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
Just to be explicit about my opinion of my own suggestion: I wanted to put it out there to get perspectives about it, because it seemed interesting on paper, but that doesn't mean it works once it's out in the wild. While I still like it in theory, I'm in agreement that over all the PB based damage and AC are not workable, especially when you think about it's exploitability via multiclassing. I don't exactly consider the "class specific PB" to be horrible, but I can see how it would be better to just make it another column than have people do the math. The other side of that is: it seems like WOTC really wanted to reduce the number of columns in the class tables, when compared to 3e (which I approve of the reduction in complexity). Which brings it back to: even that "fix" for the multiclassing problem isn't workable.
You might notice that my most recent post about a revision to the Monk and Martial Arts ... doesn't make use of this idea at all.
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.
For my monk revision, I decided to make it part of Heightened Metabolism at 7th level: In addition, you may use the Dash action as a Bonus Action.
So you sort of get both (at the cost of a Superiority Die or 2 DP) at 2nd level via the Battle Master Maneuver ... or you get "Disengage" without spending any resource other than your Bonus Action. If you want Dash by itself as a Bonus Action (and no DP cost), you have to wait until 7th level.
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?).
MA defense should move to Reaction, and Attack to Bonus Action.
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
But we have the Warlock which they are using the class level for some things, then I see no problem to extend and fix this way the multi-class issues. And IMO using the score modifier is even worse, clearly used to simplify to maximum the mechanics, but is a terrible way. A feature based on score allows to any other class using that score to dip and get full feature power. That is terrible.
And we have the spell casting, using the class level for each casting ability, which is much more confusing. A player can easily make a mistake more when you have higher spell slots which are simply empty for upcasting.
Those are not "reasonable", those are imposed forcing you to have very low Str, Int and Cha. Why ALL the monks must be like that? And later, good luck choosing your feats.
In 3.5e, Monks got a flat boost to AC based upon their Monk level (in addition to Unarmored Defense). I would suggest that WotC revisit that design idea. It would give the Monk a controlled boost to AC at whatever levels the designers see fit, and it would solve the one-level dip multi-class issue.
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?).
MA defense should move to Reaction, and Attack to Bonus Action.
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
But we have the Warlock which they are using the class level for some things, then I see no problem to extend and fix this way the multi-class issues. And IMO using the score modifier is even worse, clearly used to simplify to maximum the mechanics, but is a terrible way. A feature based on score allows to any other class using that score to dip and get full feature power. That is terrible.
And we have the spell casting, using the class level for each casting ability, which is much more confusing. A player can easily make a mistake more when you have higher spell slots which are simply empty for upcasting.
Those are not "reasonable", those are imposed forcing you to have very low Str, Int and Cha. Why ALL the monks must be like that? And later, good luck choosing your feats.
Maybe I don’t understand your response or I didn’t write clear enough. Using PB but based on monk level is not the right way. If you want something similar just put the number on the monk table so the bonus is by monk level, like Barbarian rage bonus damage is on the table. Or give the monk a base AC number, similar to how draconic sorcerer AC is 13+Dex, that scales with monk level. Either way there is no multiclassing issue as it scales with monk level. Basically what frobinj said above.
Maybe I don’t understand your response or I didn’t write clear enough. Using PB but based on monk level is not the right way. If you want something similar just put the number on the monk table so the bonus is by monk level, like Barbarian rage bonus damage is on the table. Or give the monk a base AC number, similar to how draconic sorcerer AC is 13+Dex, that scales with monk level. Either way there is no multiclassing issue as it scales with monk level. Basically what frobinj said above.
The tricky part is making a monk level based AC work out to the right scale; currently a Monk player can start with AC 15 or 16 pretty easily with a +3 in DEX and a +2 or +3 in WIS for example. So is that where we should start, with what progression? You could for example start with AC 15 at 1st-level, then increase by +1 on every odd level, so AC 16 at 3rd-level, 17 at 5th-level and so-on, but this scales to AC 24 at level 19, is that too high for a class with access to Patient Defense (and by that point a lot more Discipline to spend on it)?
Comparing to classes that wear armour is difficult, because those are equipment bound. If we assume classes never get upgraded armour, then a Rogue is usually going to max out at AC 16, a fighter, Paladin etc. can have up to AC 18 with chain mail and a shield (or AC 19 with the Defense Fighting style), so the Monk getting up to AC 20 as standard in 5e is… fine as an AC of 16 is equivalent to heavy armour without a shield. But that's not a realistic progression because in practice most characters are going to get magic armour or other boosts by that kind of level, so your Rogue might have studded leather, +3 and a ring of protection for AC 20 with +1 to all saving throws, a sword and board fighter could have plate, +3 and a shield, +3 for AC 26 (or AC 27 with the Defense Fighting Style). While a Monk that gets both bracers of defense and a dragonhide belt, +3 could get an AC of 25, that comes at the cost of two attunement choices (to the fighter's none), and it requires a specific item from a specific book.
