Yes, but without attunement and more in line with magical armor scaling.
Would become a default pick for all Wizards and Sorcerers too; the attunement is necessary to balance out the potential to boost the AC of classes that are not supposed many modifiers to static AC's. This is why I'm saying that honestly if you want to fix this alleged imbalance, they'd probably need to just to tell the armored classes that the free ride is over and they need to pony up an attunement slot for any AC boosting armor.
Ok, sorry, but a DM can always create a magic item and state only X class can use this item.
I mean, that isn’t even fudging the rules.
will WotC do it? No clue. I would argue unlikely because they do not seem to have a clear basis for monks in FR (default), which makes it harder to develop for them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Who cares if Wizards and Sorcerers would be able to use it? Why should those two classes be the only ones who can't gain the normal benefits of magical AC boosts, at the cost of an incredibly melee-oriented class needing to suffer the same fate? It's not like they're supposed to have absolutely no defense, considering all the powerful defensive spells they have access to. It'd be more useful for Monks, anyways, since Wizards and Sorcerers have much more incentive to stay at range.
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)
To allow for Barbarian/Monk armours without giving boosts to spellcasters (who don't need to be any stronger) all they really have to do is tie magic clothing to Unarmored Defense. They could also add items that give a relatively minor benefit, but a main benefit aimed at certain classes/builds.
For example, you might have a rare magic clothing with +1 AC (equivalent armour would be +2 at this rarity), but boosts unarmed strikes somehow. So any character with no armour and using unarmed strikes could benefit, but Monks are going to benefit the most.
But I could absolutely see bracers of defense remain as-is (requiring attunement) with another item tied to Unarmored Defense requiring none, or vice versa (new item for the attuned version, bracers of defense require unamored defense).
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.
Who cares if Wizards and Sorcerers would be able to use it? Why should those two classes be the only ones who can't gain the normal benefits of magical AC boosts, at the cost of an incredibly melee-oriented class needing to suffer the same fate? It's not like they're supposed to have absolutely no defense, considering all the powerful defensive spells they have access to. It'd be more useful for Monks, anyways, since Wizards and Sorcerers have much more incentive to stay at range.
Before thinking about magic items and objects we need a defined class, and for the moment the one presented in UA testplay 6 is a disaster and therefore not definable. In my opinion the monk class needs to be redesigned completely or at least largely. The items are something to think about later, these being a way to balance the classes in the game (at the DM's discretion). So it is the classes that influence the items needed and not these that influence the development of the classes.
The monk according to basic design should be a class that does not need magic items, but this we know doesn't work. In my opinion each class should have some balance according to the group they are in. The monk is in the warrior group so it should have at least a DPR equal to the fighter.
The fighter, the barbarian and the monk are warriors who act differently in battle, and I don't mind that. There is no overposition in their way of fighting and they can also work in gurppo.
Fighter - DEX/STR (range, melee) - adaptable
Barbarian - STR (pure melee) - always in the frontline
Monk - DEX (melee, skirmish) - fights in melee but backs off at the end of its turn
The monk's big problem remains the same:
Impractical and overpriced disengagement
Complicated bonus action
Exaggerated consumption of Ki/D resources
Situational features
Features that consume resources and perhaps bring no results
Mediocre DPR
Ambiguity between armed and unarmed, and this is most evident with Weapon Mastery
The monk is a class that has basic two-weapon fighting style characteristics and therefore consequently should have something similar to Wepon Mastery NICK for its unarmed attacks in the core class. For example:
When you use the Attack action with an Unarmed Strike or a Simple Weapon on your turn, you can make one Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action on the same turn. If you use a Ki/D point during your turn, you can decide to move your Bonus Unarmed Strike as part of the Attack action. It is still possible to make this extra attack only once per turn.
Make FoB 1 extra attack only and not a full bonus action, this is to avoid adding up the Bonus Unarmed Strike with FoB.
Find a way to make FoB free in certain situations (example: whenever the monk has advantage it can use FoB without having to consume resources?).
Add Unarmored Movement Disengage and Dash.
