By your reasoning also the paladin and ranger, should be of the subclasses of the fighter? But what kind of thinking is this? Honestly, I am totally against it.
Paladin is warrior + support thus very distinct from fighter.
Ranger is warrior + utility / skill monkey thus also distinct from fighter.
Barbarian is warrior + damage mitigation thus also distinct from fighter.
If the only thing that matters about monk is their AC, hit points and DPR, then they are just a warrior and thus not distinct from fighter, and should be made a subclass of fighter that focuses on unarmoured and unarmed fighting.
Monk should be warrior + battlefield control in order to be distinct from fighter and the other martial focused classes, however it has never really fulfilled this because almost all of its battlefield control has been wrapped up in a single feature : stunning strike, which is hated by DMs because of how swingy it makes combat. And now that WotC have given everyone battlefield control via weapon masteries and for no good reason locked monk out of them and massively nerfed stunning strike, monk utterly fails at it's niche.
After 70+ pages of arguments, debates and ideas being shared by a relatively small number of people if we can’t come to a consensus about how to fix the Monk I’m betting WotC won’t come to one either. We can’t agree on what a Monk should be and what play style they are suppose to represent, so how can WotC fix the Monk In a meaningful way to satisfy the vast majority. If these same arguments, debates and ideas were presented to a larger portion of the community we would just inspire more arguments, debates, and ideas instead of finding a happy middle ground.
After 70+ pages of arguments, debates and ideas being shared by a relatively small number of people if we can’t come to a consensus about how to fix the Monk I’m betting WotC won’t come to one either. We can’t agree on what a Monk should be and what play style they are suppose to represent, so how can WotC fix the Monk In a meaningful way to satisfy the vast majority. If these same arguments, debates and ideas were presented to a larger portion of the community we would just inspire more arguments, debates, and ideas instead of finding a happy middle ground.
Considering you believe the new 5eR Quivering Palm is “Garbo” I don’t want the monk unapologetically buffed by your standard. It would probably become broken by my standard. And this conversation proves the point I was trying to make. We are 70+ pages in and two people who agree the monk needs to be buffed don’t agree on what and how they need to be buffed.
Monk is bad unless they can do LITERALLY INFINITE DAMAGE off of one single save, apparently.
A single wizard can do LITERALLY INFINITE DAMAGE with no prospect of escape for anything that lacks a non-spell teleport. Forcecage+sickening radiance. There’s fighter builds that can one-turn tarrasques. How, exactly, is something that requires a save for LITERALLY INFINITE DAMAGE unbalanced? One, they have to be on the same plane. So blink counters it. Two, you have to hit the attack as a monk, which means getting into melee. As a fragile monk. Three, it then requires your next action. What if you get hit with command? What if you just die on account of being in melee during at least 17th level? What if literally anything at all happens that stops you from using your next action? Four, it targets CON saves. Those tend to pretty high. At best you’ll burn a legendary resistance and do normal fighter damage.
It isn't that monk doesn't have problems, the 5eR monk is awful! But one more point of AC, or one more point of HP doesn't fix it. Making it SAD or STR-based doesn't fix it.
Here's IMO the problem with monk and ways to fix it:
1) DMs hate Stunning Strike so make it impossible to use it reliably. The reason DMs hate it is that it incapacitates the BBEG while allowing the rest of the party to attack them and deal a ton of damage so that the BBEG is dead before they get to act. Reducing StunStrike to 1/turn doesn't solve those problems, it just makes it even less reliable for the monk player. What they need to do is either swap it for a less debilitating condition - e.g. Blindness or Dazed - or they need to have dealing damage to an affected creature allow that creature to break free - e.g. "the stun ends if the target takes any damage" or "the creature can repeat the save each time they take damage". I'd personally prefer the latter because Rogue looks like it is getting tons of weaker condition options.
2) There is too little other stuff worth using in the class other than FoB & StunStrike. With the weakening of StunStrike, the monk needs something else cool and unique that it can do. Some thematic option could include: - Interrupt : When a creature within 5ft of you makes an attack roll, you can use your reaction to make one unarmed strike against them. If your attack hits, then the target's attack automatically misses. (Upgrades at high levels to prevent a spellcaster from casting a spell if you hit) - Stagger : When you hit a creature with a melee attack, you can choose to stagger them. The target cannot use its reaction until the start of its next turn and it has disadvantage on its next attack roll. - Disrupt : When you hit a creature that is concentrating on a spell with a melee attack, you can spend 1 DP to break their concentration. - Paralyze : Upgraded alternative to StunStrike but uses a Wis save and causes paralysis for 1 minute or until they take any damage.
The Ranger *was* a subclass of fighter in AD&D 1e. The Paladin was as well. The Barbarian, introduced in the original Unearthed Arcana book, was a stand alone class. barbs were originally introduced in Dragon magazine, iirc, and while the official was slightly modified, they stuck. I still have the original barbarian version in my stack of old Dragon mags, I think.
The Monk in 1e was, arguably, the least impressive but most interesting combat related class in 1e. It was a stand alone class, but really should have been a fighter sub-class except that the 1e rules for unarmed combat also sucked since in D&D 1e a fist can never cause as much damage as a weapon. Flat out, that is a mechanical basis that runs throughout the game, and why comes down to the way that they abstract combat and if they did make it equal to such, then people would never use weapons, and while not any kind of hard rule, the simple deal is a Dagger is the base level weapon, and the most a fist can do in this kind of system (back in those days) was to be equal to a dagger.
When Oriental Adventures came out, Monks took on a whole new life and became much closer to what we see now in other classes in 5e. This is in part because Gygax didn't want Monks in the mainline version of the game. It wasn't that he didn't like them (he did, after all, still include them), it was that they didn't fit in well with a "European Middle Ages Fantasy" kind of thing to him.OA's Monk was nothing like the PHB Monk in 1e mechanically. For most of the games I was aware of, the OA Monk took over, and by the time that 3rd edition came out, the path to creating the current monk was settled because the OA Monk became the default Archetype.
