The Inquisitive Rogue is wisdom based. The Swashbuckler is charisma based. The Arcane Trickster is intelligence based.
Inquisitive and Swashbuckler aren't really dependent upon these ability scores as they're used for checks and Rogues get Expertise as standard, there are also multiple other ways to boost checks compared to saving throw calculations.
They wouldn't be meaningfully harmed by Cunning Strikes being Intelligence based, especially since as I mentioned Rogues get a sixth Ability Score Increase so they're better able to cope with being a little multi-attribute dependent anyway.
At the very least they could give Rogues a choice of secondary stat; one of Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma, which they can use for Cunning Strikes and other features.
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.
The Inquisitive Rogue is wisdom based. The Swashbuckler is charisma based. The Arcane Trickster is intelligence based.
Inquisitive and Swashbuckler aren't really dependent upon these ability scores as they're used for checks and Rogues get Expertise as standard, there are also multiple other ways to boost checks compared to saving throw calculations. They wouldn't be meaningfully harmed by Cunning Strikes being Intelligence based, especially since as I mentioned Rogues get a sixth Ability Score Increase so they're better able to cope with being a little multi-attribute dependent anyway.
At the very least they could give Rogues a choice of secondary stat; one of Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma, which they can use for Cunning Strikes and other features.
I believe in the UA the only thing Swashbuckler uses CHA for is initiative rolls. In the current game it’s initiative and panache. So technically initiative is a check but more important than, say, a persuasion check.
IMHO is time to take out Wis from the Monk. Rogue can focus only on Dex even for computing it’s DC for Cunning Strike, then why the monk have to use another score?
I think the problem there is that WIS sort of stands in for the Mystical element of a Monk. Removing it is implying making a Monk just an unarmed warrior, as opposed to having all of the fantasy elements that get intertwined into martial arts legends.
I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying that it's a fairly big departure from what the Monk is. At that point, why isn't the Monk just a Fighting Style and Subclass for the Fighter? For example, you could:
1) Get rid of the Monk class entirely. 2) Make a "Fighting Style: Unarmed" that fairly well duplicates the basic martial arts stuff (damage, bonus unarmed strike, Dex based, and allowed to use Weapon Masteries with Unarmed Strikes). Maybe the damage is a simple as what I have been saying about using (1d4 or 1d6) + PB to scale damage dealt. 3) Make a Fighter Subclass that gets into Battle Master style martial arts maneuvers, including quasi mystical ones 4) Make a variant of the Cleric Divine Order and War Domain that are more "Monk" stylized. Divine Order that grants "FS: Unarmed", not sure if War Domain would work out of the box or not. 5) Barbarian, Druid, Rogue, and possibly Sorcerer subclasses for the same. (why sorcerer? because I like the "Physical Adept" from Shadowrun, and I will never not recommend this) 6) Some sort of variation for the Sword Bard and Bladesinger that make them work with Unarmed Strikes more transparently. For the Bard that might be as simple as including "Unarmed" as one of their Fighting Style options, and a slight rewording of the flourishes. For the Bladesinger, maybe they pick between a Martial Weapon and their Armor proficiency vs Fighting Style: Unarmed. 7) A Feat like Martial Adept that grants two Martial Arts Maneuvers (from #3 above). It's also possible to handle #3 and this one by just making these Martial Arts Maneuvers be an extensive expansion to the Battle Master.
So, basically, you shift the mystical monk to being a common subclass for casters, and you shift the mundane martial artist/pugilist to being a subclass for Fighters, Barbarians, and Rogues. If you make the FS: Unarmed available to Paladins and Rangers, as well, then that handles them. (I would see Druid and Ranger being more animalistic in their unarmed fighting, but it still fits into this umbrella, IMO ... somewhere between animal totems and animal-style martial arts).
The other thing is: you can do all of that and skip #1 (don't get rid of the Monk as they exist right now). Best of both worlds.
But I have to ask, why the Monk MUST be Mystical? I don't understand. All the stuff around that is about religion and philosophy, but in the MA fantasy that is not applied to all MA users at all, only to certain key characters that the narrative wants to grant some background and interest. From that, is all about skills, having a good example in the Warrior of the Shadows, not using Wis for anything, while it can teleport (like the fantasy ninjas). The Wis association is merely an old heritage from a base idea that has been keep with no special reason, just because it was in origin, and don't touch it.
And with the framework I put forward, you can have your mundane martial artist (in multiple flavors). Why do you have to call the "mundane martial artist" a "Monk" instead of calling them "Dex-Fighter Battle Master, with Martial Arts based maneuvers, and a good solid version of Fighting Style: Unarmed"? Or something comparable via Rogue? For good or bad, "Monk" has a particular meaning in D&D, and it's not exactly the Wire-Fu style semi-mystical movie martial artist ... but it's much closer to that than any sort of concretely mundane martial artist. Make the concrete/mundane Martial Arts stuff more accessible to the mundane classes (and in a way that also lends itself, in lesser degrees, to hybrid versions of the more magical/mystical classes), and you can leave the Monk alone while also getting the _mechanical_ support for what you're saying. You just don't need to care about the Monk class at all, at that point: leave it to the people who want the wire-fu pseudo-shaolin character, while you take up the same basic mechanical abilities via a more mundane route.
Because it is named Monk and not Martial Artist.