Since the monk is a melee class, it should always have a way to reach its opponents even against flying enemies. SotW should allow for aerial movement? This would also make synergy with Solw Fall and also a way to differentiate from Unarmored Movement.
Make FoB, PD and SotW of key class features and evolve them as the monk levels up.
A way to add unarmed attacks in the Weapon Mastey feature.
Make Stuning strike free and executable only when performing FoB, so as to decrease unrestrained consumption in resources (unlock this at a higher level).
To allow for Barbarian/Monk armours without giving boosts to spellcasters
Why not have them usable by spellcasters too? Lots of spellcasters get armour already so can already get +1/+2/+3 - druids, clerics, warlocks, bards - so why lock out wizards and sorcerers? In the UAs all wizards and sorcerers need to do to get access to +1/+2/+3 armours is take a the Lightly Armoured feat at 1st level so lots of them will already have access to better armour already.
It's telling that rather than coming up with new and interesting ideas to expand the Monk's skillset and versatility and play off of their strengths, a lot of "ideas" are just wanting them to be able to spam combat abilities without limitation or cost.
Your suggestions then?
You never seem to provide any. Just put down anybody else’s suggestions.
Helpful advice and discussion (you know, what forums are intended for) would be welcome instead of snide remarks from the sidelines.
It's telling that rather than coming up with new and interesting ideas to expand the Monk's skillset and versatility and play off of their strengths, a lot of "ideas" are just wanting them to be able to spam combat abilities without limitation or cost.
What are the monk’s strengths, exactly? How does it contribute meaningfully to combat? Right now, there’s only one, and it’s stunning strike.
It's telling that rather than coming up with new and interesting ideas to expand the Monk's skillset and versatility and play off of their strengths, a lot of "ideas" are just wanting them to be able to spam combat abilities without limitation or cost.
What are the monk’s strengths, exactly? How does it contribute meaningfully to combat? Right now, there’s only one, and it’s stunning strike.
No matter how much you insist otherwise, Monks do solid damage with a combination of their regular attack and unarmed strike, even ignoring boosts they may receive from subclasses. This, alongside the control options like Stunning Strike and others from their subclasses, is what defines their role in combat—they don't need to do the same amount of damage as a Fighter to be useful (even if they can out-damage a Fighter on most turns). They are not useless whenever they aren't spamming Flurry of Blows every turn. The creators of the game know this because they can do simple math, no matter how much some YouTuber claims they're weak, and that is why the Monk isn't going to get to do more damage than every martial every single turn without resource cost as some people think they should be able to do.
I would agree that monks, especially now with the boost to MA die, can do decent damage. I think the problem comes in when you look at their features and determine they are not frontline fighters (lower Hit die, and lower AC unless they use all their ASI’s through level 12 to increase it). They are skirmishers that move around the battlefield and striking (they have the movement and ability to disengage as a bonus action or subclass features that allow them to get out or attack at range).
Where a rogue, another skirmisher type, can hit for their full potential (they have one attack plus sneak attack is fairly easy to get) and disengage or hide with their bonus action with no other resource cost. The monk takes a big hit in the damage department (even if it is just their one BA unarmed strike) plus resources to do the same.
If they need to sacrifice damage to skirmish (which I don’t think they should have to) then maybe the resource, discipline points, shouldn’t be required.
It's telling that rather than coming up with new and interesting ideas to expand the Monk's skillset and versatility and play off of their strengths, a lot of "ideas" are just wanting them to be able to spam combat abilities without limitation or cost.
What are the monk’s strengths, exactly? How does it contribute meaningfully to combat? Right now, there’s only one, and it’s stunning strike.
No matter how much you insist otherwise, Monks do solid damage with a combination of their regular attack and unarmed strike, even ignoring boosts they may receive from subclasses. This, alongside the control options like Stunning Strike and others from their subclasses, is what defines their role in combat—they don't need to do the same amount of damage as a Fighter to be useful (even if they can out-damage a Fighter on most turns). They are not useless whenever they aren't spamming Flurry of Blows every turn. The creators of the game know this because they can do simple math, no matter how much some YouTuber claims they're weak, and that is why the Monk isn't going to get to do more damage than every martial every single turn without resource cost as some people think they should be able to do.
