as expended.
5.) show what remains on each character sheet and write the value of e
with the martial vs caster context, is this a recommendation that spell component stores should degrade faster in the field than most tables account for?
* quiver of arrows ... 73% * sharpening stone ... 92% * lock picks ... 47% * beeswax and bat guano ... 23% (critically low!) * fist discipline ... 102% * etc...
I try not to add any more complexity than is necessary. Realism is not the goal, comprehension is. Too much realism causes comprehension to drop.
The context for my comparison is a fight between two parties. Things like sharpening stones and lock picks are irrelevant. I don't know any tables where components are tracked. A spell component pouch is considered to be one item, not a bundle. However, it is player's choice to track individual components instead. At a sufficient level, the Wizard can keep backups of certain items at his tower or in a magic chest, magic haversack, whatever. He'll need to account for haversacks, backup spellbooks, etc. and things like them in his magic item allotment for the fight. He'll also have to keep Teleport memorized if he is relllying on backups from his tower.
I'm not sure what you did to get the following
* quiver of arrows ... 73% * sharpening stone ... 92% * lock picks ... 47% * beeswax and bat guano ... 23% (critically low!) * fist discipline ... 102% * etc...
...I'm not sure what you did to get the following...
i used my imagination to try and piece together where talk of tracking resources (or not tracking resources but with math) entered the discussion. nevermind. i'll yield the remainder of my time to monk talk.
[edit: to be clear, the martial/caster debate being referenced is a "who is more capable in combat (and sometimes utility) situations" pissing contest where one side is literally able to conjure a stream of water which far exceeds the other side's more mundane functionality.]
With the current 5eR UA monk, Kensei and Astral need rewrites. Can you homebrew the adjustment for Kensei easily, yes, but you shouldn’t have to do that. The game is meant to backwards compatible and not just with adventures and settings as I previously believed. Astral self had its deflect energy feature given to all monks, so the subclass needs a new feature.
Oh, yeah, monk weapons ceasing to exist is a problem for backwards compatibility. It is an issue that can be solved by the DM and the player, but that shouldn't be the case. Now we have to wait until every other monk subclass is released for them to be actually usable with the UA version of the monk (technically, ki points no longer exist, we get discipline points, so we shouldn't be able to use ki features).
I used to think that OneDnD was supposed to be compatible with everything that came from 2014 PHB forwards, but since WotC does not seem to have any insight about future planning nor proofreading (and here I thought Konami was unbeatable in this regard with Yu-Gi-Oh!), then we get this fragmented mess of a playtest.
However, I still think that we must focus on the new subclasses (from this UA onwards) when talking about the state of the class. As is, the only non-viable (or more problematic, if you wish) monk to play is Hand, Elements could use some help with the level 17 feature (it's basically the combination of two level 11 features and a 2nd level spell) but it looks fairly decent nonetheless, and Shadow is, by far, the best thing I have seen for the monk in this UA.
With the current 5eR UA monk, Kensei and Astral need rewrites. Can you homebrew the adjustment for Kensei easily, yes, but you shouldn’t have to do that. The game is meant to backwards compatible and not just with adventures and settings as I previously believed. Astral self had its deflect energy feature given to all monks, so the subclass needs a new feature.
I agree that the whole “monk weapon” issue is easily resolved by a DM but shouldn’t have to. And I’m sure it will be addressed in the next iteration of the monk. Something as simple as adding to Dexterous Attacks a line saying simple weapons that don’t have the two handed property are considered monk weapons, can fix it. Then anything that references monk weapons will apply.
Astral self will need a rewrite but could be handled similar to what they’ve said in videos where they will put advice on some changes. Like they mentioned specifically where you see race in the old book it is now species (or whatever they settle on). They could say for Astral Self until the revised version is released, replace deflect energy, as part of Body of the Astral Self, with X.
(technically, ki points no longer exist, we get discipline points, so we shouldn't be able to use ki features).
If you have a DM that is going to be that strict you should probably find a different table, lol.
Like monk weapon = weapon which you have proficiency. Sounds more natural to me than the imposed “simple weapons”.
