For example, let's say you have a downed ally who's making death saving throws, and you know they're vulnerable until your cleric can get closer. So you decide to Disengage to move over to them and declare you'd like to stand guard over them. Strictly speaking the RAW in 5e doesn't really support "protecting" a target in that way, so mechanically the DM can just ignore your intention, move around you and kick your ally to death out of spite if they want to, while you are forced to watch helplessly as it happens.
Well, there’s the protection fighting style. Or the sentinel feat. Or if you don’t have either of those, there’s the first sentence from the Actions in Combat section: When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise.
The problem in my example is that this would require another action unless you're a Rogue (or otherwise can do the Disengage part without using your action), same with using the Ready action to do something if an enemy goes for the downed ally.
In practice if I were doing this I would announce to my DM "I want to Disengage and move to X and get in the path of any attacks directed at them", or something along those lines, and I would hope my DM would have enemies attack me instead (or roll some kind of checks to see if they do or not etc.).
I supposed you could argue I should just move away (taking any opportunity attack(s) on the way) and improvise a "defend" action, but this isn't obviously something that should require an action as it's really about positioning/movement. In my mind at least as long as I have some movement left I should be able to stay in the way. But things like threat, target priority etc. just aren't even really covered in 5e; they don't necessarily need to be hard rules, but there should be guidelines, examples etc.
Anyway, I don't really want this to derail the thread, my point was more about the fact that these concepts don't really exist properly in the rules, but it would be nice if they were things that Monks could do effectively if they want to. After all, Patient Defence is of limited usefulness for tanking if you can't encourage enemies to attack you (and hopefully waste their attacks), grappling would be better but most Monks suck at it (only Astral Self can really do it).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Second, I didn't misunderstand. I pointed out how your use of terminology is inherently unhelpful because playing Dungeons & Dragons is not the same as playing World of Warcraft. The former is decades older, and its rules do not align with the paradigm of the latter.
1) Just because a term was popularized in one context doesn't mean it cannot be used in another context. The utility of a word is measured in it's ability to communicate an idea. Other posters and yourself clearly understood the intended meaning of the word thus it was a useful word to use. [Other examples are the use of the word "noob" outside of Counterstrike (or whatever online multiplayer game originated/popularized it) is completely valid, as is the use of "lol" and "WTF" as a verbal words despite their origin in text.]
2) You then went off on tangent by assuming the evidently incorrect definition of the word despite recognizing the intended context/definition because you simply refused to acknowledge the intended definition as valid.
Combat in D&D is not some radical unique invention for which there are no parallel anywhere else. It is a turn-based, (frequently) grid-based combat system with different classes that are particularly suited to certain combat styles, including melee, ranged, AoE, and healing/buffing/support that rewards characters specialized in one or a few of these styles. There are dozens of games with a similar framework. Aggro as word applies perfectly fine to convey choice made by the enemies (as determined by the DM or an AI) of who and when to attack in a simple and efficient manner as it does in the hundreds of other games where the focus is PvE rather than PvP. Triggering aggro in Call of Cthulhu is definitely something to be avoided, but Barbarians in D&D generally want to draw aggro to themselves, while Monk generally want to avoid aggro by using Patient Defense or moving away from enemies.
Understanding the intended meaning is only so useful. A suggestion, like jumping off a cliff to one's doom, can be well understood to be dumb as hell.
All you've done is effectively communicate you don't understand the paradigm each game operate on. "Aggro" as you use it is about psychological manipulation of the DM as a person. But they're ideally playing characters with their own agendas. It's a weird sort of metagaming using inappropriate terminology. Don't get me wrong, I understand why you use it. I simply also recognize it as bull hockey because you can't always count on those agendas aligning. Especially when they can turn on a dime.
And just because that's where you first heard the term doesn't mean everyone else thinks the same way. You need to reexamine your personal biases. [REDACTED]
For example, let's say you have a downed ally who's making death saving throws, and you know they're vulnerable until your cleric can get closer. So you decide to Disengage to move over to them and declare you'd like to stand guard over them. Strictly speaking the RAW in 5e doesn't really support "protecting" a target in that way, so mechanically the DM can just ignore your intention, move around you and kick your ally to death out of spite if they want to, while you are forced to watch helplessly as it happens.
Well, there’s the protection fighting style. Or the sentinel feat. Or if you don’t have either of those, there’s the first sentence from the Actions in Combat section: When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise.
The problem in my example is that this would require another action unless you're a Rogue (or otherwise can do the Disengage part without using your action), same with using the Ready action to do something if an enemy goes for the downed ally.
In practice if I were doing this I would announce to my DM "I want to Disengage and move to X and get in the path of any attacks directed at them", or something along those lines, and I would hope my DM would have enemies attack me instead (or roll some kind of checks to see if they do or not etc.).
I supposed you could argue I should just move away (taking any opportunity attack(s) on the way) and improvise a "defend" action, but this isn't obviously something that should require an action as it's really about positioning/movement. In my mind at least as long as I have some movement left I should be able to stay in the way. But things like threat, target priority etc. just aren't even really covered in 5e; they don't necessarily need to be hard rules, but there should be guidelines, examples etc.
Anyway, I don't really want this to derail the thread, my point was more about the fact that these concepts don't really exist properly in the rules, but it would be nice if they were things that Monks could do effectively if they want to. After all, Patient Defence is of limited usefulness for tanking if you can't encourage enemies to attack you (and hopefully waste their attacks), grappling would be better but most Monks suck at it (only Astral Self can really do it).