I would agree that monks, especially now with the boost to MA die, can do decent damage. I think the problem comes in when you look at their features and determine they are not frontline fighters (lower Hit die, and lower AC unless they use all their ASI’s through level 12 to increase it). They are skirmishers that move around the battlefield and striking (they have the movement and ability to disengage as a bonus action or subclass features that allow them to get out or attack at range).
Where a rogue, another skirmisher type, can hit for their full potential (they have one attack plus sneak attack is fairly easy to get) and disengage or hide with their bonus action with no other resource cost. The monk takes a big hit in the damage department (even if it is just their one BA unarmed strike) plus resources to do the same.
If they need to sacrifice damage to skirmish (which I don’t think they should have to) then maybe the resource, discipline points, shouldn’t be required.
Exactly, it is a problem of bonus action clogging and unrestrained use of resources. This will become even more evident with the Weapon Mastey and NICK feture. Every class that develops with two weapons in some way will try to use NICK to optimize its bonus action, and the monk is surely the class that needs it most.
Even if monks got something like when they make an attack on their turn with an unarmed strike or monk weapon (simple weapons in UA6) their reach is increased by 5 feet, to reflect their maneuverability on the battlefield. Bugbears have long limbed trait so I don’t think it would be OP. Maybe I’m wrong. But not always having a reliable method of getting out of melee was a reason why so many liked the mobile feat in 5E for monks.
Subclasses help with it, in many cases, but I think the base class needs something.
Even if monks got something like when they make an attack on their turn with an unarmed strike or monk weapon (simple weapons in UA6) their reach is increased by 5 feet, to reflect their maneuverability on the battlefield. Bugbears have long limbed trait so I don’t think it would be OP. Maybe I’m wrong. But not always having a reliable method of getting out of melee was a reason why so many liked the mobile feat in 5E for monks.
Subclasses help with it, in many cases, but I think the base class needs something.
I am not convinced about the solution of reach +5 feet, it could be useful but its use would only be partial. I think that a class like the monk's that has as its strong point its speed deserves a disengagement system that is as perfomrate as the rogue's. At least as far as I think.
Even if monks got something like when they make an attack on their turn with an unarmed strike or monk weapon (simple weapons in UA6) their reach is increased by 5 feet, to reflect their maneuverability on the battlefield. Bugbears have long limbed trait so I don’t think it would be OP. Maybe I’m wrong. But not always having a reliable method of getting out of melee was a reason why so many liked the mobile feat in 5E for monks.
Subclasses help with it, in many cases, but I think the base class needs something.
I am not convinced about the solution of reach +5 feet, it could be useful but its use would only be partial. I think that a class like the monk's that has as its strong point its speed deserves a disengagement system that is as perfomrate as the rogue's. At least as far as I think.
The new Elemental monk is getting extra reach, Shadow Monk can use its Darkness to get out of melee without provoking AoO (no AoO if they can't see you), Drunken Master gets a free disengage with FoB, Astral gets extra reach, Sun Soul and Kensai get decent ranged options, and Open Hand used to get to take away enemy reaction using FoB (It is a travesty that they put a saving throw on this!). Only Mercy and Long Death don't have a skirmisher option build in at level 3.
But if it will shut up the complainers just give them Swashbuckler's "no AoO if I attacked you" feature.
Ok, sorry, but a DM can always create a magic item and state only X class can use this item.
I mean, that isn’t even fudging the rules.
will WotC do it? No clue. I would argue unlikely because they do not seem to have a clear basis for monks in FR (default), which makes it harder to develop for them.
That's kind of a crutch, and it's best to avoid crutches like these. Monk-only "armor" and monk-only "handwraps" or whatever won't really fix the problem, it will only make DMs put handouts into loot sources.