Exactly. It's merely something name related with the false though about people from a temple and all that stuff, but is not the only and be all the related with MA. Indeed that monk is a subset of the martial arts, not the opposite. If the name matters so much, then it could be time to move to Martial Artist and the Monk to be a subclass, and then this last one doing things with Wis.
You can achieve that goal without moving the Monk around at all. You can achieve it by making many of the martial arts skills/abilities portable, and not moving/changing the Monk at all. The Fighter is the perfect place to put the Mundane Martial Artist, because that's what Fighters already are. They just don't have a good solid foundation for the unarmed subset of the martial arts. Give them an option for that. The Rogue almost fits it as well (if you get rid of the automatically knowing Thieve's Cant and Thieve's Tools ... side rant: why do Scouts know those things, exactly?), but more from the approach of martial arts as a physical skill set than a combat knowledge.
(And: this "make the martial arts skills/abilities portable" is exactly how "1e Oriental Adventures" handled Martial Arts .. and for everything culturally wrong about that book that we can't bring forward to today, their treatment of the martial arts was the thing they have done better than any other editions handling of Martial Arts (and arguably, better than many/most other RPG's handling of the Martial Arts) ... and it was available to _every_ class, including the Bushi/Fighter, the Samurai, the Kensei, the casters, etc. And the Monk was right there alongside all of them, they just got more maneuvers than anyone else. ... but the exact mechanical method wouldn't work directly with 5e or OneD&D because the proficiency system was very different. That's why I've been thinking about ways to do it via Battle Master maneuvers, Weapon Mastery, and Feats.)
There is also more to "monk" than a single temple. The idea of spiritual warrior exists in more than one place in the world and works as a class identity. Some wear armor, some don't there is more than one solution to this, but the fact is damage, armor and effects are all low for the monk, but if you want a "martial artists" make an unarmed fighter is better than losing the spiritual warrior that is the monk.
Inquisitive and Swashbuckler aren't really dependent upon these ability scores as they're used for checks and Rogues get Expertise as standard, there are also multiple other ways to boost checks compared to saving throw calculations. They wouldn't be meaningfully harmed by Cunning Strikes being Intelligence based, especially since as I mentioned Rogues get a sixth Ability Score Increase so they're better able to cope with being a little multi-attribute dependent anyway.
At the very least they could give Rogues a choice of secondary stat; one of Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma, which they can use for Cunning Strikes and other features.
Inquisitive uses Wisdom for Insight checks, Perception checks (also the option of using Intelligence (Investigation) for Eye for Detail) and for your number of uses of Unerring Eye.
That's pretty based. And having to tie up your Expertise to support a particular stat because you need another stat for a basic Rogue function is the opposite of good game design.
That extra ASI is at level 10. Most campaigns end about there. That's why, when I talk about ASI progression, I want to know what can be achieved in two ASIs, not the five that some do. Sure, Rogue get an extra ASI, but it's not relevant in most games. Making classes mostly SAD is good, given the limitation of 10 levels. They can start with a 17 in their primary stat, get a half feat at level 4, and then bump to 20 at level 8.
We're here trying to make Monk better, not make Rogue worse.
Inquisitive uses Wisdom for ... for your number of uses of Unerring Eye.
That extra ASI is at level 10. Most campaigns end about there. That's why, when I talk about ASI progression, I want to know what can be achieved in two ASIs, not the five that some do. Sure, Rogue get an extra ASI, but it's not relevant in most games.
So 13th-level features matter but 10th-level features don't? Got it. 😉
We're here trying to make Monk better, not make Rogue worse.
It's not about making Rogue worse (I literally suggested giving them a choice of one of the mental scores if it's going to annoy you so much) but my entire point was that part of what makes a Monk's multi-ability score dependence a problem is that other classes are less-ability score dependent (and in the Rogue's case, get extra ASIs so they're even less score dependent).
And it's not like a Rogue's theming requires them to do everything via Dexterity; they're supposed to be "cunning", it takes more than fast reflexes or a steady hand to be cunning, so why shouldn't Rogues require a secondary ability score? Every class should have a primary and secondary ability score. Monk's being Wisdom reliant makes far too much thematic sense to drop it, it's other classes that have the problem here.
When you're looking at balance you need to look at both sides of the equation; making Monks less ability score dependent is watering down the game, when the real problem is that other classes don't care about ability score increases because they already have +3 in everything they need at level 1 with point buy/standard array. Some classes being broken in that regard means they need fixing, rather than making the Monk just as broken.
And why drop Wisdom? The other way of looking at it is that Monk is too reliant on Constitution; in 5e that's because they don't have enough hit-points to be a proper front-liner, but also they don't have the abilities they need to be a proper skirmisher. Fix either of those problems (higher hit point die, or make them a proper skirmisher) and any half decent starting Constitution should be plenty. Again, the Rogue's sixth ASI only highlights the problem, because they can just grab the Tough feat if they need more HP, but when a Monk does the same they're slowing progress on Dexterity and/or Wisdom to do it, so it's a far harder choice than for the Rogue (who doesn't even need HP that badly to begin with).
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... that's not really what this thread is for. This thread is for thinking about a very different way to scale Monk damage and AC by using PB, as a potential alternative to what's being done in playtest document 6. It is not explicitly for making the Monk "better" (in terms of things like total damage output, etc.). It's a bonus if it does get a little better, but that's not the main goal of this thread.