I think you can do that with a Ready Action: you move to a position and announce you want to protect your ally. In this case your movement and original position matters, i.e. if you have 30' and moved 25' to reach your new position, then only have left 5' for movement, and the enemy could round you if have enough. If the condition is triggered, that is when reaching your position (that could be 10' if you have the corresponding weapon and feats) you react:
- Master Polearm + Sentinel: attack and reduce enemy movement to 0.
- Usually: Simply interpose or Grapple. Then the enemy should resist the Grapple, or try to move or pass through you like mentioned at DMG.
Seems good to me, if it would not require action, then you are doing more than others in a single round. Notice that depending the situation you could do your action then move to interpose, and if the enemy has not enough movement or is a closed space then it should move you to reach the ally, in this case you don't need your action to protect.
I think you can do that with a Ready Action: you move to a position and announce you want to protect your ally. In this case your movement and original position matters, i.e. if you have 30' and moved 25' to reach your new position, then only have left 5' for movement, and the enemy could round you if have enough. If the condition is triggered, that is when reaching your position (that could be 10' if you have the corresponding weapon and feats) you react:
- Master Polearm + Sentinel: attack and reduce enemy movement to 0.
- Usually: Simply interpose or Grapple. Then the enemy should resist the Grapple, or try to move or pass through you like mentioned at DMG.
Seems good to me, if it would not require action, then you are doing more than others in a single round. Notice that depending the situation you could do your action then move to interpose, and if the enemy has not enough movement or is a closed space then it should move you to reach the ally, in this case you don't need your action to protect.
You're suggesting using multiple feats and an action here to achieve this? That makes this an incredibly expensive option unless you build specifically for it, and it's basically not an option at all for a Monk who has fewer ability score increases to spend on feats? Grappling isn't a good option for Monks either because only Astral Self can avoid using Strength for that unless again, you build specifically for it. But you shouldn't need to build a character specifically to do something that every character should reasonably be able to do (or at least attempt).
An action shouldn't be required; all you're really trying to do is convince your DM to attack you instead of the downed ally, and justify why ("I'm trying to block access"), this isn't giving you anything for free because other players and creatures can do the same thing (provide extra context to their combat actions that need to be considered). It's not unlike characters using their ability to speak, as if an enemy suddenly says "I surrender" while backing away a player should consider whether to spare them; they don't have to attack just because they can.
But again, that's the element that's largely missing from the 5e rules; we don't get a lot of guidance on how to run monsters (or player characters) properly; we're just told what we can do, and that's what too many people fixate on, but every action in the game is supposed to come from some kind of character/narrative roleplay. Dragons can be exceptionally difficult to fight if they just circle in the air and breathe fire whenever it recharges, but if their hoard is threatened they absolutely should behave differently (likely sub-optimally) etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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 think you can do that with a Ready Action: you move to a position and announce you want to protect your ally. In this case your movement and original position matters, i.e. if you have 30' and moved 25' to reach your new position, then only have left 5' for movement, and the enemy could round you if have enough. If the condition is triggered, that is when reaching your position (that could be 10' if you have the corresponding weapon and feats) you react:
- Master Polearm + Sentinel: attack and reduce enemy movement to 0.
- Usually: Simply interpose or Grapple. Then the enemy should resist the Grapple, or try to move or pass through you like mentioned at DMG.
Seems good to me, if it would not require action, then you are doing more than others in a single round. Notice that depending the situation you could do your action then move to interpose, and if the enemy has not enough movement or is a closed space then it should move you to reach the ally, in this case you don't need your action to protect.
You're suggesting using multiple feats and an action here to achieve this? That makes this an incredibly expensive option unless you build specifically for it, and it's basically not an option at all for a Monk who has fewer ability score increases to spend on feats? Grappling isn't a good option for Monks either because only Astral Self can avoid using Strength for that unless again, you build specifically for it. But you shouldn't need to build a character specifically to do something that every character should reasonably be able to do (or at least attempt).
An action shouldn't be required; all you're really trying to do is convince your DM to attack you instead of the downed ally, and justify why ("I'm trying to block access"), this isn't giving you anything for free because other players and creatures can do the same thing (provide extra context to their combat actions that need to be considered). It's not unlike characters using their ability to speak, as if an enemy suddenly says "I surrender" while backing away a player should consider whether to spare them; they don't have to attack just because they can.
But again, that's the element that's largely missing from the 5e rules; we don't get a lot of guidance on how to run monsters (or player characters) properly; we're just told what we can do, and that's what too many people fixate on, but every action in the game is supposed to come from some kind of character/narrative roleplay. Dragons can be exceptionally difficult to fight if they just circle in the air and breathe fire whenever it recharges, but if their hoard is threatened they absolutely should behave differently (likely sub-optimally) etc.
No no, the 1st option would be the ideal, for a character specialized in protection (the Sentinel name is not for nothing). Notice that with this option you don't need even to spend your action for the Ready Action, as the Reaction is used by Polearm Master.
But the 2nd one can be used with no requirements, using simple and direct obstruct and other built-in like grapple, or move aside, already included in the game as attack/maneuver.
The protection you mention is already included for some subclasses.
There are many others not included harder to fit with built-in ones. I.e. sprinting, as only combat movement is mentioned.
Something that occurred to me is that OneD&D has already given a significant buff to Monks from one of the other playtests. Namely, the change that when you Attack with thrown weapons, you get to draw a thrown weapon as part of the attack itself rather than being limited to drawing one weapon for free per turn (without the Thrown Weapon Fighting style).