And I’d grant at least 1 martial weapon to the class at level 1 so the monk could get all those combat feats with the current requirements, while they “reprint it” ;)
In any case is not good to have to homebrew so much, we will wait until the final rules, but currently have no few flaws.
"Currently have no few flaws" is a very gentle way of saying what a dumpster fire this monk iteration is)
In my humble opinion, monks should just have martial weapons proficiency baseline (working through Dex), and unarmed fighting as an alternative.
So under the new UA if a monk multiclassed into fighter the they could not add dex modifier to any of the versatile martial weapons and they could not even perform stunning strike with any martial weapon even if proficient. The monks restriction to simple weapons only also prevents them from using a whole lot of awesome magic weapons which are much needed to help keep the monk from falling even farther behind. Aaaand.....I believe there are a number of feats that the monk can no longer use because of the restriction to simple weapons only. That all seems a bit unecessary. My vote is a return to monk weapons. 100%.
In my humble opinion, monks should just have martial weapons proficiency baseline (working through Dex), and unarmed fighting as an alternative.
Monk has been the unarmed combat class, with extremely limited weapon options, since it was first introduced (in, I think, 1977). There are issues with the monk, but being designed to focus on unarmed combat and simple weapons isn't one of them, that's just doing what the class was meant to do.
So under the new UA if a monk multiclassed into fighter the they could not add dex modifier to any of the versatile martial weapons and they could not even perform stunning strike with any martial weapon even if proficient. The monks restriction to simple weapons only also prevents them from using a whole lot of awesome magic weapons which are much needed to help keep the monk from falling even farther behind. Aaaand.....I believe there are a number of feats that the monk can no longer use because of the restriction to simple weapons only. That all seems a bit unecessary. My vote is a return to monk weapons. 100%.
I have a feeling that Feats may get the martial weapon restriction removed. But if they don't I feel pretty confident that Kensei, when it is released, will be able to get martial weapons that they can use Dex to attack and damage, just like they do now. And they will be the subclass to go for martial weapon monks/feat users.
Probably the easiest is if they put in Dexterous Attacks, a line that says Simple weapons without the Two Handed property are monk weapons, for backwards compatibility.
No, seriously. If you just want the Monk to be a master-of-all-weapons pure-DPR attacker, just play a Fighter instead. If the Fighter is exactly what you want the Monk to be, play a Fighter.
Why always so judgemental?
One of the major problems with 5e as a whole is the limited design space; when it comes down to it a lot of classes are very similar. For example, Cleric and Druid are like 90% the same aside from Channel Divinity and Wildshape, Paladins are just a Fighter/Cleric multiclass but far better (and arguably better than both Cleric and Fighter individually depending upon what you want to do). Every class has one or more sub-classes that make them a bit more like another class, there's always been loads of crossover.
Monks getting martial weapons proficiency, or at least more weapons proficiency can enable them to use weapons that are appropriate for monks to actually use. And it doesn't diminish Fighter in any way; the apparent intention with Fighter is that it's the "more of the same" (i.e- double down on attacking) martial class, while Monk is supposed to be an agile with mystical powers pure martial, though in Monk's case it has never realised that potential.
A Monk using a glaive + Ki/Discipline powers can absolutely be different enough from a Fighter who uses the same glaive but attacks with it more, get more benefits from mastery etc. to justify having both. Certainly if we can justify keeping Cleric and Druid (rather than rolling Druid back into Cleric) and having Paladin and Ranger as their own classes etc.
Personally I dunno if adding the extra proficiency to the base class is the best option, but we definitely need an update to Kensei to have a weapon focused Monk, and it makes sense to support it in the base class in case they ever want to release a second weapon monk, or some kind of hybrid.
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.
One of the major problems with 5e as a whole is the limited design space; when it comes down to it a lot of classes are very similar. For example, Cleric and Druid are like 90% the same aside from Channel Divinity and Wildshape, Paladins are just a Fighter/Cleric multiclass but far better (and arguably better than both Cleric and Fighter individually depending upon what you want to do). Every class has one or more sub-classes that make them a bit more like another class, there's always been loads of crossover.