Personally I think the current baseline AC for a Monk is fine, the problem is that we only have access to attunement based equipment options to boost it, which is a penalty compared to other classes that don't. That can't be fixed with a class feature because it's an equipment problem, we really just need some kind of attunement-free bracers of defense that can't be abused by casters, ideally with multiple levels (not just +2 only).
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?).
MA defense should move to Reaction, and Attack to Bonus Action.
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
But we have the Warlock which they are using the class level for some things, then I see no problem to extend and fix this way the multi-class issues. And IMO using the score modifier is even worse, clearly used to simplify to maximum the mechanics, but is a terrible way. A feature based on score allows to any other class using that score to dip and get full feature power. That is terrible.
And we have the spell casting, using the class level for each casting ability, which is much more confusing. A player can easily make a mistake more when you have higher spell slots which are simply empty for upcasting.
Those are not "reasonable", those are imposed forcing you to have very low Str, Int and Cha. Why ALL the monks must be like that? And later, good luck choosing your feats.
Maybe I don’t understand your response or I didn’t write clear enough. Using PB but based on monk level is not the right way. If you want something similar just put the number on the monk table so the bonus is by monk level, like Barbarian rage bonus damage is on the table. Or give the monk a base AC number, similar to how draconic sorcerer AC is 13+Dex, that scales with monk level. Either way there is no multiclassing issue as it scales with monk level. Basically what frobinj said above.
I just used PB because seems like a good progression also for AC bonus. If you like more then add an unarmored AC feature with a number equal or slightly adjusted from PB numbers, but I did not see it necessary. Maybe D&D people is much used to have everything written by specific name, so I am not used to that, in other games that is not so important while the numbers are correct.
Notice that using PB is correct as it keep the hit chance balance, at the same time the attack hit rate increases, then the unarmored AC increases the same.
Notice that using PB is correct as it keep the hit chance balance, at the same time the attack hit rate increases, then the unarmored AC increases the same.
That's not how game balance works though, AC should be compared to the enemy to hit bonus not the player's to hit bonus, and enemy to hit increases by 1 for every 2 CR.
But the CR is made for against a party of 4, not only against the Monk. The other characters usually don’t upgrade their AC at that rate too, with greater CR creatures having more hit chance.
Notice that using PB is correct as it keep the hit chance balance, at the same time the attack hit rate increases, then the unarmored AC increases the same.
That's not how game balance works though, AC should be compared to the enemy to hit bonus not the player's to hit bonus, and enemy to hit increases by 1 for every 2 CR.
Thanks for sharing those numbers. So if a Monk's AC increases by 1 every ~4 levels (from ASI) with no other bonuses, then over the course of the campaign the monk will be taking an increasing number of hits from monster's accuracy increasing. That makes me wary that increasing Monk AC is the solution we are looking for.
What about damage reduction? From my googling (which could be wrong), it appears monster's damage per round is roughly 5 x CR. Barbarians reduce damage by 1/2 (assuming slashing/piercing/bludgeoning) even with a mediocre AC. Someone else has already proposed changing Deflect Attack to redirect half damage, which could scale easily across levels. The other option is Deflect Attack being based on Monk Level (such as Martial Arts + Monk Level) which avoid multiclass temptations. Both lag against multi-attack. Would adding a second (and maybe third) Reaction solely for Deflect Attack suffice for survival? Yes I am aware of the discussion in another thread about multiple reactions. At what levels would be best to gain extra Reaction(s)?
But the CR is made for against a party of 4, not only against the Monk. The other characters usually don’t upgrade their AC at that rate too, with greater CR creatures having more hit chance.
Indeed, and by tier 4, the range of typical ACs we see in the game has almost no effect on survivability. Damage resistances, saving throws, hit points and healing are much more important. It's why fighting over +1 or +2 AC in tier 3 & 4 is not going to do anything for monk survivability. In tier 3 & 4, Evasion, Saving Throw proficiency / Paladin aura, and Bear Totem Resistances are what makes the difference for survivability.
But the CR is made for against a party of 4, not only against the Monk. The other characters usually don’t upgrade their AC at that rate too, with greater CR creatures having more hit chance.
Indeed, and by tier 4, the range of typical ACs we see in the game has almost no effect on survivability. Damage resistances, saving throws, hit points and healing are much more important. It's why fighting over +1 or +2 AC in tier 3 & 4 is not going to do anything for monk survivability. In tier 3 & 4, Evasion, Saving Throw proficiency / Paladin aura, and Bear Totem Resistances are what makes the difference for survivability.
This statement just sent me down such a rabbit hole. But you're correct.
If you assume the CR rating of the monsters of the multiverse is a good indicator (I know, but let me cook). the to hit bonus of level appropriate creatures stays within +-1 to the level appropriate AC of player characters from levels 4 to about level 11 and then starts to pull ahead in favor of the To-Hit Bonus. But it only gets to about a +10-11.