Why is this significant? Because Monks can use Martial Arts damage for any simple melee weapon, including daggers, handaxes, and javelins—which are still classed as melee weapons even if you throw them. So this change significantly helps Monks' ranged game.
It gets even better when you factor in one particular Weapon Mastery: Nick, which lets you include the extra attack from a different light weapon in your Attack action rather than using your bonus action. Daggers have Nick as their Weapon Mastery property, and Monks are slated to get Weapon Masteries as part of the Warrior group. So, provided that the rules don't get changed of course, that allows Monks to throw three daggers per turn starting at Level 5, with each dagger hitting for their Martial Arts die plus DEX mod on the first two throws. And they still have their bonus action for their other Monk features, including running up to and punching a sucker (or twice, if you want to spend a point).
Of course, this depends on no other rules being altered or previous changes being kept, but it would give Monks a nice boost (and a fitting one) if they were able to excel with thrown weapons.
With that premise, give the monk Weapon Mastery, and add to the monk weapons list:
- Shuriken: like dart but with Light. The reason is a thrown weapon that can be used with off-hand.
- Tonfa: 1d6 bludgeon damage, Light, with Nick mastery.
Also fighting styles? See below.
That Nick is something for take a look, as you could i.e. at level 5 make your 2 standard attacks, your extra off-hand attack not using the Bonus Action, plus your MA attack with the Bonus Action. But should be handled carefully, as with high damage stat it could be always better using the multiple attack option (2 handed with Nick) over others, creating an illusion of choice. A way to avoid could be not giving fighting style to monk so it should spend a Feat, paying for the possible advantage.
Monk should get Weapon Mastery, and they should get some way to apply Weapon Masteries to their unarmed strikes. That's basically required if they are going to be Warriors. Fighting Style is kind of meh? as those are very much focused on using weapons / armour, so monk would need some new styles relevant to them and those irrelevant to them excluded, at which point why not just make a monk-unique feature instead?
Also for using double Nick monk weapon the two-weapon fighting is nice.
Great weapon fighting is good if using two-handed monk weapons, like quarterstaff.
Don't underestimate the monk weapons, as they are usually some better than using unarmed attacks. This is not rare, as i.e. a ninja uses a Katana instead unarmed when possible, or using a Nunchaku if available helps.
Monk should get Weapon Mastery, and they should get some way to apply Weapon Masteries to their unarmed strikes. That's basically required if they are going to be Warriors. Fighting Style is kind of meh? as those are very much focused on using weapons / armour, so monk would need some new styles relevant to them and those irrelevant to them excluded, at which point why not just make a monk-unique feature instead?
Dueling would work when using a one handed melee monk weapon. Would also give the damage if you throw the weapon, like a dagger.
Archery can work with darts and if you are Kensei they can become your Kensei weapon so damage scales.
Blind Fighting, as mentioned above
Interception If you are not skirmishing or protecting another PC and an enemy approaches.
And Superior Technique can work although limited in uses.
So I don’t necessarily think the fighting styles are meh, imo.
Sure some of the Fighting Styles could be used by a Monk, but that makes them more same-y with the Fighter - why not just make Monk an unarmed-focused subclass of Fighter? I'd rather see something unique to Monk - e.g. "Stances" are very popular in HB monk-fixes - than just giving them a reduced set of Fighter FSs to choose from.
Sure some of the Fighting Styles could be used by a Monk, but that makes them more same-y with the Fighter - why not just make Monk an unarmed-focused subclass of Fighter? I'd rather see something unique to Monk - e.g. "Stances" are very popular in HB monk-fixes - than just giving them a reduced set of Fighter FSs to choose from.
Oh, I completely agree. I think there is a lot WotC can do with the monk. And I agree monks should be able to use some Weapon Masteries with Unarmed Strikes. I also like the changes to Unarmed Strikes in the UA and feel they will benefit the monk. Hopefully we can use Dex instead of Str for grapple DC's.
But just speculating on what they might do, considering they are seeing this as just a revision or update to 5E, and them pulling back some changes already, I'm just looking at what is more likely to happen. Fighting Styles are already part of the game and I think monk can benefit from those just like weapon masteries. I've always thought Open Hand monk's "Open Hand Technique" should be a base monk feature. I think every single Elemental Discipline for Four Elements monks should be unique abilities like Fang of the Fire Snake or Water Whip, instead of "you can cast spell X for Y ki points". But I'm not expecting that to happen in the UA.
For example, let's say you have a downed ally who's making death saving throws, and you know they're vulnerable until your cleric can get closer. So you decide to Disengage to move over to them and declare you'd like to stand guard over them. Strictly speaking the RAW in 5e doesn't really support "protecting" a target in that way, so mechanically the DM can just ignore your intention, move around you and kick your ally to death out of spite if they want to, while you are forced to watch helplessly as it happens.
Well, there’s the protection fighting style. Or the sentinel feat. Or if you don’t have either of those, there’s the first sentence from the Actions in Combat section: When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise.
The problem in my example is that this would require another action unless you're a Rogue (or otherwise can do the Disengage part without using your action), same with using the Ready action to do something if an enemy goes for the downed ally.
In practice if I were doing this I would announce to my DM "I want to Disengage and move to X and get in the path of any attacks directed at them", or something along those lines, and I would hope my DM would have enemies attack me instead (or roll some kind of checks to see if they do or not etc.).