Even if monks got something like when they make an attack on their turn with an unarmed strike or monk weapon (simple weapons in UA6) their reach is increased by 5 feet, to reflect their maneuverability on the battlefield. Bugbears have long limbed trait so I don’t think it would be OP. Maybe I’m wrong. But not always having a reliable method of getting out of melee was a reason why so many liked the mobile feat in 5E for monks.
Subclasses help with it, in many cases, but I think the base class needs something.
I am not convinced about the solution of reach +5 feet, it could be useful but its use would only be partial. I think that a class like the monk's that has as its strong point its speed deserves a disengagement system that is as perfomrate as the rogue's. At least as far as I think.
The new Elemental monk is getting extra reach, Shadow Monk can use its Darkness to get out of melee without provoking AoO (no AoO if they can't see you), Drunken Master gets a free disengage with FoB, Astral gets extra reach, Sun Soul and Kensai get decent ranged options, and Open Hand used to get to take away enemy reaction using FoB (It is a travesty that they put a saving throw on this!). Only Mercy and Long Death don't have a skirmisher option build in at level 3.
But if it will shut up the complainers just give them Swashbuckler's "no AoO if I attacked you" feature.
I don't know if I'm the only one complaining here about this monk problem, but I think it's an important topic. What you listed are simply subclass features. A class by itself should be self-functioning and it should not be the subclass that always has to solve the class problem. If that were the case, it would only lead to having to find for each subclass a solution to the monk problem thus consuming a subclass feature that could be used for something else.
Even if monks got something like when they make an attack on their turn with an unarmed strike or monk weapon (simple weapons in UA6) their reach is increased by 5 feet, to reflect their maneuverability on the battlefield. Bugbears have long limbed trait so I don’t think it would be OP. Maybe I’m wrong. But not always having a reliable method of getting out of melee was a reason why so many liked the mobile feat in 5E for monks.
Subclasses help with it, in many cases, but I think the base class needs something.
I am not convinced about the solution of reach +5 feet, it could be useful but its use would only be partial. I think that a class like the monk's that has as its strong point its speed deserves a disengagement system that is as perfomrate as the rogue's. At least as far as I think.
The new Elemental monk is getting extra reach, Shadow Monk can use its Darkness to get out of melee without provoking AoO (no AoO if they can't see you), Drunken Master gets a free disengage with FoB, Astral gets extra reach, Sun Soul and Kensai get decent ranged options, and Open Hand used to get to take away enemy reaction using FoB (It is a travesty that they put a saving throw on this!). Only Mercy and Long Death don't have a skirmisher option build in at level 3.
But if it will shut up the complainers just give them Swashbuckler's "no AoO if I attacked you" feature.
As I mentioned in my post, subclasses do help with this in many cases. And if all of them provided reach or other means of disengaging it becomes a non-issue. Kensei does have ranged options, but all monks do since they have proficiency in ranged weapons. It doesn’t change the fact that if your Kensei is built around their melee weapon, switching to ranged just cuts into their BA damage so you might as well BA SotW. The monk isn’t built for toe-to-toe combat so having an out for all subclasses would be helpful.
Even if monks got something like when they make an attack on their turn with an unarmed strike or monk weapon (simple weapons in UA6) their reach is increased by 5 feet, to reflect their maneuverability on the battlefield. Bugbears have long limbed trait so I don’t think it would be OP. Maybe I’m wrong. But not always having a reliable method of getting out of melee was a reason why so many liked the mobile feat in 5E for monks.
Subclasses help with it, in many cases, but I think the base class needs something.
I am not convinced about the solution of reach +5 feet, it could be useful but its use would only be partial. I think that a class like the monk's that has as its strong point its speed deserves a disengagement system that is as perfomrate as the rogue's. At least as far as I think.
Step of the wind should not cost at ki point at default, but if you spend the ki point it no longer costs the bonus action.