Though, I will admit that the thread has had a lot of scope drift in it. That's the internet for you.
With UA6, low AC is a big problem only on level 1 and 2, from level 3 onwards it's less of an issue for Shadow and Elements. Seriously, is everyone here under the obligation of playing Hand? I don't see anyone playing Hand outside of testing HB fixes to make it more appealing or maybe those youtubers that need to downplay the class for the clickbait titles.
That being said, I do have 2 formulas for the AC:
10 + Dex or Wis + 1/2 your Monk level (rounded up)
Pros: Not multiclass-friendly, scales without needing an ASI every 2 levels and can reach up to 25 at level 19 (or even higher if either Dex or Wis can go beyond 20).
Con: Your starting AC will be kinda low at the start (13~15)
10 + 2*Dex or 2*Wis
Pros: Your starting AC is ok now (16 or 18), your ASI are "less" restricted and it increases your AC by 2 every time you pick your "primary" stat, it can reach up to 20 by level 8 (and even higher if your score can go beyond 20).
Con: 1 level monk multiclass is way too appealing for Dex or Wis classes. I wanted to add an "only when unarmed" condition, but it would screw Kensei over even before it is released.
Con: 1 level monk multiclass is way too appealing for Dex or Wis classes. I wanted to add an "only when unarmed" condition, but it would screw Kensei over even before it is released.
How so? Only Druid would massively benefit, otherwise with Medium armour + shield it is pretty easy to get AC=19.
Con: 1 level monk multiclass is way too appealing for Dex or Wis classes. I wanted to add an "only when unarmed" condition, but it would screw Kensei over even before it is released.
How so? Only Druid would massively benefit, otherwise with Medium armour + shield it is pretty easy to get AC=19.
And that's why increasing the monk AC is far from broken. Any character can get that, even those getting the armored feat at level 1, then reaching level 3rd is mostly sure they have resources to get a breastplate + shield + 2 Dex for AC18, while the monk usually will have 10 + 3 (Dex) + 2 (Wis) = AC15, and at level 5 AC16. Cannot demand the monk to always have +3 on Dex and Wis, sacrificing all the others checks and saving throws, for only getting some extra AC, as is not fair.
Then, solutions could be:
1) Using PB for computing the base, i.e.: 10 + Dex + PB. Or using the current AC calculation, plus:
2) Feature: when you are hit and not wearing armor or shield can use your reaction to gain AC bonus equal to your monk level PB until the start of your next turn. So you sacrifice your reaction to get that extra bonus AC, you get more AC, but lose something as payment.
Seriously, is everyone here under the obligation of playing Hand?
Well, but that doesn't mean creating a null subclass. If you like it, why should be so clearly worse than others? Why then try to balance the classes?
1) Using PB for computing the base, i.e.: 10 + Dex + PB. Or using the current AC calculation, plus:
2) Feature: when you are hit and not wearing armor or shield can use your reaction to gain AC bonus equal to your monk level PB until the start of your next turn. So you sacrifice your reaction to get that extra bonus AC, you get more AC, but lose something as payment.
How is the (1) a solution? That just locks a monk into only AC 15 at level 3, 17 at level 5, 19 at level 9. whereas 10+DEX+WIS gives you the option of AC 18 at level 3 if you roll really well, but even using point buy you could have A 16 at level 3, 17 at level 4, 18 at level 8. Plus if your DM is nice and gives you some WIS boosting magic items it can rise even faster. PLUS you have to choice to focus on WIS before DEX if e.g. you take Magic Initiate for Shillelagh and care more about your DC than your damage.
Whereas 10+Dex+PB forces the monk to focus on DEX, Astral Monks and Shillelagh Monks get screwed. Rolling high stats doesn't really help, and there's fewer magic items that would help.
(2) is just boring, it's Shield but worse.
I'd rather just take Magic Initiate at 1st level for Shield or Mage Armour than either of your solutions
Magic Initiate right, for 1 single usage and then over.
1) 10 + Dex or Wis + monk PB.
And yes, the idea is to “lock” more dependent to class level instead scores, for not forcing the character to use all its scores in those 2 and be a nullity in all the others. In addition to be really lucky if rolling to have something decent as you are forced to use 2 of your best rolls fixed.
Also, how many combat feats gives +1 to Wis? Allowing to get combat feats even without Martial Weapons proficiency is a must, but aside that, we have the problem to increase Wis and appropriate feats available.
The boring is focusing on Wis for a martial, the possibilities are very few. Using reaction is an option that has no influence on how the character is played (do you lose Step of the Wind, or MA options, or anything other?), so cannot understand your point.
I think one thing worth considering with a Monk's AC is the interaction with Patient Defense, which is a very good defensive feature; the main problem is that it costs the same bonus action we currently rely upon to deal competitive damage via Flurry of Blows, and both cost not only that bonus action but also Ki points.
This is why in my attempt at an updated Monk I wanted to eliminate that resource dependence for basic actions by having a free version of Patient Defense (still Dodge but you can't move) and Step of the Wind (Dash or Disengage only) so the bonus action is the only cost to consider for your base toolkit; the decision each turn is whether to go aggressive, defensive or mobile, and means that all Monks have the option of effectively a +5 to AC by using Patient Defense, it's just not without a cost (lower damage).