I supposed you could argue I should just move away (taking any opportunity attack(s) on the way) and improvise a "defend" action, but this isn't obviously something that should require an action as it's really about positioning/movement. In my mind at least as long as I have some movement left I should be able to stay in the way. But things like threat, target priority etc. just aren't even really covered in 5e; they don't necessarily need to be hard rules, but there should be guidelines, examples etc.
Anyway, I don't really want this to derail the thread, my point was more about the fact that these concepts don't really exist properly in the rules, but it would be nice if they were things that Monks could do effectively if they want to. After all, Patient Defence is of limited usefulness for tanking if you can't encourage enemies to attack you (and hopefully waste their attacks), grappling would be better but most Monks suck at it (only Astral Self can really do it).
To try and keep this on topic, as you're correctly doing, I could see monks getting something like this, I just think it would be strange to get for free.
In the examples I gave (protection and sentinel) its actually a reaction, not an action, so the character could disengage, go over, and still protect their downed ally with their reaction. But to use either of those things require either a fighting style, which you only get 1 of ever, (except champions, and yes you can change it, but still you can only have one at a time) or a feat, which you only get a handful of. So for everyone else to use an improvised action to do it, seems about right, since they didn't spend a limited resource for the ability. And as you note, most reasonable DMs, if you say you are going to stand next to and protect your ally, would not have someone attack the ally, at least as a default. Though there would likely be circumstances where attacking the ally could make the most sense, but most DMs I've played with aren't mean like that and aren't actively trying to kill PCs. So, there's both in game mechanical ways to protect allies, and meta-game ways (DM going along with what you say) to protect allies.
So, if we let a monk use patient defense, or some other technique, to help an ally for a ki point or two, that seems OK to me. But just letting them do it for nothing would be an issue.
To try and keep this on topic, as you're correctly doing, I could see monks getting something like this, I just think it would be strange to get for free.
Sorry I think I've confused my point; I'm not suggesting that Monks should get a specific ability for free or otherwise, I was mostly just pointing out that when people talk about things like "aggro", tanking, guarding etc. that these things don't really exist in 5e because the combat rules are pretty much 100% purely mechanical, and don't include those things as concepts. The narrative aspect of the game is something we as players and DMs need to add ourselves in order to bring any of it back.
For Monks I often like to think of the dojo fight in the Matrix; the actual strikes are important, sure, but there are also the little taunts in gestures, postures or speech ("stop trying to hit me and hit me!"), the free actions that cost you nothing yet are every bit as important attacking and blocking. But these things only exist if your characters respond to them; if there were a helpless bystander in that scene and the Matrix used D&D 5e rules, there'd be nothing mechanically stopping Neo from ignoring Morpheus entirely and just kicking the bystander to death with Morpheus able to do nothing but hope he can punch Neo to death first.
I wouldn't be opposed to Monks getting some specific abilities similar to protection, manoeuvres etc. that enable these things, but I was really just trying to point out a fundamental problem in how 5e works; we don't have proper zones of control, we have to use specific builds and/or forego most of our turn in order to gain complex or improvised reactions to real ally defence, and we only get one reaction per round which is why opportunity attacks can be such a weak substitute (your average higher tier monster doesn't much care about one extra attack if it can achieve more by ignoring you).
But really we shouldn't need special abilities to do these things, and if you've got a good DM and narrative focused group you don't need to (you can use little free actions/descriptions to shape the events of a fight) but the 5e rules don't do a good job of establishing that as being how fights are supposed to be run, or encouraging it to be the case, which is how we end up with mechanically focused discussions where if a rule says you can do something you can always unconditionally do it (and for the optimisers, must do it, no matter how exploitative or uncharacteristic it might be).
That's part of Monk's problem though; in terms of the explicit combat rules Monks can be a bit on the weak side, but there are loads of things that narratively they should be able to do. Same is true of Barbarians who are supposed to be damage-taking tanks but whose main tanking ability (Rage + Reckless Attack) doesn't guarantee drawing enemy attacks, which is why so many people online fixate on dealing damage instead (and don't care about protecting allies in the slightest).
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.
Another important aspect to bring into this discussion is that protecting allies often isn't necessary in 5e because the traditionally "squishy" characters aren't actually very squishy.
With Mage Armour + Shield wizards can have the same AC as a fighter, in optimized parties the wizards can be more tanky than the fighter by stacking Shield + medium armour + shield for ACs of 23-25. Absorb Elements gives mages better damage reduction than fighters as well. And Misty Step lets them get out of trouble very easily.
Combine this with the focus on Consaves to protect your concentration and it's common for optimized mages to have higher Con modifiers than paladins or monks giving them equal or sometimes higher hit points than the "warriors".
Putting this all together and there is really no need for martials to protect mages as mages are perfectly capable of protecting themselves. Across all the D&D games I play or DM, these are the characters that most commonly get KOed: Fighters Paladins Bards Warlocks
Special Mention: Unoptimized Wizards - I have an illusion & necromancer who designed their characters mainly for flavour and routinely don't prepare Shield or Absorb Elements, and sport ACs of 13-14.
To try and keep this on topic, as you're correctly doing, I could see monks getting something like this, I just think it would be strange to get for free.
Sorry I think I've confused my point; I'm not suggesting that Monks should get a specific ability for free or otherwise, I was mostly just pointing out that when people talk about things like "aggro", tanking, guarding etc. that these things don't really exist in 5e because the combat rules are pretty much 100% purely mechanical, and don't include those things as concepts. The narrative aspect of the game is something we as players and DMs need to add ourselves in order to bring any of it back.