Or it doesn't cost one for just the dash, or the disengage. For a point you get the combo of both. When I see any of the "without an action" ideas I just see that stacking into nova round type things. But getting to dash past all the enemies without consequence and then still be able to flurry of blows (and toss a stunning strike in there) sounds like too much.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Who cares if Wizards and Sorcerers would be able to use it? Why should those two classes be the only ones who can't gain the normal benefits of magical AC boosts, at the cost of an incredibly melee-oriented class needing to suffer the same fate? It's not like they're supposed to have absolutely no defense, considering all the powerful defensive spells they have access to. It'd be more useful for Monks, anyways, since Wizards and Sorcerers have much more incentive to stay at range.
Absolutely no defense, maybe not but they should not have good defenses even with multi classing. They need to bring back spell failure in armor for arcane spells or something. But a bracers +2 probably wont break the game, if its at +5 we are trending towards broken. They do have defensive spells many are low cost and reactions. Their ability to stack these defensive options ends up giving them some of the best defenses in the game. And they do not need that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Would become a default pick for all Wizards and Sorcerers too; the attunement is necessary to balance out the potential to boost the AC of classes that are not supposed many modifiers to static AC's. This is why I'm saying that honestly if you want to fix this alleged imbalance, they'd probably need to just to tell the armored classes that the free ride is over and they need to pony up an attunement slot for any AC boosting armor.
Ok, sorry, but a DM can always create a magic item and state only X class can use this item.
I mean, that isn’t even fudging the rules.
will WotC do it? No clue. I would argue unlikely because they do not seem to have a clear basis for monks in FR (default), which makes it harder to develop for them.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Who cares if Wizards and Sorcerers would be able to use it? Why should those two classes be the only ones who can't gain the normal benefits of magical AC boosts, at the cost of an incredibly melee-oriented class needing to suffer the same fate? It's not like they're supposed to have absolutely no defense, considering all the powerful defensive spells they have access to. It'd be more useful for Monks, anyways, since Wizards and Sorcerers have much more incentive to stay at range.
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 allow for Barbarian/Monk armours without giving boosts to spellcasters (who don't need to be any stronger) all they really have to do is tie magic clothing to Unarmored Defense. They could also add items that give a relatively minor benefit, but a main benefit aimed at certain classes/builds.
For example, you might have a rare magic clothing with +1 AC (equivalent armour would be +2 at this rarity), but boosts unarmed strikes somehow. So any character with no armour and using unarmed strikes could benefit, but Monks are going to benefit the most.
But I could absolutely see bracers of defense remain as-is (requiring attunement) with another item tied to Unarmored Defense requiring none, or vice versa (new item for the attuned version, bracers of defense require unamored defense).
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.
Before thinking about magic items and objects we need a defined class, and for the moment the one presented in UA testplay 6 is a disaster and therefore not definable. In my opinion the monk class needs to be redesigned completely or at least largely. The items are something to think about later, these being a way to balance the classes in the game (at the DM's discretion). So it is the classes that influence the items needed and not these that influence the development of the classes.
The monk according to basic design should be a class that does not need magic items, but this we know doesn't work. In my opinion each class should have some balance according to the group they are in. The monk is in the warrior group so it should have at least a DPR equal to the fighter.
The fighter, the barbarian and the monk are warriors who act differently in battle, and I don't mind that. There is no overposition in their way of fighting and they can also work in gurppo.
The monk's big problem remains the same:
The monk is a class that has basic two-weapon fighting style characteristics and therefore consequently should have something similar to Wepon Mastery NICK for its unarmed attacks in the core class. For example:
When you use the Attack action with an Unarmed Strike or a Simple Weapon on your turn, you can make one Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action on the same turn. If you use a Ki/D point during your turn, you can decide to move your Bonus Unarmed Strike as part of the Attack action. It is still possible to make this extra attack only once per turn.
Why not have them usable by spellcasters too? Lots of spellcasters get armour already so can already get +1/+2/+3 - druids, clerics, warlocks, bards - so why lock out wizards and sorcerers? In the UAs all wizards and sorcerers need to do to get access to +1/+2/+3 armours is take a the Lightly Armoured feat at 1st level so lots of them will already have access to better armour already.
Your suggestions then?
You never seem to provide any. Just put down anybody else’s suggestions.