Umm... no? Druid has way more battlefield control spells and summoning than Cleric, while Cleric is WAY better in melee than druid. They really don't play the same at all. Druid excels at party transport, scouting, and battlefield control with healing on top of that. Cleric excels at party buffs and healing with melee DPR on top of that.
Paladins excel as the party face, tank, and nova dpr with buffs and healing on top, whereas Fighter has far better sustained DPR but sacrifice all the rest for that, Fighter/Cleric lacks the tanking that Paladins have and their nova DPR is paltry by comparison, plus their healing is very different. Paladins get 1 person back in the fight whereas Cleric is better at emergency healing the whole party.
It's really only Rogue-Ranger and Sorcerer-Wizard that have a lot of overlap.
That said, monk absolutely needs at minimum the weapon proficiency of Pact of the Blade Warlock.
No, seriously. If you just want the Monk to be a master-of-all-weapons pure-DPR attacker, just play a Fighter instead. If the Fighter is exactly what you want the Monk to be, play a Fighter.
I used to advocate for the same argument a couple of months ago, but I kinda lost faith in WotC's capability of handling unarmed combat. Also, who's talking about being master of all weapons? Just having actual use for weapon mastery, the warrior classes' defining feature, is enough. Simple weapons just don't provide enough options. Also, there isn't such a thing as "DPR" classes. Everyone needs a capability to be competitive, especially warriors. I don't find the idea of a "skirmisher" that runs around battlefield collecting AoOs instead of fighting viable.
No, seriously. If you just want the Monk to be a master-of-all-weapons pure-DPR attacker, just play a Fighter instead. If the Fighter is exactly what you want the Monk to be, play a Fighter.
I used to advocate for the same argument a couple of months ago, but I kinda lost faith in WotC's capability of handling unarmed combat. Also, who's talking about being master of all weapons? Just having actual use for weapon mastery, the warrior classes' defining feature, is enough. Simple weapons just don't provide enough options. Also, there isn't such a thing as "DPR" classes. Everyone needs a capability to be competitive, especially warriors. I don't find the idea of a "skirmisher" that runs around battlefield collecting AoOs instead of fighting viable.
Weapon mastery is not the defining feature of the warrior classes. Equal classes that are not in the warrior group have access to it. Honestly I think full casters are the only classes that don’t get it.
No, seriously. If you just want the Monk to be a master-of-all-weapons pure-DPR attacker, just play a Fighter instead. If the Fighter is exactly what you want the Monk to be, play a Fighter.
I used to advocate for the same argument a couple of months ago, but I kinda lost faith in WotC's capability of handling unarmed combat. Also, who's talking about being master of all weapons? Just having actual use for weapon mastery, the warrior classes' defining feature, is enough. Simple weapons just don't provide enough options. Also, there isn't such a thing as "DPR" classes. Everyone needs a capability to be competitive, especially warriors. I don't find the idea of a "skirmisher" that runs around battlefield collecting AoOs instead of fighting viable.
Weapon mastery is not the defining feature of the warrior classes. Equal classes that are not in the warrior group have access to it. Honestly I think full casters are the only classes that don’t get it.
Not even that. War Cleric gets it at 3rd level.
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)
One of the major problems with 5e as a whole is the limited design space; when it comes down to it a lot of classes are very similar. For example, Cleric and Druid are like 90% the same aside from Channel Divinity and Wildshape, Paladins are just a Fighter/Cleric multiclass but far better (and arguably better than both Cleric and Fighter individually depending upon what you want to do). Every class has one or more sub-classes that make them a bit more like another class, there's always been loads of crossover.
Umm... no? Druid has way more battlefield control spells and summoning than Cleric, while Cleric is WAY better in melee than druid. They really don't play the same at all. Druid excels at party transport, scouting, and battlefield control with healing on top of that. Cleric excels at party buffs and healing with melee DPR on top of that.
Paladins excel as the party face, tank, and nova dpr with buffs and healing on top, whereas Fighter has far better sustained DPR but sacrifice all the rest for that, Fighter/Cleric lacks the tanking that Paladins have and their nova DPR is paltry by comparison, plus their healing is very different. Paladins get 1 person back in the fight whereas Cleric is better at emergency healing the whole party.
It's really only Rogue-Ranger and Sorcerer-Wizard that have a lot of overlap.