For Monks I often like to think of the dojo fight in the Matrix; the actual strikes are important, sure, but there are also the little taunts in gestures, postures or speech ("stop trying to hit me and hit me!"), the free actions that cost you nothing yet are every bit as important attacking and blocking. But these things only exist if your characters respond to them; if there were a helpless bystander in that scene and the Matrix used D&D 5e rules, there'd be nothing mechanically stopping Neo from ignoring Morpheus entirely and just kicking the bystander to death with Morpheus able to do nothing but hope he can punch Neo to death first.
I wouldn't be opposed to Monks getting some specific abilities similar to protection, manoeuvres etc. that enable these things, but I was really just trying to point out a fundamental problem in how 5e works; we don't have proper zones of control, we have to use specific builds and/or forego most of our turn in order to gain complex or improvised reactions to real ally defence, and we only get one reaction per round which is why opportunity attacks can be such a weak substitute (your average higher tier monster doesn't much care about one extra attack if it can achieve more by ignoring you).
But really we shouldn't need special abilities to do these things, and if you've got a good DM and narrative focused group you don't need to (you can use little free actions/descriptions to shape the events of a fight) but the 5e rules don't do a good job of establishing that as being how fights are supposed to be run, or encouraging it to be the case, which is how we end up with mechanically focused discussions where if a rule says you can do something you can always unconditionally do it (and for the optimisers, must do it, no matter how exploitative or uncharacteristic it might be).
That's part of Monk's problem though; in terms of the explicit combat rules Monks can be a bit on the weak side, but there are loads of things that narratively they should be able to do. Same is true of Barbarians who are supposed to be damage-taking tanks but whose main tanking ability (Rage + Reckless Attack) doesn't guarantee drawing enemy attacks, which is why so many people online fixate on dealing damage instead (and don't care about protecting allies in the slightest).
I think I get what you’re saying. I think then, the problem could be that there are a few things that do “draw aggro” mechanically, but only a few, cavalier fighter, sentinel, kender taunt, compelled duel. Probably there’s a couple others I’m forgetting.
So, if you start making it a meta-game thing you can do by talking, then you’re kind of back-door nerfing those abilities. Why spend a spell slot on compelled duel if you can just talk and get the same effect?
So, if you start making it a meta-game thing you can do by talking, then you’re kind of back-door nerfing those abilities. Why spend a spell slot on compelled duel if you can just talk and get the same effect?
The advantage of those abilities is that they have a mechanical impact that can't be ignored.
Creatures aren't forced to attack a Raging Reckless Barbarian, but narratively most should, since it's going to be the more obvious threat in many situations. But that doesn't mean an intelligent creature can't recognise it as a distraction, and seek another target. That's where the benefit of being an Ancestral Guardian comes in, because if you attack such an intelligent creature, you give them more reasons to stay focused on you rather than moving away. Likewise a creature that might normally run from a Paladin, can't do so under the effect of a compelled duel and so-on.
Drawing aggro narratively with dialogue, positioning etc. isn't about forcing anyone to do anything, it's about informing what a creature's behaviour might be. It can still behave differently, or unexpectedly if there's a good reason for it do so, but a player/DM should be able to justify why. I'm certain this is how 5e is intended to be played, however the rules do not make that clear at all, but we see it all the time in practice; e.g- a player insults a creature, so that creature seeks revenge against them, even though it might not be the optimal thing for it to do. You don't need a Swashbuckler's Panache for that, but the Swashbuckler can do more to force a creature to fight it even when it doesn't want to.
It's a natural way to run it, but it's not the proscribed way, which is the problem; if the rules gave guidance or examples along these lines we might actually have aggro as more of an informal mechanic. I've seen some games, mostly tabletop wargames, that used priority targeting rules (e.g- you must attack the nearest target unless you have a special feature or make some kind of check) but these slow a game down, but all it really requires is a box that says something like "In the heat of battle a creature will usually attack the nearest or most obvious threat. When a player character or monster attacks a less immediate target, it should have a narrative reason why".
This is how I generally try to run the game; if a player character has five enemies next to them, but wants to run around them to attack someone else, they need a reason other than "it's the more optimal way to spend my turn", and if they don't, I'll either veto it or ask for some kind of check. But I hold myself to that same standard; an enemy won't break off a fight with one player to go KO a more vulnerable one unless they have a good reason. Proud enemies are susceptible to insults, intelligent enemies act on the basis of what they've seen (not what I as the DM know about the player's plans) and so-on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
"In the heat of battle a creature will usually attack the nearest or most obvious threat. When a player character or monster attacks a less immediate target, it should have a narrative reason why"
I disagree. This is a very boring way to play D&D and you might as well replace the DM/players with an AI at that point. The advantage of D&D over a digital computer game is that you have a DM that can make combat way more strategic and varied than a computer ever could, or they can make it simple and straight to the point if that's what the players want.
If the table enjoys simple hack & slash more power to you. But I personally prefer combats with a bit more going on than "charge the nearest enemy & attack". Enemies should have some kind of motivation and act accordingly.
"In the heat of battle a creature will usually attack the nearest or most obvious threat. When a player character or monster attacks a less immediate target, it should have a narrative reason why"
I disagree. This is a very boring way to play D&D and you might as well replace the DM/players with an AI at that point. The advantage of D&D over a digital computer game is that you have a DM that can make combat way more strategic and varied than a computer ever could, or they can make it simple and straight to the point if that's what the players want.