Of course the downside to that is that it's probably too good for multiclassing at the moment; it does require two levels in Monk, and the character can't wear armour or hold a shield, but it does mean a caster with few bonus actions might be tempted to dip into Monk for a base AC and free Dodge every turn. That's an issue I need to resolve somehow; was considering making the bonus dependent on Monk level somehow (perhaps roughly equivalent to half proficiency, with the version that costs a Focus point being double?).
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.
The use of PB is not the answer. WotC seems to be moving away fro PB features in the UA’s. And the “monk PB” is not a thing. PB is calculated by character level not individual class. I understand what you mean but PB doesn’t work that way and trying to adapt that could be confusing. Just put a bonus on the monk table and don’t call it PB. Or just have the monk AC start at 12 + whatever modifiers, the. 13 + mods, 14 + mods etc
Three levels of Artificer (Battle Smith) works quite nicely with Arcane Trickster.
The Battle Master Fighter bases its maneuvers on its primary combat stat, which is one of the reasons why it's better than the Eldritch Knight, whose magic is based on Intelligence which is likely the third most important stat for a Fighter. It also gives us the "spellblade" effect where using its abilities is tied to it attacking, something Pathfinder does with its Magus, but which D&D do not really do with their "true" sword mages, Eldritch Knight, Pact of the Blade Warlock, or Bladesinger Wizard (casting a blade cantrip and getting an additional attack isn't quite the same thing). Casting and fighting are mostly treated as separate operations.
When I filled in the survey I suggested your idea of making Step of the Wind dash OR disengage free, but requiring Ki to do both as one bonus action. Maybe if enough people mentioned it they'll make the change.
I am still amazed that Jeremy seemed so thrilled at giving Monks a slightly larger damage dice, an average of 1 extra damage per hit, while ignoring pretty much every other problem they have, and removing the Monk Weapons rule so Monks have almost no reason to ever use weapons instead of fists. Weapon Mastery is basically redundant for them making it a non-feature. At best the Monk is no better. At worst it's worse than the 2014 version.
I don't think they know what to do with the monk without a total rebuild that won't cause problems with their current attempts at preserving a niche for other classes (or opening a gate for even more OP caster multi class dips). They need to ensure that each class lands among the top choices to play in regards to a meaningful aspect of the game (damage output, tanking, crowd control, skill monkeying, or social manipulation) but with the way they've limited themselves in design for things that aren't the limitless pool of power that is magic, buffing monk damage/survival/skills ends up stepping on another non caster class.
that's 16 AC, which is equal to Chainmail, the heavy armor that Fighters start with.
At level 4 and 8, assuming that Dex is increased to 18 and 20, you end up 17 (Splint) and 18 (Full Plate). Given the Gold Cost of Plate Armor, level 7-9 would be reasonable as to when Full Plate becomes available to the Fighter.
Assuming a Barbarian that starts with 16 str, 16 con, 14 dex, they'd basically be 1 AC behind the Monk to start with. And then they'd have to rely on Medium Armor to pick up the AC slack over their early levels. Assuming Halfplate around levels 5-6 they'd be sitting at a 17 ac to the 18 ac of the monk and fighter at level 8. So from a strict AC calculation, I'm not really seeing much of a difference here between the Warrior Archetypes. +1 half-plate would get the Barbarian to an 18 AC, and that's a little more likely to pop up in a campaign, but still not something I'd bank on.
Now Obviously I'm ignoring a bunch of other things that would normally come into a comprehensive view of the defensive capabilities of a class and hyper focusing on how AC is stacking up between levels 1-10 among the Warrior Archetypes, but any deeper and this post would be entirely too long, but I think the actual AC calculation is mathematically fine, the problems are elsewhere.
that's 16 AC, which is equal to Chainmail, the heavy armor that Fighters start with.
At level 4 and 8, assuming that Dex is increased to 18 and 20, you end up 17 (Splint) and 18 (Full Plate). Given the Gold Cost of Plate Armor, level 7-9 would be reasonable as to when Full Plate becomes available to the Fighter.
Assuming a Barbarian that starts with 16 str, 16 con, 14 dex, they'd basically be 1 AC behind the Monk to start with. And then they'd have to rely on Medium Armor to pick up the AC slack over their early levels. Assuming Halfplate around levels 5-6 they'd be sitting at a 17 ac to the 18 ac of the monk and fighter at level 8. So from a strict AC calculation, I'm not really seeing much of a difference here between the Warrior Archetypes. +1 half-plate would get the Barbarian to an 18 AC, and that's a little more likely to pop up in a campaign, but still not something I'd bank on.
Now Obviously I'm ignoring a bunch of other things that would normally come into a comprehensive view of the defensive capabilities of a class and hyper focusing on how AC is stacking up between levels 1-10 among the Warrior Archetypes, but any deeper and this post would be entirely too long, but I think the actual AC calculation is mathematically fine, the problems are elsewhere.
You're forgetting shields and fighting style choices that can start fighters at 18/19 and barbarians at 17/18 plus their DR. Give a monk a shield and a fighting style option and it's probably just fine until you get access to magical armor.