It was all but admitted that the reason Oriental Adventures was produced was because of complaints about the Monk both in the development and the public side of things -- and OA was meant to be a template for folks creating variants for thing that were not "European Middle Ages Fantasy". Mazteca, Dark Sun, and Krynn all owe their existence to the publication and success of that work, which basically set standards for how to do things with a different cultural basis.
In superhero 5e, a fist can do more -- but in doing so it revealed the mechanical weakness, and they also had the problem of brawling and other activities that are essentially also unarmed combat, and the consistency requirement meant that Monks needed to be able to compete with someone who (under 5e) decided that their barbarian was only going to do punches and grapples and brawling tactics.
While the imagined scenario and role play of that are one thing, mechanically it is little different from a basic monk. Thus, Monk -- either as a subclass or class -- has to be able to compete with a another class on a mechanical basis while still maintaining the variable role playing options so that they are NOT just a fighter that forgot his weapons at home.
This is why if you are going to just go off of dpr or combat role, all you are doing is creating or dealing with an unarmed Fighter. ANd, mechanically, an unarmed fighter has to be weaker than an armed fighter -- otherwise, what is the point of weapons, and remember this is still a European middle ages Fantasy structure, so weapons have to be stronger or the willing suspension of disbelief is lost and the play is broken for the vast majority of players.
Some of the hinted at suggestions (so few actual suggestions) are basically to scrap the Monk and recreate it in order to be an unarmed close of the fighter class. That isn't what is happening with One D&D, at least so far, and in part because again, without a special ability or magic (ki), the Monk class rewrite cannot position it as on par with any weapon wielding class without screwing up the mechanics.
So, presumably, tis thread isn't about "what can we make the class into in our wildest dreams?", it is about "what can we do to make the Monk less crappy, keeping in mind that Monks are not Fighters?"
I pushed to create an archetype that everyone could agree on so you could all start to find common ground instead of arguing in circles. I am well aware that arguing in circles about a class is a time honored tradition that has existed for at least as long as the idea of creating classes for some silly game has been around. Some folks don't want D&D to be an Archetype based system, however -- that has become apparent. They want to rely on a Combat Role system, which is distinct from the basis of 5e (though not so much for 4e) and so drops out of many of the underlying important aspects of what makes D&D as a whole work and a fun game.
But I will remind you that anything you may want still has to be something that the vast majority of players want, and cannot be done on a minmax basis, because in part, most players aren't interested in minmaxing. That sounds like gasps, but I assure you that it is true. And they have to create the classes to the interests of most players, not just the minmaxers.
It still had to follow basic principles of the larger game system, as well -- so unarmed strikes cannot compete with weapons in damage levels, and that means there is no way that Monk can compete with any fighter class. No amount of "but they may not want to play a monk" changes that underlying basis of the core combat structure that depends on a weapon based abstract system.
Now, they can add special abilities -- but those have limits, such that while a few strikes each day may hurt as much as a weapon attack. They cannot simply be "always on". They can have magic -- however you want to define it. THey can have special attacks (that also have limits on use).
That's the nature of game design, though, within an existing and established system -- you have to operate within them, or you have to redo the whole system keeping the core principles in mind. As I haven't seen anyone talking about a revamp of the entire combat system that would permit an abstract system where a long sword is equal to a kick and a short sword is equal to a fist and they get umpteen bazillion attacks without shattering any other combat connected system (such as actions, CRs, skills, abilities, Brawling, general unskilled hand to hand, grappling, and so forth), I don' t think that's something that anyone has considered. But from a game design standpoint -- from a D&D game design standpoint -- that is something you have to consider. WotC may be packed full of minmax designers who want to see walking tanks capable of leveling small cities singlehandedly by the time they are 12th level, but they still have to abide by these intertwined principles when creating or they ruin the work they did on all the other classes, and one cannot simply say "well, I don't care about them" because it is their job to care about them. None of this is happening in a vacuum.
One of the most valid complaints I saw was that they took away anything for monks when they dropped in even more weapon properties and piled on special attack options. Monks do need something like that, in my opinion.
I am working on a very basic setting, still a kitchen sink kind of thing, but the stuff that went into this sink are not the things that went into the D&D sink. I have a place for all the classes. Like OA, I am adjusting the classes to fit the world (all the rules to fit the world) and to some it often looks like I am making my own game or moving away from D&D. While I may not think so, I will say that I have had to touch all those mechanics already. I like 5e. There are things I liked from 1e and 2e that I feel need to be added and I find 5e overly simplified (to the point it causes problems that I had already solved long ago in my games) for my players, most of whom have at least 20 years of play -- they are the kids of my OG group and we've been playing together for 40 years.
So having seen this, and having a Monk class in the world (one that is based in part on Mortal Kombat), I can see that I need to ensure that there are some good equivalent feats and such that Monks can take to stay roughly in line with Fighters.
So, with this long ass post and a flounce, I am off to do exactly that. But I hope that you all can find some common ground instead of differences, and that none of you are so entrenched that you cannot let go of how you see things. Because if so, you won't get what you are hoping for out of the monk, even if it is reasonable -- you will be washed away in the tide of the folks who don't really give a darn about the monk because did you just see that really cool Taldoriel class?
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
1) DMs hate Stunning Strike so make it impossible to use it reliably.
Stunning strike is useful even on non-bosses. CC effects in general have the problem that legendary resistance is badly designed -- you need something so stun-locking bosses doesn't work, but making it so CC doesn't do anything at all is letting the pendulum swing too far in the other direction.
Considering you believe the new 5eR Quivering Palm is “Garbo” I don’t want the monk unapologetically buffed by your standard. It would probably become broken by my standard. And this conversation proves the point I was trying to make. We are 70+ pages in and two people who agree the monk needs to be buffed don’t agree on what and how they need to be buffed.
Monk is bad unless they can do LITERALLY INFINITE DAMAGE off of one single save, apparently.