If the table enjoys simple hack & slash more power to you. But I personally prefer combats with a bit more going on than "charge the nearest enemy & attack". Enemies should have some kind of motivation and act accordingly.
Why is it that people on this site constantly respond to things I haven't written? Did I say it should be a rule that you must attack the nearest creature 100% of the time? No. No, I did not. What I said is that players/DMs should be encouraged to justify why a creature isn't attacking the most obvious threat, which is not even remotely the same thing at all, because it's not placing any restrictions on you whatsoever.
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.
That sound pretty restricting to me. If the position is: "If you do something other than X you have to justify it", that's pretty discouraging for anyone do something other than X.
So, if you start making it a meta-game thing you can do by talking, then you’re kind of back-door nerfing those abilities. Why spend a spell slot on compelled duel if you can just talk and get the same effect?
Because is a RPG? You can do anything you want to try, then have mechanics to check if succeed.
Or anything must be hardwritten as ability to be able to apply? Or maybe anything must be deadly combat because "there can be only one"?
In fact I think D&D is too focused in combat, and always try to add the RPG factor by my own to the even more combat focused pre-made adventures. The core of RPG are the skills, and how characters use them. Aside from that, giving XP based on missions instead plain killing and enjoy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The problem in my example is that this would require another action unless you're a Rogue (or otherwise can do the Disengage part without using your action), same with using the Ready action to do something if an enemy goes for the downed ally.
In practice if I were doing this I would announce to my DM "I want to Disengage and move to X and get in the path of any attacks directed at them", or something along those lines, and I would hope my DM would have enemies attack me instead (or roll some kind of checks to see if they do or not etc.).
I supposed you could argue I should just move away (taking any opportunity attack(s) on the way) and improvise a "defend" action, but this isn't obviously something that should require an action as it's really about positioning/movement. In my mind at least as long as I have some movement left I should be able to stay in the way. But things like threat, target priority etc. just aren't even really covered in 5e; they don't necessarily need to be hard rules, but there should be guidelines, examples etc.
Anyway, I don't really want this to derail the thread, my point was more about the fact that these concepts don't really exist properly in the rules, but it would be nice if they were things that Monks could do effectively if they want to. After all, Patient Defence is of limited usefulness for tanking if you can't encourage enemies to attack you (and hopefully waste their attacks), grappling would be better but most Monks suck at it (only Astral Self can really do it).
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.
Understanding the intended meaning is only so useful. A suggestion, like jumping off a cliff to one's doom, can be well understood to be dumb as hell.
All you've done is effectively communicate you don't understand the paradigm each game operate on. "Aggro" as you use it is about psychological manipulation of the DM as a person. But they're ideally playing characters with their own agendas. It's a weird sort of metagaming using inappropriate terminology. Don't get me wrong, I understand why you use it. I simply also recognize it as bull hockey because you can't always count on those agendas aligning. Especially when they can turn on a dime.
And just because that's where you first heard the term doesn't mean everyone else thinks the same way. You need to reexamine your personal biases. [REDACTED]
I think you can do that with a Ready Action: you move to a position and announce you want to protect your ally. In this case your movement and original position matters, i.e. if you have 30' and moved 25' to reach your new position, then only have left 5' for movement, and the enemy could round you if have enough. If the condition is triggered, that is when reaching your position (that could be 10' if you have the corresponding weapon and feats) you react:
- Master Polearm + Sentinel: attack and reduce enemy movement to 0.
- Usually: Simply interpose or Grapple. Then the enemy should resist the Grapple, or try to move or pass through you like mentioned at DMG.
Seems good to me, if it would not require action, then you are doing more than others in a single round. Notice that depending the situation you could do your action then move to interpose, and if the enemy has not enough movement or is a closed space then it should move you to reach the ally, in this case you don't need your action to protect.
You're suggesting using multiple feats and an action here to achieve this? That makes this an incredibly expensive option unless you build specifically for it, and it's basically not an option at all for a Monk who has fewer ability score increases to spend on feats? Grappling isn't a good option for Monks either because only Astral Self can avoid using Strength for that unless again, you build specifically for it. But you shouldn't need to build a character specifically to do something that every character should reasonably be able to do (or at least attempt).
An action shouldn't be required; all you're really trying to do is convince your DM to attack you instead of the downed ally, and justify why ("I'm trying to block access"), this isn't giving you anything for free because other players and creatures can do the same thing (provide extra context to their combat actions that need to be considered). It's not unlike characters using their ability to speak, as if an enemy suddenly says "I surrender" while backing away a player should consider whether to spare them; they don't have to attack just because they can.
But again, that's the element that's largely missing from the 5e rules; we don't get a lot of guidance on how to run monsters (or player characters) properly; we're just told what we can do, and that's what too many people fixate on, but every action in the game is supposed to come from some kind of character/narrative roleplay. Dragons can be exceptionally difficult to fight if they just circle in the air and breathe fire whenever it recharges, but if their hoard is threatened they absolutely should behave differently (likely sub-optimally) etc.
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.
No no, the 1st option would be the ideal, for a character specialized in protection (the Sentinel name is not for nothing). Notice that with this option you don't need even to spend your action for the Ready Action, as the Reaction is used by Polearm Master.
But the 2nd one can be used with no requirements, using simple and direct obstruct and other built-in like grapple, or move aside, already included in the game as attack/maneuver.
The protection you mention is already included for some subclasses.
There are many others not included harder to fit with built-in ones. I.e. sprinting, as only combat movement is mentioned.