I like the idea of 10 + dex mod + proficiency bonus. That opens up alot of ASI's to build your constitution or take feats. However, thematically wisdom does make sense as it is like having a spidy sense which helps anticipate your opponents next attack. Any other class that has unarmored defense has other options. The monk does not and monks are the only class that gets penalized and cant use class features if they wear armor. Given this restriction i do think monks AC should be better to compensate. If you moved the monks bonus unarmed strike and the one extra unarmed strike granted by flurry of blows to the attack action then attacking and patient defense becomes a viable option. Thats a +3 or + 4 to AC and always having minimum 2 attacks from level 1-4 and minimum 3 (and sometimes 4) attacks as a part of the attack action at level 5 onwards does give the monks base damage a boost. Or, you could also add half proficiency bonus (rounded down) to the current unarmored defense. That would start a monk with 16 dex and wis with 17AC and get to 20AC by level 9 assuming both ASI's went into dex. Thats decent without being overpowered.
As for the damage i would keep the die roll instead of PB. Critical hits with a bigger die is much more fun even if it does not happen to often.
The use of PB is not the answer. WotC seems to be moving away fro PB features in the UA’s. And the “monk PB” is not a thing.
I think class-specific "proficiency" or similar should be a thing; one of the problems in 5e has been sub-classes that grant proficiency bonus uses of an ability at 1st- or 2nd-level, making them easy dips for any other class. Cleric and some sorcerer sub-classes have been prime for this, Warlock as a class is too but that's partly because they can boost cantrips that already scale with character rather than class level.
While OneD&D at least seems like it'll help with this by limiting all sub-classes to 3rd-level, the concept of scaling by class level instead of character level still has merit. I've used this on my Sorcerer sub-classes to avoid making them too good for multi-classing, and the language I use is something like:
You can use this feature twice, regaining all spent uses when you finish a long rest. You gain one additional use as you reach certain levels in this class, starting with three at 5th-level, four at 9th-level, five at 13th-level, and finally six at 17th-level.
For pen and paper release you'd have "reminder" features at higher level stating when new uses are gained, or add it to features already at those levels, while on D&D Beyond it's all automatic anyway (the uses just appear at the correct levels if you set them up properly).
Declaring that you can use something a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus has always just been a lazy shortcut that introduces multiclassing exploits; that's also sometimes the case with ability score dependent uses, as it's often not adding anything meaningful and it can make mono-score multiclasses stronger, and further emphasise good or bad luck with rolled ability scores.
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 one thing worth considering with a Monk's AC is the interaction with Patient Defense, which is a very good defensive feature; the main problem is that it costs the same bonus action we currently rely upon to deal competitive damage via Flurry of Blows, and both cost not only that bonus action but also Ki points.
This is why in my attempt at an updated Monk I wanted to eliminate that resource dependence for basic actions by having a free version of Patient Defense (still Dodge but you can't move) and Step of the Wind (Dash or Disengage only) so the bonus action is the only cost to consider for your base toolkit; the decision each turn is whether to go aggressive, defensive or mobile, and means that all Monks have the option of effectively a +5 to AC by using Patient Defense, it's just not without a cost (lower damage).
Of course the downside to that is that it's probably too good for multiclassing at the moment; it does require two levels in Monk, and the character can't wear armour or hold a shield, but it does mean a caster with few bonus actions might be tempted to dip into Monk for a base AC and free Dodge every turn. That's an issue I need to resolve somehow; was considering making the bonus dependent on Monk level somehow (perhaps roughly equivalent to half proficiency, with the version that costs a Focus point being double?).
Hm. I like that, and am contemplating rewording my Battle Master Maneuvers around that. Something like:
Step of the Wind: You may use a Bonus Action to Disengage.When you do this, you may also choose to expend a Superiority Die, double the result, and add that to your movement.
Flurry of Blows: You may expend a Bonus Action to make an Unarmed Strike.When you do this, you may also choose to expend a Superiority Die: After you roll the Bonus Action attack, but before you know whether or not it hit, you may add some, none, or all of the die roll to increase your attack roll.Any amount you do not add to the attack roll may instead be added to the damage the attack inflicts if it hits.
Passive Defense: During your turn, you may expend a Superiority Die to Dodge without consuming an Action. Roll the Superiority Die, and you may apply half of the roll (round fractions up) to increase your AC against one attack made against you before the start of your next turn.
So, "Step of the Wind" consumes a Bonus Action... and also lets you enhance it with a Superiority Die, getting closer to (but not the same as) the 5e Step of the Wind. But if you just want to do one or the other, then you only expended the Bonus Action. Same with Flurry of Blows. Passive Defense does NOT consume ANY action, BUT ... it ALWAYS consumes an expendable resource. A resource that a 2 level dip wont help you expend. Specifically (because a Battle Master Maneuver costs 2 DP,) a 2 level dip would let you do this one per short/long rest.
What about "just Dash as a Bonus Action, without Disengage"? Maybe make that just a regular part of Unarmored Movement: you can always chose to Dash as a bonus action.
Inquisitive and Swashbuckler aren't really dependent upon these ability scores as they're used for checks and Rogues get Expertise as standard, there are also multiple other ways to boost checks compared to saving throw calculations.
They wouldn't be meaningfully harmed by Cunning Strikes being Intelligence based, especially since as I mentioned Rogues get a sixth Ability Score Increase so they're better able to cope with being a little multi-attribute dependent anyway.