That said, monk absolutely needs at minimum the weapon proficiency of Pact of the Blade Warlock.
To the blade warlock comment, I don't necessarily agree. I think for the most part Simple weapons are fine. They should take the Two-Handed property restriction away, so monks have a Push mastery option with Greatclub. And Dexterous Attacks should use the martial arts die on Simple Weapons (Kensei would have it granted to any weapon they choose). And Unarmed Strikes should have a few of the weapon property options. Basically, you would steal options from Open Hand Technique (Push, Topple) which covers two weapon masteries, and grant them a few other options, like Sap, Slow, Vex. Warrior of the Hand would get new OHT options to go along with Addle (which shouldn't have a save. None of OHT should, as its that subclasses specialty) like possibly Cleave, Graze, and Nick.
No, seriously. If you just want the Monk to be a master-of-all-weapons pure-DPR attacker, just play a Fighter instead. If the Fighter is exactly what you want the Monk to be, play a Fighter.
I used to advocate for the same argument a couple of months ago, but I kinda lost faith in WotC's capability of handling unarmed combat. Also, who's talking about being master of all weapons? Just having actual use for weapon mastery, the warrior classes' defining feature, is enough. Simple weapons just don't provide enough options. Also, there isn't such a thing as "DPR" classes. Everyone needs a capability to be competitive, especially warriors. I don't find the idea of a "skirmisher" that runs around battlefield collecting AoOs instead of fighting viable.
If they remove the Two Handed restriction monks would have access to 6 of the 9 weapon properties. It leaves out Cleave, Graze, and Topple, which I think would be just fine if Kensei could use any martial weapon as their "Kensei Weapon" with no restrictions on property. Give monks the Dedicated Weapon feature with the restriction, no Heavy (Special was removed in the UA from properties), so they can use one Martial weapon. Let the Kensei have the Heavy weapons.
If they remove the Two Handed restriction monks would have access to 6 of the 9 weapon properties. It leaves out Cleave, Graze, and Topple, which I think would be just fine if Kensei could use any martial weapon as their "Kensei Weapon" with no restrictions on property. Give monks the Dedicated Weapon feature with the restriction, no Heavy (Special was removed in the UA from properties), so they can use one Martial weapon. Let the Kensei have the Heavy weapons.
The problem with that is that the Lance is by far the best option for them then, and a monk wielding a Lance is very unthematic (TBH I wish they would make Lances only viable on horseback). But halberds, glaives, longswords, are all pretty iconic samurai weapons for the Kensei.
If I was remaking the Kensei, I'd simply give them something like this:
Kensei Weapons
You gain one of the feats below, you are proficient in any weapon that benefits from that feat and can use your Dexterity instead of your Strength for attacks and damage rolls with that weapon. You can use your Martial Arts die in place of the weapon damage die for attacks with these weapons.
If they remove the Two Handed restriction monks would have access to 6 of the 9 weapon properties. It leaves out Cleave, Graze, and Topple, which I think would be just fine if Kensei could use any martial weapon as their "Kensei Weapon" with no restrictions on property. Give monks the Dedicated Weapon feature with the restriction, no Heavy (Special was removed in the UA from properties), so they can use one Martial weapon. Let the Kensei have the Heavy weapons.
The problem with that is that the Lance is by far the best option for them then, and a monk wielding a Lance is very unthematic (TBH I wish they would make Lances only viable on horseback). But halberds, glaives, longswords, are all pretty iconic samurai weapons for the Kensei.
If I was remaking the Kensei, I'd simply give them something like this:
Kensei Weapons
You gain one of the feats below, you are proficient in any weapon that benefits from that feat and can use your Dexterity instead of your Strength for attacks and damage rolls with that weapon. You can use your Martial Arts die in place of the weapon damage die for attacks with these weapons.
Feat: Fighting Style - Dueling
Feat: Polearm Master
Feat: Sharpshooter
Other than the difference between Topple, Cleave, and Graze I really don't see the difference between Lance, Halberd or Glaive. Is lance really the optimal option?
As for thematic, there's more than one way to make a monk. Flavor is free and you are not obligated to fit a narrow ideal for a class. So that's not an issue for me, personally.