With that premise, give the monk Weapon Mastery, and add to the monk weapons list:
- Shuriken: like dart but with Light. The reason is a thrown weapon that can be used with off-hand.
- Tonfa: 1d6 bludgeon damage, Light, with Nick mastery.
Also fighting styles? See below.
That Nick is something for take a look, as you could i.e. at level 5 make your 2 standard attacks, your extra off-hand attack not using the Bonus Action, plus your MA attack with the Bonus Action. But should be handled carefully, as with high damage stat it could be always better using the multiple attack option (2 handed with Nick) over others, creating an illusion of choice. A way to avoid could be not giving fighting style to monk so it should spend a Feat, paying for the possible advantage.
Monk should get Weapon Mastery, and they should get some way to apply Weapon Masteries to their unarmed strikes. That's basically required if they are going to be Warriors. Fighting Style is kind of meh? as those are very much focused on using weapons / armour, so monk would need some new styles relevant to them and those irrelevant to them excluded, at which point why not just make a monk-unique feature instead?
We have blind fighting that is very MA related.
Also for using double Nick monk weapon the two-weapon fighting is nice.
Great weapon fighting is good if using two-handed monk weapons, like quarterstaff.
Don't underestimate the monk weapons, as they are usually some better than using unarmed attacks. This is not rare, as i.e. a ninja uses a Katana instead unarmed when possible, or using a Nunchaku if available helps.
Dueling would work when using a one handed melee monk weapon. Would also give the damage if you throw the weapon, like a dagger.
Archery can work with darts and if you are Kensei they can become your Kensei weapon so damage scales.
Blind Fighting, as mentioned above
Interception If you are not skirmishing or protecting another PC and an enemy approaches.
And Superior Technique can work although limited in uses.
So I don’t necessarily think the fighting styles are meh, imo.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Sure some of the Fighting Styles could be used by a Monk, but that makes them more same-y with the Fighter - why not just make Monk an unarmed-focused subclass of Fighter? I'd rather see something unique to Monk - e.g. "Stances" are very popular in HB monk-fixes - than just giving them a reduced set of Fighter FSs to choose from.
Oh, I completely agree. I think there is a lot WotC can do with the monk. And I agree monks should be able to use some Weapon Masteries with Unarmed Strikes. I also like the changes to Unarmed Strikes in the UA and feel they will benefit the monk. Hopefully we can use Dex instead of Str for grapple DC's.
But just speculating on what they might do, considering they are seeing this as just a revision or update to 5E, and them pulling back some changes already, I'm just looking at what is more likely to happen. Fighting Styles are already part of the game and I think monk can benefit from those just like weapon masteries. I've always thought Open Hand monk's "Open Hand Technique" should be a base monk feature. I think every single Elemental Discipline for Four Elements monks should be unique abilities like Fang of the Fire Snake or Water Whip, instead of "you can cast spell X for Y ki points". But I'm not expecting that to happen in the UA.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
To try and keep this on topic, as you're correctly doing, I could see monks getting something like this, I just think it would be strange to get for free.
In the examples I gave (protection and sentinel) its actually a reaction, not an action, so the character could disengage, go over, and still protect their downed ally with their reaction. But to use either of those things require either a fighting style, which you only get 1 of ever, (except champions, and yes you can change it, but still you can only have one at a time) or a feat, which you only get a handful of. So for everyone else to use an improvised action to do it, seems about right, since they didn't spend a limited resource for the ability. And as you note, most reasonable DMs, if you say you are going to stand next to and protect your ally, would not have someone attack the ally, at least as a default. Though there would likely be circumstances where attacking the ally could make the most sense, but most DMs I've played with aren't mean like that and aren't actively trying to kill PCs. So, there's both in game mechanical ways to protect allies, and meta-game ways (DM going along with what you say) to protect allies.
So, if we let a monk use patient defense, or some other technique, to help an ally for a ki point or two, that seems OK to me. But just letting them do it for nothing would be an issue.
Sorry I think I've confused my point; I'm not suggesting that Monks should get a specific ability for free or otherwise, I was mostly just pointing out that when people talk about things like "aggro", tanking, guarding etc. that these things don't really exist in 5e because the combat rules are pretty much 100% purely mechanical, and don't include those things as concepts. The narrative aspect of the game is something we as players and DMs need to add ourselves in order to bring any of it back.
For Monks I often like to think of the dojo fight in the Matrix; the actual strikes are important, sure, but there are also the little taunts in gestures, postures or speech ("stop trying to hit me and hit me!"), the free actions that cost you nothing yet are every bit as important attacking and blocking. But these things only exist if your characters respond to them; if there were a helpless bystander in that scene and the Matrix used D&D 5e rules, there'd be nothing mechanically stopping Neo from ignoring Morpheus entirely and just kicking the bystander to death with Morpheus able to do nothing but hope he can punch Neo to death first.
I wouldn't be opposed to Monks getting some specific abilities similar to protection, manoeuvres etc. that enable these things, but I was really just trying to point out a fundamental problem in how 5e works; we don't have proper zones of control, we have to use specific builds and/or forego most of our turn in order to gain complex or improvised reactions to real ally defence, and we only get one reaction per round which is why opportunity attacks can be such a weak substitute (your average higher tier monster doesn't much care about one extra attack if it can achieve more by ignoring you).