At the very least they could give Rogues a choice of secondary stat; one of Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma, which they can use for Cunning Strikes and other features.
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 believe in the UA the only thing Swashbuckler uses CHA for is initiative rolls. In the current game it’s initiative and panache. So technically initiative is a check but more important than, say, a persuasion check.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
And with the framework I put forward, you can have your mundane martial artist (in multiple flavors). Why do you have to call the "mundane martial artist" a "Monk" instead of calling them "Dex-Fighter Battle Master, with Martial Arts based maneuvers, and a good solid version of Fighting Style: Unarmed"? Or something comparable via Rogue? For good or bad, "Monk" has a particular meaning in D&D, and it's not exactly the Wire-Fu style semi-mystical movie martial artist ... but it's much closer to that than any sort of concretely mundane martial artist. Make the concrete/mundane Martial Arts stuff more accessible to the mundane classes (and in a way that also lends itself, in lesser degrees, to hybrid versions of the more magical/mystical classes), and you can leave the Monk alone while also getting the _mechanical_ support for what you're saying. You just don't need to care about the Monk class at all, at that point: leave it to the people who want the wire-fu pseudo-shaolin character, while you take up the same basic mechanical abilities via a more mundane route.
You can achieve that goal without moving the Monk around at all. You can achieve it by making many of the martial arts skills/abilities portable, and not moving/changing the Monk at all. The Fighter is the perfect place to put the Mundane Martial Artist, because that's what Fighters already are. They just don't have a good solid foundation for the unarmed subset of the martial arts. Give them an option for that. The Rogue almost fits it as well (if you get rid of the automatically knowing Thieve's Cant and Thieve's Tools ... side rant: why do Scouts know those things, exactly?), but more from the approach of martial arts as a physical skill set than a combat knowledge.
(And: this "make the martial arts skills/abilities portable" is exactly how "1e Oriental Adventures" handled Martial Arts .. and for everything culturally wrong about that book that we can't bring forward to today, their treatment of the martial arts was the thing they have done better than any other editions handling of Martial Arts (and arguably, better than many/most other RPG's handling of the Martial Arts) ... and it was available to _every_ class, including the Bushi/Fighter, the Samurai, the Kensei, the casters, etc. And the Monk was right there alongside all of them, they just got more maneuvers than anyone else. ... but the exact mechanical method wouldn't work directly with 5e or OneD&D because the proficiency system was very different. That's why I've been thinking about ways to do it via Battle Master maneuvers, Weapon Mastery, and Feats.)
^^^ This
Inquisitive uses Wisdom for Insight checks, Perception checks (also the option of using Intelligence (Investigation) for Eye for Detail) and for your number of uses of Unerring Eye.
That's pretty based. And having to tie up your Expertise to support a particular stat because you need another stat for a basic Rogue function is the opposite of good game design.
That extra ASI is at level 10. Most campaigns end about there. That's why, when I talk about ASI progression, I want to know what can be achieved in two ASIs, not the five that some do. Sure, Rogue get an extra ASI, but it's not relevant in most games. Making classes mostly SAD is good, given the limitation of 10 levels. They can start with a 17 in their primary stat, get a half feat at level 4, and then bump to 20 at level 8.
We're here trying to make Monk better, not make Rogue worse.
So 13th-level features matter but 10th-level features don't? Got it. 😉
It's not about making Rogue worse (I literally suggested giving them a choice of one of the mental scores if it's going to annoy you so much) but my entire point was that part of what makes a Monk's multi-ability score dependence a problem is that other classes are less-ability score dependent (and in the Rogue's case, get extra ASIs so they're even less score dependent).
And it's not like a Rogue's theming requires them to do everything via Dexterity; they're supposed to be "cunning", it takes more than fast reflexes or a steady hand to be cunning, so why shouldn't Rogues require a secondary ability score? Every class should have a primary and secondary ability score. Monk's being Wisdom reliant makes far too much thematic sense to drop it, it's other classes that have the problem here.
When you're looking at balance you need to look at both sides of the equation; making Monks less ability score dependent is watering down the game, when the real problem is that other classes don't care about ability score increases because they already have +3 in everything they need at level 1 with point buy/standard array. Some classes being broken in that regard means they need fixing, rather than making the Monk just as broken.
And why drop Wisdom? The other way of looking at it is that Monk is too reliant on Constitution; in 5e that's because they don't have enough hit-points to be a proper front-liner, but also they don't have the abilities they need to be a proper skirmisher. Fix either of those problems (higher hit point die, or make them a proper skirmisher) and any half decent starting Constitution should be plenty. Again, the Rogue's sixth ASI only highlights the problem, because they can just grab the Tough feat if they need more HP, but when a Monk does the same they're slowing progress on Dexterity and/or Wisdom to do it, so it's a far harder choice than for the Rogue (who doesn't even need HP that badly to begin with).
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... that's not really what this thread is for. This thread is for thinking about a very different way to scale Monk damage and AC by using PB, as a potential alternative to what's being done in playtest document 6. It is not explicitly for making the Monk "better" (in terms of things like total damage output, etc.). It's a bonus if it does get a little better, but that's not the main goal of this thread.
Though, I will admit that the thread has had a lot of scope drift in it. That's the internet for you.