A single wizard can do LITERALLY INFINITE DAMAGE with no prospect of escape for anything that lacks a non-spell teleport. Forcecage+sickening radiance. There’s fighter builds that can one-turn tarrasques. How, exactly, is something that requires a save for LITERALLY INFINITE DAMAGE unbalanced? One, they have to be on the same plane. So blink counters it. Two, you have to hit the attack as a monk, which means getting into melee. As a fragile monk. Three, it then requires your next action. What if you get hit with command? What if you just die on account of being in melee during at least 17th level? What if literally anything at all happens that stops you from using your next action? Four, it targets CON saves. Those tend to pretty high. At best you’ll burn a legendary resistance and do normal fighter damage.
And this is a prime example of how theorycrafting is junk.
Spells cannot pass through forcecage, so if you're outside, you cannot cast a spell inside. And if you're inside, you cannot cast outside. Not only does your strategy rely on some rather precise timing, probably with two spellcasters, but it's also something that can only be done once per day...
And, let's be honest, those kinds of builds can just suck the fun out of the game. Because what's the point if nobody else at the table gets to do anything? It is a collaborative game, right? Play it that way. If you're only ever thinking of yourself, you're hurting everyone else.
1) DMs hate Stunning Strike so make it impossible to use it reliably.
Stunning strike is useful even on non-bosses. CC effects in general have the problem that legendary resistance is badly designed -- you need something so stun-locking bosses doesn't work, but making it so CC doesn't do anything at all is letting the pendulum swing too far in the other direction.
Oh I absolutely agree. One of the best uses of it can be to stun the baddie's support caster like the bard or cleric to stop them healing or buffing the baddies, or to stop the enemy rogue-type running away and hiding. But from my experience a lot of DMs still will cheat it until it is useless, and based on the fact that one of the most frequent complaints about monk is that Stunning Strike never goes off (despite statistically you should have a 40% chance of success each time) I suspect other DMs do the same. But also consider before you get 6th+ level spells, the only other CC effect that incapacitates the enemy and leaves them vulnerable to being attacked & killed with no additional save are the Hold spells. Everything else dealing damage to the CCed creature gives them an opportunity to escape.
Just like with QP, I'm not opposed to all nerfing of it. It's fine to nerf Stunning Strike, if they give monk something else to replace it. And nerfing QP is warranted, but it still has to be reliably better than just attacking or there is no reason for it to exist.
It isn't that monk doesn't have problems, the 5eR monk is awful! But one more point of AC, or one more point of HP doesn't fix it. Making it SAD or STR-based doesn't fix it.
Here's IMO the problem with monk and ways to fix it:
1) DMs hate Stunning Strike so make it impossible to use it reliably. The reason DMs hate it is that it incapacitates the BBEG while allowing the rest of the party to attack them and deal a ton of damage so that the BBEG is dead before they get to act. Reducing StunStrike to 1/turn doesn't solve those problems, it just makes it even less reliable for the monk player. What they need to do is either swap it for a less debilitating condition - e.g. Blindness or Dazed - or they need to have dealing damage to an affected creature allow that creature to break free - e.g. "the stun ends if the target takes any damage" or "the creature can repeat the save each time they take damage". I'd personally prefer the latter because Rogue looks like it is getting tons of weaker condition options.
2) There is too little other stuff worth using in the class other than FoB & StunStrike. With the weakening of StunStrike, the monk needs something else cool and unique that it can do. Some thematic option could include: - Interrupt : When a creature within 5ft of you makes an attack roll, you can use your reaction to make one unarmed strike against them. If your attack hits, then the target's attack automatically misses. (Upgrades at high levels to prevent a spellcaster from casting a spell if you hit) - Stagger : When you hit a creature with a melee attack, you can choose to stagger them. The target cannot use its reaction until the start of its next turn and it has disadvantage on its next attack roll. - Disrupt : When you hit a creature that is concentrating on a spell with a melee attack, you can spend 1 DP to break their concentration. - Paralyze : Upgraded alternative to StunStrike but uses a Wis save and causes paralysis for 1 minute or until they take any damage.
I like some of your suggestions. Paralyze might be too much depending on the level you get it. And stunned until damaged or gets another save if damaged, I don't care for. Dazed condition would be my preference earlier with stun being an upgrade. If they went with Dazed condition I could see getting rid of the 1/turn thing.
But we will see when UA8 comes out what they decide to do. UA7 Brawler from fighter might be what STR based monk enthusiasts might prefer. I haven't had a chance to look at it quite yet.
people don't need to agree in order to have something resolved or improved. We are discussing and debating our own possible ideas and their merits, someone reading it can read and decide where they agree, or disagree. The designer doesn't have to do what any of us say, but a good designer tries to understand what people are saying, and consider it.
Ultimately it will come down to a couple of guys decision at Wotc, Then players will decide if they are OK with that, and play monk or not, or alter it to suit their needs.
and quivering palm is bad.
its average damage is lower than other classes damage with basic combos, and it takes two turns to set up and 3ki.
for reference 3ki should equal 3 extra hits, in terms of damage, In terms of spike, 3MA dice.
its bad to have a high level powerful skill that = less than regular damage. Its only even on the table because monk's t3 damage is so low, that it seems OK.
but let's not take my word for it, here is the math:
10d12+monk level damage = max
1/2(10d12+monk level) =.min.
max average damage is 85 at lvl 20
min average damage is 42.5 at lvl 20.
this ONLY does damage, no other effect, so its value is simple.
this is a con save, one of the worst endgame saves. its basically on average +9 at 17 and + 12 for 20 plus. This is the physical oriented subclass so Ki save is 18.
this means its 40% success rate at 17, and 30% at 20+
mathematically thats . 57.4 damage at 17 and 55.7 damage at 20. this costs 3 ki, and you have no action.
other classes at 20, 22 dmg stat,
a basic champion fighter, just using GS polearm, GWM, and PAM GWF. is 65.37 average damage at 20.