If they remove the Two Handed restriction monks would have access to 6 of the 9 weapon properties. It leaves out Cleave, Graze, and Topple, which I think would be just fine if Kensei could use any martial weapon as their "Kensei Weapon" with no restrictions on property. Give monks the Dedicated Weapon feature with the restriction, no Heavy (Special was removed in the UA from properties), so they can use one Martial weapon. Let the Kensei have the Heavy weapons.
The problem with that is that the Lance is by far the best option for them then, and a monk wielding a Lance is very unthematic (TBH I wish they would make Lances only viable on horseback). But halberds, glaives, longswords, are all pretty iconic samurai weapons for the Kensei.
If I was remaking the Kensei, I'd simply give them something like this:
Kensei Weapons
You gain one of the feats below, you are proficient in any weapon that benefits from that feat and can use your Dexterity instead of your Strength for attacks and damage rolls with that weapon. You can use your Martial Arts die in place of the weapon damage die for attacks with these weapons.
Feat: Fighting Style - Dueling
Feat: Polearm Master
Feat: Sharpshooter
Other than the difference between Topple, Cleave, and Graze I really don't see the difference between Lance, Halberd or Glaive. Is lance really the optimal option?
As for thematic, there's more than one way to make a monk. Flavor is free and you are not obligated to fit a narrow ideal for a class. So that's not an issue for me, personally.
The idea of the feats is interesting.
Oh.. my bad, I just noticed they gave Lance the Heavy property in the UA so never mind, it would be excluded along with Halberd and Glaive. Leaving only martial Non-Heavy weapons are:
Battleaxe, Flail, Longsword, Morningstar, Rapier, Scimitar, Trident, War Pick, Warhammer, and Whip (plus the crossbows & guns)
But what matters the Kensai if the base monk is not fixed? All last posts are like if we should make a (fixed) Kensai to stop arguing against the monk state. What matters if the Kensai can get Martial Weapon and then all the combat feats, if the base monk cannot?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
with the [perceived power of] martial [classes] vs [the perceived power of] caster [classes] context, is this a recommendation that spell component stores should degrade faster in the field than most tables account for?
* quiver of arrows ... 73%
* sharpening stone ... 92%
* lock picks ... 47%
* beeswax and bat guano ... 23% (critically low!)
* fist discipline ... 102%
* etc...
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!
I try not to add any more complexity than is necessary. Realism is not the goal, comprehension is. Too much realism causes comprehension to drop.
The context for my comparison is a fight between two parties. Things like sharpening stones and lock picks are irrelevant. I don't know any tables where components are tracked. A spell component pouch is considered to be one item, not a bundle. However, it is player's choice to track individual components instead. At a sufficient level, the Wizard can keep backups of certain items at his tower or in a magic chest, magic haversack, whatever. He'll need to account for haversacks, backup spellbooks, etc. and things like them in his magic item allotment for the fight. He'll also have to keep Teleport memorized if he is relllying on backups from his tower.
I'm not sure what you did to get the following
* quiver of arrows ... 73%
* sharpening stone ... 92%
* lock picks ... 47%
* beeswax and bat guano ... 23% (critically low!)
* fist discipline ... 102%
* etc...
i used my imagination to try and piece together where talk of tracking resources (or not tracking resources but with math) entered the discussion. nevermind. i'll yield the remainder of my time to monk talk.
[edit: to be clear, the martial/caster debate being referenced is a "who is more capable in combat (and sometimes utility) situations" pissing contest where one side is literally able to conjure a stream of water which far exceeds the other side's more mundane functionality.]
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!
With the current 5eR UA monk, Kensei and Astral need rewrites. Can you homebrew the adjustment for Kensei easily, yes, but you shouldn’t have to do that. The game is meant to backwards compatible and not just with adventures and settings as I previously believed. Astral self had its deflect energy feature given to all monks, so the subclass needs a new feature.
Oh, yeah, monk weapons ceasing to exist is a problem for backwards compatibility. It is an issue that can be solved by the DM and the player, but that shouldn't be the case. Now we have to wait until every other monk subclass is released for them to be actually usable with the UA version of the monk (technically, ki points no longer exist, we get discipline points, so we shouldn't be able to use ki features).