With UA6, low AC is a big problem only on level 1 and 2, from level 3 onwards it's less of an issue for Shadow and Elements. Seriously, is everyone here under the obligation of playing Hand? I don't see anyone playing Hand outside of testing HB fixes to make it more appealing or maybe those youtubers that need to downplay the class for the clickbait titles.
That being said, I do have 2 formulas for the AC:
How so? Only Druid would massively benefit, otherwise with Medium armour + shield it is pretty easy to get AC=19.
And that's why increasing the monk AC is far from broken. Any character can get that, even those getting the armored feat at level 1, then reaching level 3rd is mostly sure they have resources to get a breastplate + shield + 2 Dex for AC18, while the monk usually will have 10 + 3 (Dex) + 2 (Wis) = AC15, and at level 5 AC16. Cannot demand the monk to always have +3 on Dex and Wis, sacrificing all the others checks and saving throws, for only getting some extra AC, as is not fair.
Then, solutions could be:
1) Using PB for computing the base, i.e.: 10 + Dex + PB. Or using the current AC calculation, plus:
2) Feature: when you are hit and not wearing armor or shield can use your reaction to gain AC bonus equal to your monk level PB until the start of your next turn. So you sacrifice your reaction to get that extra bonus AC, you get more AC, but lose something as payment.
Well, but that doesn't mean creating a null subclass. If you like it, why should be so clearly worse than others? Why then try to balance the classes?
How is the (1) a solution? That just locks a monk into only AC 15 at level 3, 17 at level 5, 19 at level 9.
whereas 10+DEX+WIS gives you the option of AC 18 at level 3 if you roll really well, but even using point buy you could have A 16 at level 3, 17 at level 4, 18 at level 8. Plus if your DM is nice and gives you some WIS boosting magic items it can rise even faster. PLUS you have to choice to focus on WIS before DEX if e.g. you take Magic Initiate for Shillelagh and care more about your DC than your damage.
Whereas 10+Dex+PB forces the monk to focus on DEX, Astral Monks and Shillelagh Monks get screwed. Rolling high stats doesn't really help, and there's fewer magic items that would help.
(2) is just boring, it's Shield but worse.
I'd rather just take Magic Initiate at 1st level for Shield or Mage Armour than either of your solutions
Magic Initiate right, for 1 single usage and then over.
1) 10 + Dex or Wis + monk PB.
And yes, the idea is to “lock” more dependent to class level instead scores, for not forcing the character to use all its scores in those 2 and be a nullity in all the others. In addition to be really lucky if rolling to have something decent as you are forced to use 2 of your best rolls fixed.
Also, how many combat feats gives +1 to Wis? Allowing to get combat feats even without Martial Weapons proficiency is a must, but aside that, we have the problem to increase Wis and appropriate feats available.
The boring is focusing on Wis for a martial, the possibilities are very few. Using reaction is an option that has no influence on how the character is played (do you lose Step of the Wind, or MA options, or anything other?), so cannot understand your point.
I think one thing worth considering with a Monk's AC is the interaction with Patient Defense, which is a very good defensive feature; the main problem is that it costs the same bonus action we currently rely upon to deal competitive damage via Flurry of Blows, and both cost not only that bonus action but also Ki points.
This is why in my attempt at an updated Monk I wanted to eliminate that resource dependence for basic actions by having a free version of Patient Defense (still Dodge but you can't move) and Step of the Wind (Dash or Disengage only) so the bonus action is the only cost to consider for your base toolkit; the decision each turn is whether to go aggressive, defensive or mobile, and means that all Monks have the option of effectively a +5 to AC by using Patient Defense, it's just not without a cost (lower damage).
Of course the downside to that is that it's probably too good for multiclassing at the moment; it does require two levels in Monk, and the character can't wear armour or hold a shield, but it does mean a caster with few bonus actions might be tempted to dip into Monk for a base AC and free Dodge every turn. That's an issue I need to resolve somehow; was considering making the bonus dependent on Monk level somehow (perhaps roughly equivalent to half proficiency, with the version that costs a Focus point being double?).
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.
The use of PB is not the answer. WotC seems to be moving away fro PB features in the UA’s. And the “monk PB” is not a thing. PB is calculated by character level not individual class. I understand what you mean but PB doesn’t work that way and trying to adapt that could be confusing. Just put a bonus on the monk table and don’t call it PB. Or just have the monk AC start at 12 + whatever modifiers, the. 13 + mods, 14 + mods etc
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Three levels of Artificer (Battle Smith) works quite nicely with Arcane Trickster.
The Battle Master Fighter bases its maneuvers on its primary combat stat, which is one of the reasons why it's better than the Eldritch Knight, whose magic is based on Intelligence which is likely the third most important stat for a Fighter. It also gives us the "spellblade" effect where using its abilities is tied to it attacking, something Pathfinder does with its Magus, but which D&D do not really do with their "true" sword mages, Eldritch Knight, Pact of the Blade Warlock, or Bladesinger Wizard (casting a blade cantrip and getting an additional attack isn't quite the same thing). Casting and fighting are mostly treated as separate operations.
When I filled in the survey I suggested your idea of making Step of the Wind dash OR disengage free, but requiring Ki to do both as one bonus action. Maybe if enough people mentioned it they'll make the change.