lets say they go topple and have advantage, 73.73
without even using action surge, they destroy this damage, and thats not even an optimized build. Thats the basic heavy weapon rotation, it gets even higher because if they crit/kill early, they won't even use polearm or its HAFT
Berserker Barbarian, DW PAM GWM. nick scimitar> flex longsword> Polearm >Haft. 77.27 per round. edit, I forgot primal champ, but this is already enough.
wizard i won't even pretend to know their best build, but blade of disaster + a lvl 6 scorching ray is 98.8 damage, if they set up advantage for blade, thats 121 damage, if they set up both with advantage, thats 133. the setup turn, where they can't cast two spells is 76 dpr with firebolt. For reference blade of disaster is a BA and averages 54.6 dpr at 20. (practically more than quivering palm, for 10 turns)
STR RANGER hunter, 20/22 str/wis
same barbarian combo, +5damage+5attack,(capstone) 3d6 HM, colossus slayer. 78.95
And this doesnt even include the fact you probably have magic items by 17-20.
short version quivering palm is a joke. Monk t3-4 Is a joke, and quivering palm is a punchline.
locking off monk from martial features, masteries, and no serious dpr boosts after 5 makes them trash, and open hand is now probably the worst subclass, with its level 3 feature inferior to mastery, its level 17 feature promised mediocrity, its level 11 feature not very useful, since a monk who doesnt FOB is bad, (especially openhand) and its level 6 heal has two resource requirements for some odd reason.
damn, redoing this math gets me annoyed again, how did they decide nerfing monk, an underperforming class was a good idea. I'm not sure any endgame class has less damage potential.
for reference if I had to remake quivering, assuming all else the same, and no instakill, I would make it have the same starting condition, and save
however, it would record the damage on the turn its applied, and deal double damage+stun (essentially vulnerability) on failed save or half that on succeeded save (normal damage) but enable a BA UA attack. (which means you can apply it again)
this means the minimum damage is 1 attack better than your average, and the max is double. This means you can burn Ki to do 1.55* dmg every other turn. on average it would increase your dps by 27-30% by burning Ki, and would scale with your ability to do damage.
Quivering Palm doesn’t take two turns to set up. You just can’t activate it until the next turn, but you still have a normal turn before the QP activation turn. 3ki for 10d12 damage on one turn is good. The insta kill ability of 5e QP sounds cool, but it’s bad, really bad. Stun Locking enemies and stealing their entire turn is also bad if it happens too often. Also I love the fact you compared 5eR QP damage to a champion fighter using PAM and GWM as is those didn’t get a change in 5eR and as if fighter isn’t meant to be the most consistent high DPR class in the game. Monk has many problems 5eR QP isn’t one I’m worried about.
A monk is doing 4d12+20 (assuming 20 dex at this point) so 46 avg damage. So Round 1 you can do this 46 avg damage and set up QP and then Round 2 10d12+monk level. So, if they make their save you are better off just attacking. But not if they fail. which making their saving throw may be likely since it's a CON save. Would after activating it on round 2 give a BA unarmed strike help? At least you wouldn't be doing less damage than just attacking.
I agree 5E version was maybe too much since you could do this multiple times. But is the UA version a good alternative?
Also, the UA7 says DMG will have magic items to boost Unarmed Strikes
DESIGN NOTE: MAGIC ITEMS FOR UNARMED STRIKES AND IMPROVISED WEAPONS The 2024 Dungeon Master’s Guide will include magic items that enhance Unarmed Strikes and Improvised Weapons. These items will support the Monk, Brawler Fighter, and College of Dance Bard, along with other characters who rely on Unarmed Strikes or Improvised Weapons.
Oh I absolutely agree. One of the best uses of it can be to stun the baddie's support caster like the bard or cleric to stop them healing or buffing the baddies, or to stop the enemy rogue-type running away and hiding. But from my experience a lot of DMs still will cheat it until it is useless, and based on the fact that one of the most frequent complaints about monk is that Stunning Strike never goes off (despite statistically you should have a 40% chance of success each time) I suspect other DMs do the same.
There may be some of that, but I suspect it's mostly just remembering the failures more than the successes. That said, a more reliable but less drastic effect would probably be a good thing, neither success nor failure really produces a terribly good encounter (success: "beating on a passive lump is exciting, right?"; failure: "well, that was totally useless").
Brawlers focus their training and study not on swordplay and battle tactics, but on the skills needed to turn a punch or kick into a brutal strike and any innocuous object into a deadly weapon. Some Brawlers thrive in tavern scuffles and street rumbles, while others excel in espionage, wielding ordinary objects with the deadliness of an assassin’s knife.
DESIGN NOTE: MAGIC ITEMS FOR UNARMED STRIKES AND IMPROVISED WEAPONS The 2024 Dungeon Master’s Guide will include magic items that enhance Unarmed Strikes and Improvised Weapons. These items will support the Monk, Brawler Fighter, and College of Dance Bard, along with other characters who rely on Unarmed Strikes or Improvised Weapons.
LEVEL 3: UNARMED EXPERT You can roll 1d6 plus your Strength modifier in place of the normal damage of your Unarmed Strike. If you aren’t holding any weapons or a Shield when you make the attack roll, the d6 becomes a d8.
LEVEL 3: IMPROVISED EXPERT You are proficient with Improvised Weapons. Whenever you finish a Long Rest, choose one weapon property from the One-Handed list and one from the Two-Handed list: One-Handed: Light or Thrown (Range 20/60) Two-Handed: Reach or Thrown (Range 10/30) Until the end of your next Long Rest, the OneHanded choice applies to the one-handed Improvised Weapons you wield, and the TwoHanded choice applies to the two-handed ones. In addition, whenever you attack with an Improvised Weapon, you can give it one of the following Mastery properties for that attack, depending on whether it can be wielded in one hand or two: One-Handed: Sap, Slow, or Vex Two-Handed: Cleave, Push, or Topple
LEVEL 7: GRAPPLING EXPERT You can make one Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action. When you use Unarmed Strike in this way, you must choose the Grapple or Shove option. In addition, at the start of each of your turns, you can deal 1d6 Bludgeoning damage to one creature Grappled by you.