I used to think that OneDnD was supposed to be compatible with everything that came from 2014 PHB forwards, but since WotC does not seem to have any insight about future planning nor proofreading (and here I thought Konami was unbeatable in this regard with Yu-Gi-Oh!), then we get this fragmented mess of a playtest.
However, I still think that we must focus on the new subclasses (from this UA onwards) when talking about the state of the class. As is, the only non-viable (or more problematic, if you wish) monk to play is Hand, Elements could use some help with the level 17 feature (it's basically the combination of two level 11 features and a 2nd level spell) but it looks fairly decent nonetheless, and Shadow is, by far, the best thing I have seen for the monk in this UA.
I agree that the whole “monk weapon” issue is easily resolved by a DM but shouldn’t have to. And I’m sure it will be addressed in the next iteration of the monk. Something as simple as adding to Dexterous Attacks a line saying simple weapons that don’t have the two handed property are considered monk weapons, can fix it. Then anything that references monk weapons will apply.
Astral self will need a rewrite but could be handled similar to what they’ve said in videos where they will put advice on some changes. Like they mentioned specifically where you see race in the old book it is now species (or whatever they settle on). They could say for Astral Self until the revised version is released, replace deflect energy, as part of Body of the Astral Self, with X.
If you have a DM that is going to be that strict you should probably find a different table, lol.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
"Currently have no few flaws" is a very gentle way of saying what a dumpster fire this monk iteration is)
In my humble opinion, monks should just have martial weapons proficiency baseline (working through Dex), and unarmed fighting as an alternative.
So under the new UA if a monk multiclassed into fighter the they could not add dex modifier to any of the versatile martial weapons and they could not even perform stunning strike with any martial weapon even if proficient. The monks restriction to simple weapons only also prevents them from using a whole lot of awesome magic weapons which are much needed to help keep the monk from falling even farther behind. Aaaand.....I believe there are a number of feats that the monk can no longer use because of the restriction to simple weapons only. That all seems a bit unecessary. My vote is a return to monk weapons. 100%.
Monk has been the unarmed combat class, with extremely limited weapon options, since it was first introduced (in, I think, 1977). There are issues with the monk, but being designed to focus on unarmed combat and simple weapons isn't one of them, that's just doing what the class was meant to do.
I have a feeling that Feats may get the martial weapon restriction removed. But if they don't I feel pretty confident that Kensei, when it is released, will be able to get martial weapons that they can use Dex to attack and damage, just like they do now. And they will be the subclass to go for martial weapon monks/feat users.
Probably the easiest is if they put in Dexterous Attacks, a line that says Simple weapons without the Two Handed property are monk weapons, for backwards compatibility.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Why always so judgemental?
One of the major problems with 5e as a whole is the limited design space; when it comes down to it a lot of classes are very similar. For example, Cleric and Druid are like 90% the same aside from Channel Divinity and Wildshape, Paladins are just a Fighter/Cleric multiclass but far better (and arguably better than both Cleric and Fighter individually depending upon what you want to do). Every class has one or more sub-classes that make them a bit more like another class, there's always been loads of crossover.
Monks getting martial weapons proficiency, or at least more weapons proficiency can enable them to use weapons that are appropriate for monks to actually use. And it doesn't diminish Fighter in any way; the apparent intention with Fighter is that it's the "more of the same" (i.e- double down on attacking) martial class, while Monk is supposed to be an agile with mystical powers pure martial, though in Monk's case it has never realised that potential.
A Monk using a glaive + Ki/Discipline powers can absolutely be different enough from a Fighter who uses the same glaive but attacks with it more, get more benefits from mastery etc. to justify having both. Certainly if we can justify keeping Cleric and Druid (rather than rolling Druid back into Cleric) and having Paladin and Ranger as their own classes etc.
Personally I dunno if adding the extra proficiency to the base class is the best option, but we definitely need an update to Kensei to have a weapon focused Monk, and it makes sense to support it in the base class in case they ever want to release a second weapon monk, or some kind of hybrid.
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.