I am still amazed that Jeremy seemed so thrilled at giving Monks a slightly larger damage dice, an average of 1 extra damage per hit, while ignoring pretty much every other problem they have, and removing the Monk Weapons rule so Monks have almost no reason to ever use weapons instead of fists. Weapon Mastery is basically redundant for them making it a non-feature. At best the Monk is no better. At worst it's worse than the 2014 version.
I don't think they know what to do with the monk without a total rebuild that won't cause problems with their current attempts at preserving a niche for other classes (or opening a gate for even more OP caster multi class dips). They need to ensure that each class lands among the top choices to play in regards to a meaningful aspect of the game (damage output, tanking, crowd control, skill monkeying, or social manipulation) but with the way they've limited themselves in design for things that aren't the limitless pool of power that is magic, buffing monk damage/survival/skills ends up stepping on another non caster class.
Reading through this thread has actually changed my mind on Unarmored Defense. I now think it's perfectly fine from an AC calculation point of view.
Assume +3 Dex, +3 Wisdom, +2 Constitution. Reasonable numbers for level 1
that's 16 AC, which is equal to Chainmail, the heavy armor that Fighters start with.
At level 4 and 8, assuming that Dex is increased to 18 and 20, you end up 17 (Splint) and 18 (Full Plate). Given the Gold Cost of Plate Armor, level 7-9 would be reasonable as to when Full Plate becomes available to the Fighter.
Assuming a Barbarian that starts with 16 str, 16 con, 14 dex, they'd basically be 1 AC behind the Monk to start with. And then they'd have to rely on Medium Armor to pick up the AC slack over their early levels. Assuming Halfplate around levels 5-6 they'd be sitting at a 17 ac to the 18 ac of the monk and fighter at level 8. So from a strict AC calculation, I'm not really seeing much of a difference here between the Warrior Archetypes. +1 half-plate would get the Barbarian to an 18 AC, and that's a little more likely to pop up in a campaign, but still not something I'd bank on.
Now Obviously I'm ignoring a bunch of other things that would normally come into a comprehensive view of the defensive capabilities of a class and hyper focusing on how AC is stacking up between levels 1-10 among the Warrior Archetypes, but any deeper and this post would be entirely too long, but I think the actual AC calculation is mathematically fine, the problems are elsewhere.
You're forgetting shields and fighting style choices that can start fighters at 18/19 and barbarians at 17/18 plus their DR. Give a monk a shield and a fighting style option and it's probably just fine until you get access to magical armor.
I like the idea of 10 + dex mod + proficiency bonus. That opens up alot of ASI's to build your constitution or take feats. However, thematically wisdom does make sense as it is like having a spidy sense which helps anticipate your opponents next attack. Any other class that has unarmored defense has other options. The monk does not and monks are the only class that gets penalized and cant use class features if they wear armor. Given this restriction i do think monks AC should be better to compensate. If you moved the monks bonus unarmed strike and the one extra unarmed strike granted by flurry of blows to the attack action then attacking and patient defense becomes a viable option. Thats a +3 or + 4 to AC and always having minimum 2 attacks from level 1-4 and minimum 3 (and sometimes 4) attacks as a part of the attack action at level 5 onwards does give the monks base damage a boost. Or, you could also add half proficiency bonus (rounded down) to the current unarmored defense. That would start a monk with 16 dex and wis with 17AC and get to 20AC by level 9 assuming both ASI's went into dex. Thats decent without being overpowered.
As for the damage i would keep the die roll instead of PB. Critical hits with a bigger die is much more fun even if it does not happen to often.
I think class-specific "proficiency" or similar should be a thing; one of the problems in 5e has been sub-classes that grant proficiency bonus uses of an ability at 1st- or 2nd-level, making them easy dips for any other class. Cleric and some sorcerer sub-classes have been prime for this, Warlock as a class is too but that's partly because they can boost cantrips that already scale with character rather than class level.
While OneD&D at least seems like it'll help with this by limiting all sub-classes to 3rd-level, the concept of scaling by class level instead of character level still has merit. I've used this on my Sorcerer sub-classes to avoid making them too good for multi-classing, and the language I use is something like:
For pen and paper release you'd have "reminder" features at higher level stating when new uses are gained, or add it to features already at those levels, while on D&D Beyond it's all automatic anyway (the uses just appear at the correct levels if you set them up properly).
Declaring that you can use something a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus has always just been a lazy shortcut that introduces multiclassing exploits; that's also sometimes the case with ability score dependent uses, as it's often not adding anything meaningful and it can make mono-score multiclasses stronger, and further emphasise good or bad luck with rolled ability scores.
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.
Hm. I like that, and am contemplating rewording my Battle Master Maneuvers around that. Something like:
So, "Step of the Wind" consumes a Bonus Action... and also lets you enhance it with a Superiority Die, getting closer to (but not the same as) the 5e Step of the Wind. But if you just want to do one or the other, then you only expended the Bonus Action. Same with Flurry of Blows. Passive Defense does NOT consume ANY action, BUT ... it ALWAYS consumes an expendable resource. A resource that a 2 level dip wont help you expend. Specifically (because a Battle Master Maneuver costs 2 DP,) a 2 level dip would let you do this one per short/long rest.
What about "just Dash as a Bonus Action, without Disengage"? Maybe make that just a regular part of Unarmored Movement: you can always chose to Dash as a bonus action.