LEVEL 10: DIRTY FIGHTING You have Advantage on attack rolls made with Improvised Weapons and Unarmed Strikes against a creature Grappled by you. LEVEL
15: IMPROVISED SPECIALIST You are a master at making the ordinary deadly. Whenever you hit a creature with an Improvised Weapon, you can add your Proficiency Bonus to the damage roll, and the damage die of your twohanded Improvised Weapons becomes 1d12. In addition, whenever you attack with an Improvised Weapon, you can use two Mastery properties from Improvised Expert, instead of one.
LEVEL 18: UNARMED SPECIALIST Your Unarmed Strikes improve to a d8. If you aren’t holding any weapons or a Shield when you make the attack roll, the d8 becomes a d10.
Brawlers focus their training and study not on swordplay and battle tactics, but on the skills needed to turn a punch or kick into a brutal strike and any innocuous object into a deadly weapon. Some Brawlers thrive in tavern scuffles and street rumbles, while others excel in espionage, wielding ordinary objects with the deadliness of an assassin’s knife.
DESIGN NOTE: MAGIC ITEMS FOR UNARMED STRIKES AND IMPROVISED WEAPONS The 2024 Dungeon Master’s Guide will include magic items that enhance Unarmed Strikes and Improvised Weapons. These items will support the Monk, Brawler Fighter, and College of Dance Bard, along with other characters who rely on Unarmed Strikes or Improvised Weapons.
LEVEL 3: UNARMED EXPERT You can roll 1d6 plus your Strength modifier in place of the normal damage of your Unarmed Strike. If you aren’t holding any weapons or a Shield when you make the attack roll, the d6 becomes a d8.
LEVEL 3: IMPROVISED EXPERT You are proficient with Improvised Weapons. Whenever you finish a Long Rest, choose one weapon property from the One-Handed list and one from the Two-Handed list: One-Handed: Light or Thrown (Range 20/60) Two-Handed: Reach or Thrown (Range 10/30) Until the end of your next Long Rest, the OneHanded choice applies to the one-handed Improvised Weapons you wield, and the TwoHanded choice applies to the two-handed ones. In addition, whenever you attack with an Improvised Weapon, you can give it one of the following Mastery properties for that attack, depending on whether it can be wielded in one hand or two: One-Handed: Sap, Slow, or Vex Two-Handed: Cleave, Push, or Topple
LEVEL 7: GRAPPLING EXPERT You can make one Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action. When you use Unarmed Strike in this way, you must choose the Grapple or Shove option. In addition, at the start of each of your turns, you can deal 1d6 Bludgeoning damage to one creature Grappled by you.
LEVEL 10: DIRTY FIGHTING You have Advantage on attack rolls made with Improvised Weapons and Unarmed Strikes against a creature Grappled by you. LEVEL
15: IMPROVISED SPECIALIST You are a master at making the ordinary deadly. Whenever you hit a creature with an Improvised Weapon, you can add your Proficiency Bonus to the damage roll, and the damage die of your twohanded Improvised Weapons becomes 1d12. In addition, whenever you attack with an Improvised Weapon, you can use two Mastery properties from Improvised Expert, instead of one.
LEVEL 18: UNARMED SPECIALIST Your Unarmed Strikes improve to a d8. If you aren’t holding any weapons or a Shield when you make the attack roll, the d8 becomes a d10.
I am honestly disgusted.
I am not surprised.
One important thing to note: this subclass has weapon masteries for improvised weapons but not unarmed strikes. So anyone hoping that weapon masteries could also be for the monks unarmed strikes.....well......the chances are low.
The new magic items support could be very helpfull though. If they had +1/+2/+3 non attunement items for unarmed strikes that would be most helpful.
If thats the case though, then the monks empowered strikes would become a wasted use of a class feature.
Oh FFS, why can't we have weapon masteries for unarmed strikes? If we don't get that for monk but brawler gets it for improvised weapons I'm going to riot.
But otherwise I like brawler, it looks fun and solves the STR-monk people's problems. But monk had better get a suitable buff in order to match not just brawler but also the new pact of the blade warlock (looking at you 3-attacks per attack action + weapon masteries + spells..)
Honestly, the brawler fighter looks like a trap option? It appears they decided the fighting style was too good (it wasn't) and they had to turn its features into a subclass.
The main problem with brawler is the nerf to Grapple/Shove which makes their grappling features pretty lame. Improvised weapons are super fun and really promote roleplay during combat which is a big plus from me.
a.) does less damage with unarmed strikes than a Monk, b.) lacks the movement features of a Monk, c.) has different crowd-control options than a Monk, d.) is aimed towards a specific niche that differs from a Monk's specialties.
So yanno, total insult, victimized, yadda yadda.
a. is wrong at higher levels, and d is arguably not true either
Everyone who wanted a martial artist without all the monk mysticism and “magic” no longer need to complain. You will have it if it survives playtest. Honestly I like it at a glance and it doesn’t feel like it steps on the monk’s toes as badly as the Dance bard did?
STR monk is probably a dead idea. Brawler Fighter x/ Barbarian 1-2 will cover it pretty well.
Both Fighter and Barbarian received increase mobility options, so monk needs help next. Step of the Wind for no DP cost is starting to look fair in the new landscape.
The change to the heavy property probably won’t mean anything for monks, but would be awesome if it did.