But really we shouldn't need special abilities to do these things, and if you've got a good DM and narrative focused group you don't need to (you can use little free actions/descriptions to shape the events of a fight) but the 5e rules don't do a good job of establishing that as being how fights are supposed to be run, or encouraging it to be the case, which is how we end up with mechanically focused discussions where if a rule says you can do something you can always unconditionally do it (and for the optimisers, must do it, no matter how exploitative or uncharacteristic it might be).
That's part of Monk's problem though; in terms of the explicit combat rules Monks can be a bit on the weak side, but there are loads of things that narratively they should be able to do. Same is true of Barbarians who are supposed to be damage-taking tanks but whose main tanking ability (Rage + Reckless Attack) doesn't guarantee drawing enemy attacks, which is why so many people online fixate on dealing damage instead (and don't care about protecting allies in the slightest).
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.
Another important aspect to bring into this discussion is that protecting allies often isn't necessary in 5e because the traditionally "squishy" characters aren't actually very squishy.
With Mage Armour + Shield wizards can have the same AC as a fighter, in optimized parties the wizards can be more tanky than the fighter by stacking Shield + medium armour + shield for ACs of 23-25. Absorb Elements gives mages better damage reduction than fighters as well. And Misty Step lets them get out of trouble very easily.
Combine this with the focus on Consaves to protect your concentration and it's common for optimized mages to have higher Con modifiers than paladins or monks giving them equal or sometimes higher hit points than the "warriors".
Putting this all together and there is really no need for martials to protect mages as mages are perfectly capable of protecting themselves. Across all the D&D games I play or DM, these are the characters that most commonly get KOed:
Fighters
Paladins
Bards
Warlocks
Special Mention: Unoptimized Wizards - I have an illusion & necromancer who designed their characters mainly for flavour and routinely don't prepare Shield or Absorb Elements, and sport ACs of 13-14.
I think I get what you’re saying. I think then, the problem could be that there are a few things that do “draw aggro” mechanically, but only a few, cavalier fighter, sentinel, kender taunt, compelled duel. Probably there’s a couple others I’m forgetting.
So, if you start making it a meta-game thing you can do by talking, then you’re kind of back-door nerfing those abilities. Why spend a spell slot on compelled duel if you can just talk and get the same effect?
The advantage of those abilities is that they have a mechanical impact that can't be ignored.
Creatures aren't forced to attack a Raging Reckless Barbarian, but narratively most should, since it's going to be the more obvious threat in many situations. But that doesn't mean an intelligent creature can't recognise it as a distraction, and seek another target. That's where the benefit of being an Ancestral Guardian comes in, because if you attack such an intelligent creature, you give them more reasons to stay focused on you rather than moving away. Likewise a creature that might normally run from a Paladin, can't do so under the effect of a compelled duel and so-on.
Drawing aggro narratively with dialogue, positioning etc. isn't about forcing anyone to do anything, it's about informing what a creature's behaviour might be. It can still behave differently, or unexpectedly if there's a good reason for it do so, but a player/DM should be able to justify why. I'm certain this is how 5e is intended to be played, however the rules do not make that clear at all, but we see it all the time in practice; e.g- a player insults a creature, so that creature seeks revenge against them, even though it might not be the optimal thing for it to do. You don't need a Swashbuckler's Panache for that, but the Swashbuckler can do more to force a creature to fight it even when it doesn't want to.
It's a natural way to run it, but it's not the proscribed way, which is the problem; if the rules gave guidance or examples along these lines we might actually have aggro as more of an informal mechanic. I've seen some games, mostly tabletop wargames, that used priority targeting rules (e.g- you must attack the nearest target unless you have a special feature or make some kind of check) but these slow a game down, but all it really requires is a box that says something like "In the heat of battle a creature will usually attack the nearest or most obvious threat. When a player character or monster attacks a less immediate target, it should have a narrative reason why".
This is how I generally try to run the game; if a player character has five enemies next to them, but wants to run around them to attack someone else, they need a reason other than "it's the more optimal way to spend my turn", and if they don't, I'll either veto it or ask for some kind of check. But I hold myself to that same standard; an enemy won't break off a fight with one player to go KO a more vulnerable one unless they have a good reason. Proud enemies are susceptible to insults, intelligent enemies act on the basis of what they've seen (not what I as the DM know about the player's plans) and so-on.
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 disagree. This is a very boring way to play D&D and you might as well replace the DM/players with an AI at that point. The advantage of D&D over a digital computer game is that you have a DM that can make combat way more strategic and varied than a computer ever could, or they can make it simple and straight to the point if that's what the players want.
If the table enjoys simple hack & slash more power to you. But I personally prefer combats with a bit more going on than "charge the nearest enemy & attack". Enemies should have some kind of motivation and act accordingly.
Why is it that people on this site constantly respond to things I haven't written? Did I say it should be a rule that you must attack the nearest creature 100% of the time? No. No, I did not. What I said is that players/DMs should be encouraged to justify why a creature isn't attacking the most obvious threat, which is not even remotely the same thing at all, because it's not placing any restrictions on you whatsoever.
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.
That sound pretty restricting to me. If the position is: "If you do something other than X you have to justify it", that's pretty discouraging for anyone do something other than X.
Because is a RPG? You can do anything you want to try, then have mechanics to check if succeed.
Or anything must be hardwritten as ability to be able to apply? Or maybe anything must be deadly combat because "there can be only one"?
In fact I think D&D is too focused in combat, and always try to add the RPG factor by my own to the even more combat focused pre-made adventures. The core of RPG are the skills, and how characters use them. Aside from that, giving XP based on missions instead plain killing and enjoy.