Helpful advice and discussion (you know, what forums are intended for) would be welcome instead of snide remarks from the sidelines.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
What are the monk’s strengths, exactly? How does it contribute meaningfully to combat? Right now, there’s only one, and it’s stunning strike.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
I would agree that monks, especially now with the boost to MA die, can do decent damage. I think the problem comes in when you look at their features and determine they are not frontline fighters (lower Hit die, and lower AC unless they use all their ASI’s through level 12 to increase it). They are skirmishers that move around the battlefield and striking (they have the movement and ability to disengage as a bonus action or subclass features that allow them to get out or attack at range).
Where a rogue, another skirmisher type, can hit for their full potential (they have one attack plus sneak attack is fairly easy to get) and disengage or hide with their bonus action with no other resource cost. The monk takes a big hit in the damage department (even if it is just their one BA unarmed strike) plus resources to do the same.
If they need to sacrifice damage to skirmish (which I don’t think they should have to) then maybe the resource, discipline points, shouldn’t be required.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Exactly, it is a problem of bonus action clogging and unrestrained use of resources. This will become even more evident with the Weapon Mastey and NICK feture. Every class that develops with two weapons in some way will try to use NICK to optimize its bonus action, and the monk is surely the class that needs it most.
Even if monks got something like when they make an attack on their turn with an unarmed strike or monk weapon (simple weapons in UA6) their reach is increased by 5 feet, to reflect their maneuverability on the battlefield. Bugbears have long limbed trait so I don’t think it would be OP. Maybe I’m wrong. But not always having a reliable method of getting out of melee was a reason why so many liked the mobile feat in 5E for monks.
Subclasses help with it, in many cases, but I think the base class needs something.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I am not convinced about the solution of reach +5 feet, it could be useful but its use would only be partial. I think that a class like the monk's that has as its strong point its speed deserves a disengagement system that is as perfomrate as the rogue's. At least as far as I think.
The new Elemental monk is getting extra reach, Shadow Monk can use its Darkness to get out of melee without provoking AoO (no AoO if they can't see you), Drunken Master gets a free disengage with FoB, Astral gets extra reach, Sun Soul and Kensai get decent ranged options, and Open Hand used to get to take away enemy reaction using FoB (It is a travesty that they put a saving throw on this!). Only Mercy and Long Death don't have a skirmisher option build in at level 3.
But if it will shut up the complainers just give them Swashbuckler's "no AoO if I attacked you" feature.
That's kind of a crutch, and it's best to avoid crutches like these. Monk-only "armor" and monk-only "handwraps" or whatever won't really fix the problem, it will only make DMs put handouts into loot sources.
I don't know if I'm the only one complaining here about this monk problem, but I think it's an important topic. What you listed are simply subclass features. A class by itself should be self-functioning and it should not be the subclass that always has to solve the class problem. If that were the case, it would only lead to having to find for each subclass a solution to the monk problem thus consuming a subclass feature that could be used for something else.
As I mentioned in my post, subclasses do help with this in many cases. And if all of them provided reach or other means of disengaging it becomes a non-issue. Kensei does have ranged options, but all monks do since they have proficiency in ranged weapons. It doesn’t change the fact that if your Kensei is built around their melee weapon, switching to ranged just cuts into their BA damage so you might as well BA SotW. The monk isn’t built for toe-to-toe combat so having an out for all subclasses would be helpful.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Step of the wind should not cost at ki point at default, but if you spend the ki point it no longer costs the bonus action.
Or it doesn't cost one for just the dash, or the disengage. For a point you get the combo of both. When I see any of the "without an action" ideas I just see that stacking into nova round type things. But getting to dash past all the enemies without consequence and then still be able to flurry of blows (and toss a stunning strike in there) sounds like too much.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Absolutely no defense, maybe not but they should not have good defenses even with multi classing. They need to bring back spell failure in armor for arcane spells or something. But a bracers +2 probably wont break the game, if its at +5 we are trending towards broken. They do have defensive spells many are low cost and reactions. Their ability to stack these defensive options ends up giving them some of the best defenses in the game. And they do not need that.