Considering fighter didn’t get anything more than Weapon Masteries and Warlocks just got a once a day pact recharge I going to say they are only listing a very little. They literally know that many players want all Fighters to have something similar to BM Maneuvers, but JC said some players don’t want anything that complex so let’s not do that. That means any complex fix for the monk will probably get shot down no matter how good and balanced it seems. Really was hoping for 1/3 slots and pact magic on the Warlock. I guess Pact of the tome does give you 1 spell slot. So maybe the future 5eR monk gets one fix that makes them better than 5e Monk. Sadly with all the other classes getting glow ups it’s going to make the Monk seem worse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Paladin is warrior + support thus very distinct from fighter.
Ranger is warrior + utility / skill monkey thus also distinct from fighter.
Barbarian is warrior + damage mitigation thus also distinct from fighter.
If the only thing that matters about monk is their AC, hit points and DPR, then they are just a warrior and thus not distinct from fighter, and should be made a subclass of fighter that focuses on unarmoured and unarmed fighting.
Monk should be warrior + battlefield control in order to be distinct from fighter and the other martial focused classes, however it has never really fulfilled this because almost all of its battlefield control has been wrapped up in a single feature : stunning strike, which is hated by DMs because of how swingy it makes combat. And now that WotC have given everyone battlefield control via weapon masteries and for no good reason locked monk out of them and massively nerfed stunning strike, monk utterly fails at it's niche.
Then it's trial by combat!
Thats about right.
A single wizard can do LITERALLY INFINITE DAMAGE with no prospect of escape for anything that lacks a non-spell teleport. Forcecage+sickening radiance. There’s fighter builds that can one-turn tarrasques. How, exactly, is something that requires a save for LITERALLY INFINITE DAMAGE unbalanced? One, they have to be on the same plane. So blink counters it. Two, you have to hit the attack as a monk, which means getting into melee. As a fragile monk. Three, it then requires your next action. What if you get hit with command? What if you just die on account of being in melee during at least 17th level? What if literally anything at all happens that stops you from using your next action? Four, it targets CON saves. Those tend to pretty high. At best you’ll burn a legendary resistance and do normal fighter damage.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
It isn't that monk doesn't have problems, the 5eR monk is awful! But one more point of AC, or one more point of HP doesn't fix it. Making it SAD or STR-based doesn't fix it.
Here's IMO the problem with monk and ways to fix it:
1) DMs hate Stunning Strike so make it impossible to use it reliably. The reason DMs hate it is that it incapacitates the BBEG while allowing the rest of the party to attack them and deal a ton of damage so that the BBEG is dead before they get to act. Reducing StunStrike to 1/turn doesn't solve those problems, it just makes it even less reliable for the monk player. What they need to do is either swap it for a less debilitating condition - e.g. Blindness or Dazed - or they need to have dealing damage to an affected creature allow that creature to break free - e.g. "the stun ends if the target takes any damage" or "the creature can repeat the save each time they take damage". I'd personally prefer the latter because Rogue looks like it is getting tons of weaker condition options.
2) There is too little other stuff worth using in the class other than FoB & StunStrike. With the weakening of StunStrike, the monk needs something else cool and unique that it can do. Some thematic option could include:
- Interrupt : When a creature within 5ft of you makes an attack roll, you can use your reaction to make one unarmed strike against them. If your attack hits, then the target's attack automatically misses. (Upgrades at high levels to prevent a spellcaster from casting a spell if you hit)
- Stagger : When you hit a creature with a melee attack, you can choose to stagger them. The target cannot use its reaction until the start of its next turn and it has disadvantage on its next attack roll.
- Disrupt : When you hit a creature that is concentrating on a spell with a melee attack, you can spend 1 DP to break their concentration.
- Paralyze : Upgraded alternative to StunStrike but uses a Wis save and causes paralysis for 1 minute or until they take any damage.
So, catching up...
The Ranger *was* a subclass of fighter in AD&D 1e. The Paladin was as well. The Barbarian, introduced in the original Unearthed Arcana book, was a stand alone class. barbs were originally introduced in Dragon magazine, iirc, and while the official was slightly modified, they stuck. I still have the original barbarian version in my stack of old Dragon mags, I think.
The Monk in 1e was, arguably, the least impressive but most interesting combat related class in 1e. It was a stand alone class, but really should have been a fighter sub-class except that the 1e rules for unarmed combat also sucked since in D&D 1e a fist can never cause as much damage as a weapon. Flat out, that is a mechanical basis that runs throughout the game, and why comes down to the way that they abstract combat and if they did make it equal to such, then people would never use weapons, and while not any kind of hard rule, the simple deal is a Dagger is the base level weapon, and the most a fist can do in this kind of system (back in those days) was to be equal to a dagger.
When Oriental Adventures came out, Monks took on a whole new life and became much closer to what we see now in other classes in 5e. This is in part because Gygax didn't want Monks in the mainline version of the game. It wasn't that he didn't like them (he did, after all, still include them), it was that they didn't fit in well with a "European Middle Ages Fantasy" kind of thing to him.OA's Monk was nothing like the PHB Monk in 1e mechanically. For most of the games I was aware of, the OA Monk took over, and by the time that 3rd edition came out, the path to creating the current monk was settled because the OA Monk became the default Archetype.
It was all but admitted that the reason Oriental Adventures was produced was because of complaints about the Monk both in the development and the public side of things -- and OA was meant to be a template for folks creating variants for thing that were not "European Middle Ages Fantasy". Mazteca, Dark Sun, and Krynn all owe their existence to the publication and success of that work, which basically set standards for how to do things with a different cultural basis.
In superhero 5e, a fist can do more -- but in doing so it revealed the mechanical weakness, and they also had the problem of brawling and other activities that are essentially also unarmed combat, and the consistency requirement meant that Monks needed to be able to compete with someone who (under 5e) decided that their barbarian was only going to do punches and grapples and brawling tactics.
While the imagined scenario and role play of that are one thing, mechanically it is little different from a basic monk. Thus, Monk -- either as a subclass or class -- has to be able to compete with a another class on a mechanical basis while still maintaining the variable role playing options so that they are NOT just a fighter that forgot his weapons at home.