Umm... no? Druid has way more battlefield control spells and summoning than Cleric, while Cleric is WAY better in melee than druid. They really don't play the same at all. Druid excels at party transport, scouting, and battlefield control with healing on top of that. Cleric excels at party buffs and healing with melee DPR on top of that.
Paladins excel as the party face, tank, and nova dpr with buffs and healing on top, whereas Fighter has far better sustained DPR but sacrifice all the rest for that, Fighter/Cleric lacks the tanking that Paladins have and their nova DPR is paltry by comparison, plus their healing is very different. Paladins get 1 person back in the fight whereas Cleric is better at emergency healing the whole party.
It's really only Rogue-Ranger and Sorcerer-Wizard that have a lot of overlap.
That said, monk absolutely needs at minimum the weapon proficiency of Pact of the Blade Warlock.
I used to advocate for the same argument a couple of months ago, but I kinda lost faith in WotC's capability of handling unarmed combat. Also, who's talking about being master of all weapons? Just having actual use for weapon mastery, the warrior classes' defining feature, is enough. Simple weapons just don't provide enough options. Also, there isn't such a thing as "DPR" classes. Everyone needs a capability to be competitive, especially warriors. I don't find the idea of a "skirmisher" that runs around battlefield collecting AoOs instead of fighting viable.
Weapon mastery is not the defining feature of the warrior classes. Equal classes that are not in the warrior group have access to it. Honestly I think full casters are the only classes that don’t get it.
Not even that. War Cleric gets it at 3rd level.
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)
To the blade warlock comment, I don't necessarily agree. I think for the most part Simple weapons are fine. They should take the Two-Handed property restriction away, so monks have a Push mastery option with Greatclub. And Dexterous Attacks should use the martial arts die on Simple Weapons (Kensei would have it granted to any weapon they choose). And Unarmed Strikes should have a few of the weapon property options. Basically, you would steal options from Open Hand Technique (Push, Topple) which covers two weapon masteries, and grant them a few other options, like Sap, Slow, Vex. Warrior of the Hand would get new OHT options to go along with Addle (which shouldn't have a save. None of OHT should, as its that subclasses specialty) like possibly Cleave, Graze, and Nick.
If they remove the Two Handed restriction monks would have access to 6 of the 9 weapon properties. It leaves out Cleave, Graze, and Topple, which I think would be just fine if Kensei could use any martial weapon as their "Kensei Weapon" with no restrictions on property. Give monks the Dedicated Weapon feature with the restriction, no Heavy (Special was removed in the UA from properties), so they can use one Martial weapon. Let the Kensei have the Heavy weapons.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The problem with that is that the Lance is by far the best option for them then, and a monk wielding a Lance is very unthematic (TBH I wish they would make Lances only viable on horseback). But halberds, glaives, longswords, are all pretty iconic samurai weapons for the Kensei.
If I was remaking the Kensei, I'd simply give them something like this:
Kensei Weapons
You gain one of the feats below, you are proficient in any weapon that benefits from that feat and can use your Dexterity instead of your Strength for attacks and damage rolls with that weapon. You can use your Martial Arts die in place of the weapon damage die for attacks with these weapons.
Feat: Fighting Style - Dueling
Feat: Polearm Master
Feat: Sharpshooter
Other than the difference between Topple, Cleave, and Graze I really don't see the difference between Lance, Halberd or Glaive. Is lance really the optimal option?
As for thematic, there's more than one way to make a monk. Flavor is free and you are not obligated to fit a narrow ideal for a class. So that's not an issue for me, personally.
The idea of the feats is interesting.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Oh.. my bad, I just noticed they gave Lance the Heavy property in the UA so never mind, it would be excluded along with Halberd and Glaive. Leaving only martial Non-Heavy weapons are:
Battleaxe, Flail, Longsword, Morningstar, Rapier, Scimitar, Trident, War Pick, Warhammer, and Whip (plus the crossbows & guns)
So yeah, just give monk access to all of those!
But what matters the Kensai if the base monk is not fixed? All last posts are like if we should make a (fixed) Kensai to stop arguing against the monk state. What matters if the Kensai can get Martial Weapon and then all the combat feats, if the base monk cannot?