This is why if you are going to just go off of dpr or combat role, all you are doing is creating or dealing with an unarmed Fighter. ANd, mechanically, an unarmed fighter has to be weaker than an armed fighter -- otherwise, what is the point of weapons, and remember this is still a European middle ages Fantasy structure, so weapons have to be stronger or the willing suspension of disbelief is lost and the play is broken for the vast majority of players.
Some of the hinted at suggestions (so few actual suggestions) are basically to scrap the Monk and recreate it in order to be an unarmed close of the fighter class. That isn't what is happening with One D&D, at least so far, and in part because again, without a special ability or magic (ki), the Monk class rewrite cannot position it as on par with any weapon wielding class without screwing up the mechanics.
So, presumably, tis thread isn't about "what can we make the class into in our wildest dreams?", it is about "what can we do to make the Monk less crappy, keeping in mind that Monks are not Fighters?"
I pushed to create an archetype that everyone could agree on so you could all start to find common ground instead of arguing in circles. I am well aware that arguing in circles about a class is a time honored tradition that has existed for at least as long as the idea of creating classes for some silly game has been around. Some folks don't want D&D to be an Archetype based system, however -- that has become apparent. They want to rely on a Combat Role system, which is distinct from the basis of 5e (though not so much for 4e) and so drops out of many of the underlying important aspects of what makes D&D as a whole work and a fun game.
But I will remind you that anything you may want still has to be something that the vast majority of players want, and cannot be done on a minmax basis, because in part, most players aren't interested in minmaxing. That sounds like gasps, but I assure you that it is true. And they have to create the classes to the interests of most players, not just the minmaxers.
It still had to follow basic principles of the larger game system, as well -- so unarmed strikes cannot compete with weapons in damage levels, and that means there is no way that Monk can compete with any fighter class. No amount of "but they may not want to play a monk" changes that underlying basis of the core combat structure that depends on a weapon based abstract system.
Now, they can add special abilities -- but those have limits, such that while a few strikes each day may hurt as much as a weapon attack. They cannot simply be "always on". They can have magic -- however you want to define it. THey can have special attacks (that also have limits on use).
That's the nature of game design, though, within an existing and established system -- you have to operate within them, or you have to redo the whole system keeping the core principles in mind. As I haven't seen anyone talking about a revamp of the entire combat system that would permit an abstract system where a long sword is equal to a kick and a short sword is equal to a fist and they get umpteen bazillion attacks without shattering any other combat connected system (such as actions, CRs, skills, abilities, Brawling, general unskilled hand to hand, grappling, and so forth), I don' t think that's something that anyone has considered. But from a game design standpoint -- from a D&D game design standpoint -- that is something you have to consider. WotC may be packed full of minmax designers who want to see walking tanks capable of leveling small cities singlehandedly by the time they are 12th level, but they still have to abide by these intertwined principles when creating or they ruin the work they did on all the other classes, and one cannot simply say "well, I don't care about them" because it is their job to care about them. None of this is happening in a vacuum.
One of the most valid complaints I saw was that they took away anything for monks when they dropped in even more weapon properties and piled on special attack options. Monks do need something like that, in my opinion.
I am working on a very basic setting, still a kitchen sink kind of thing, but the stuff that went into this sink are not the things that went into the D&D sink. I have a place for all the classes. Like OA, I am adjusting the classes to fit the world (all the rules to fit the world) and to some it often looks like I am making my own game or moving away from D&D. While I may not think so, I will say that I have had to touch all those mechanics already. I like 5e. There are things I liked from 1e and 2e that I feel need to be added and I find 5e overly simplified (to the point it causes problems that I had already solved long ago in my games) for my players, most of whom have at least 20 years of play -- they are the kids of my OG group and we've been playing together for 40 years.
So having seen this, and having a Monk class in the world (one that is based in part on Mortal Kombat), I can see that I need to ensure that there are some good equivalent feats and such that Monks can take to stay roughly in line with Fighters.
So, with this long ass post and a flounce, I am off to do exactly that. But I hope that you all can find some common ground instead of differences, and that none of you are so entrenched that you cannot let go of how you see things. Because if so, you won't get what you are hoping for out of the monk, even if it is reasonable -- you will be washed away in the tide of the folks who don't really give a darn about the monk because did you just see that really cool Taldoriel class?
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
Stunning strike is useful even on non-bosses. CC effects in general have the problem that legendary resistance is badly designed -- you need something so stun-locking bosses doesn't work, but making it so CC doesn't do anything at all is letting the pendulum swing too far in the other direction.
And this is a prime example of how theorycrafting is junk.
Spells cannot pass through forcecage, so if you're outside, you cannot cast a spell inside. And if you're inside, you cannot cast outside. Not only does your strategy rely on some rather precise timing, probably with two spellcasters, but it's also something that can only be done once per day...
And, let's be honest, those kinds of builds can just suck the fun out of the game. Because what's the point if nobody else at the table gets to do anything? It is a collaborative game, right? Play it that way. If you're only ever thinking of yourself, you're hurting everyone else.
Oh I absolutely agree. One of the best uses of it can be to stun the baddie's support caster like the bard or cleric to stop them healing or buffing the baddies, or to stop the enemy rogue-type running away and hiding. But from my experience a lot of DMs still will cheat it until it is useless, and based on the fact that one of the most frequent complaints about monk is that Stunning Strike never goes off (despite statistically you should have a 40% chance of success each time) I suspect other DMs do the same. But also consider before you get 6th+ level spells, the only other CC effect that incapacitates the enemy and leaves them vulnerable to being attacked & killed with no additional save are the Hold spells. Everything else dealing damage to the CCed creature gives them an opportunity to escape.
Just like with QP, I'm not opposed to all nerfing of it. It's fine to nerf Stunning Strike, if they give monk something else to replace it. And nerfing QP is warranted, but it still has to be reliably better than just attacking or there is no reason for it to exist.
I like some of your suggestions. Paralyze might be too much depending on the level you get it. And stunned until damaged or gets another save if damaged, I don't care for. Dazed condition would be my preference earlier with stun being an upgrade. If they went with Dazed condition I could see getting rid of the 1/turn thing.
But we will see when UA8 comes out what they decide to do. UA7 Brawler from fighter might be what STR based monk enthusiasts might prefer. I haven't had a chance to look at it quite yet.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Quivering Palm doesn’t take two turns to set up. You just can’t activate it until the next turn, but you still have a normal turn before the QP activation turn. 3ki for 10d12 damage on one turn is good. The insta kill ability of 5e QP sounds cool, but it’s bad, really bad. Stun Locking enemies and stealing their entire turn is also bad if it happens too often. Also I love the fact you compared 5eR QP damage to a champion fighter using PAM and GWM as is those didn’t get a change in 5eR and as if fighter isn’t meant to be the most consistent high DPR class in the game. Monk has many problems 5eR QP isn’t one I’m worried about.
A monk is doing 4d12+20 (assuming 20 dex at this point) so 46 avg damage. So Round 1 you can do this 46 avg damage and set up QP and then Round 2 10d12+monk level. So, if they make their save you are better off just attacking. But not if they fail. which making their saving throw may be likely since it's a CON save. Would after activating it on round 2 give a BA unarmed strike help? At least you wouldn't be doing less damage than just attacking.
I agree 5E version was maybe too much since you could do this multiple times. But is the UA version a good alternative?
Also, the UA7 says DMG will have magic items to boost Unarmed Strikes
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
There may be some of that, but I suspect it's mostly just remembering the failures more than the successes. That said, a more reliable but less drastic effect would probably be a good thing, neither success nor failure really produces a terribly good encounter (success: "beating on a passive lump is exciting, right?"; failure: "well, that was totally useless").
D&D Playtest 7 | Deep Dive | Unearthed Arcana
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQxFfFGtdxw
https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/ua/ph-playtest7/tsgOb3llF22AL0nU/UA2023-PH-Playtest7.pdf?icid_source=house-ads&icid_medium=crosspromo&icid_campaign=playtest7
no monk, but the BRAWLER.
FIGHTER SUBCLASS : BRAWLER
Brawlers focus their training and study not on swordplay and battle tactics, but on the skills needed to turn a punch or kick into a brutal strike and any innocuous object into a deadly weapon. Some Brawlers thrive in tavern scuffles and street rumbles, while others excel in espionage, wielding ordinary objects with the deadliness of an assassin’s knife.
DESIGN NOTE: MAGIC ITEMS FOR UNARMED STRIKES AND IMPROVISED WEAPONS The 2024 Dungeon Master’s Guide will include magic items that enhance Unarmed Strikes and Improvised Weapons. These items will support the Monk, Brawler Fighter, and College of Dance Bard, along with other characters who rely on Unarmed Strikes or Improvised Weapons.
LEVEL 3: UNARMED EXPERT You can roll 1d6 plus your Strength modifier in place of the normal damage of your Unarmed Strike. If you aren’t holding any weapons or a Shield when you make the attack roll, the d6 becomes a d8.
LEVEL 3: IMPROVISED EXPERT You are proficient with Improvised Weapons. Whenever you finish a Long Rest, choose one weapon property from the One-Handed list and one from the Two-Handed list: One-Handed: Light or Thrown (Range 20/60) Two-Handed: Reach or Thrown (Range 10/30) Until the end of your next Long Rest, the OneHanded choice applies to the one-handed Improvised Weapons you wield, and the TwoHanded choice applies to the two-handed ones. In addition, whenever you attack with an Improvised Weapon, you can give it one of the following Mastery properties for that attack, depending on whether it can be wielded in one hand or two: One-Handed: Sap, Slow, or Vex Two-Handed: Cleave, Push, or Topple
LEVEL 7: GRAPPLING EXPERT You can make one Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action. When you use Unarmed Strike in this way, you must choose the Grapple or Shove option. In addition, at the start of each of your turns, you can deal 1d6 Bludgeoning damage to one creature Grappled by you.
LEVEL 10: DIRTY FIGHTING You have Advantage on attack rolls made with Improvised Weapons and Unarmed Strikes against a creature Grappled by you. LEVEL
15: IMPROVISED SPECIALIST You are a master at making the ordinary deadly. Whenever you hit a creature with an Improvised Weapon, you can add your Proficiency Bonus to the damage roll, and the damage die of your twohanded Improvised Weapons becomes 1d12. In addition, whenever you attack with an Improvised Weapon, you can use two Mastery properties from Improvised Expert, instead of one.
LEVEL 18: UNARMED SPECIALIST Your Unarmed Strikes improve to a d8. If you aren’t holding any weapons or a Shield when you make the attack roll, the d8 becomes a d10.
I am honestly disgusted.
I am not surprised.
One important thing to note: this subclass has weapon masteries for improvised weapons but not unarmed strikes. So anyone hoping that weapon masteries could also be for the monks unarmed strikes.....well......the chances are low.
The new magic items support could be very helpfull though. If they had +1/+2/+3 non attunement items for unarmed strikes that would be most helpful.
If thats the case though, then the monks empowered strikes would become a wasted use of a class feature.
Oh FFS, why can't we have weapon masteries for unarmed strikes? If we don't get that for monk but brawler gets it for improvised weapons I'm going to riot.
But otherwise I like brawler, it looks fun and solves the STR-monk people's problems. But monk had better get a suitable buff in order to match not just brawler but also the new pact of the blade warlock (looking at you 3-attacks per attack action + weapon masteries + spells..)
Honestly, the brawler fighter looks like a trap option? It appears they decided the fighting style was too good (it wasn't) and they had to turn its features into a subclass.
The main problem with brawler is the nerf to Grapple/Shove which makes their grappling features pretty lame. Improvised weapons are super fun and really promote roleplay during combat which is a big plus from me.
a. is wrong at higher levels, and d is arguably not true either
What does UA7 mean for monks going forward imo?