Assuming the Average D20 roll is an 11, then at Tier III, the average attack will be a 21 and and at Tier IV the average attack roll will be a 22.
So at all levels of play, a D20 roll of an 11 would be just about enough to meet the AC of appropriate heavy armor, even if including Magic Armor.
Now personally, I'm not sure how I feel about that. Is the armor really doing it's work if its preventing 40-50% of incoming attacks? I guess, but given how much effort it might be to get Full Plate +1 or Full Plate +2 on a character or taking all my Feat options to increase stats....does it feel like its worth the effort? Not to mention we all know the CR system is....Flawed when it comes to presenting a challenge.
As a DM, I think I'm going to have to consider shaving one or two points of 'to hit bonus' off my monsters, especially in groups where I have to run higher CR creatures to challenge them, at the very least to let the Warriors on the Front Line feel like their investment into AC isn't so much of an Uphill battle. As a Player, that Shield on a Fighter is suddenly looking WAY more appealing! The Monk though is still in a weird spot where I think the AC is actually scaling appropriately (assuming you invest all your Feats into increasing your Dex and Wisdom).
Like I said, Still not sure how i feel about all that.
The system itself does not help, with the same result if you surpass the AC by 1 or by 10. If the damage would be according to how much the attack surpassed the AC would be easier, but seems hard to think that will change at all.
As a DM, I think I'm going to have to consider shaving one or two points of 'to hit bonus' off my monsters, especially in groups where I have to run higher CR creatures to challenge them, at the very least to let the Warriors on the Front Line feel like their investment into AC isn't so much of an Uphill battle. As a Player, that Shield on a Fighter is suddenly looking WAY more appealing! The Monk though is still in a weird spot where I think the AC is actually scaling appropriately (assuming you invest all your Feats into increasing your Dex and Wisdom).
I don't think it's necessary to weaken the monsters; keep in mind even very high level creatures don't have all that many attacks (typically three or four on their turn, plus maybe another three via legendary actions at most) so the fact that there's any kind of increased chance for them to miss is a big deal.
Even when a CR 30 monster has +19 to hit, that still means an AC 21 or better is still increasing its chances of missing (as at AC 20 it'll hit on 2's, and 1's always miss anyway). One miss at that kind of level is a big deal for an attack-centric monster, and AC 21 is what a plate, +3 two-handing fighter might have in tier 4. While it might not sound like much, an extra 5% chance of missing still matters, and that's if you give no other defensive items like cloak and/or ring of protection, they don't have have Defense fighting style, no further boosts such as shield of faith from an ally, shield as an Eldritch Knight (though you can ignore this if we're staying pure martial), an animated shield or whatever.
Meanwhile a sword and board Fighter or Paladin could have a base AC of 26 with plate, +3 and a shield, +3, AC 27 with Defense, so for +19 that's a 25-30% chance for the monster to miss which is suddenly a lot more significant, as a quarter or third(-ish) fewer hits is that much less damage taken. And again that's without any other boosts; slap on both items of protection, shield of faith or haste from an ally (because if you're the one getting attacked, then someone ought to be helping you to take it) and that's another 20% chance to miss.
Even though Crawford always insists the game was designed to be playable without magic items, it was 100% designed to be played with magic items and he's a dirty rotten liar, because no magic items means a DM has to do a load of extra work adjusting everything. If you're handing out gear appropriate for each tier, it should run as-is. 😉
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 system itself does not help, with the same result if you surpass the AC by 1 or by 10. If the damage would be according to how much the attack surpassed the AC would be easier, but seems hard to think that will change at all.
Yeah, that's a completely different fundamental system from D20, I've seen it before on D100 or "Degrees of success" type systems many years ago (I think, memory aint what it used to be). D20 is all about 'pass or fail', either you exceed the required threshold or you do not. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with either option, but I'd be hesitant to mix them outside of the occasional special rule on a failed save or something. Not something I'd want to be juggling constantly on anything that comes up as often as 'attack rolls'.
I'd rather work with the current 'Abstraction of Combat' system in place and keep it snappy and quick then adding extra steps to calculate damage. Heck most of the time I don't even roll damage when i DM, I just take the average to keep things moving. I'd do it as a player too if I were allowed, I might suggest that to the DM at some of the bigger tables I play at come to think of it.
The system itself does not help, with the same result if you surpass the AC by 1 or by 10. If the damage would be according to how much the attack surpassed the AC would be easier, but seems hard to think that will change at all.
Yeah, that's a completely different fundamental system from D20, I've seen it before on D100 or "Degrees of success" type systems many years ago (I think, memory aint what it used to be). D20 is all about 'pass or fail', either you exceed the required threshold or you do not. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with either option, but I'd be hesitant to mix them outside of the occasional special rule on a failed save or something. Not something I'd want to be juggling constantly on anything that comes up as often as 'attack rolls'.
I wouldn't say it's a completely different fundamental system, considering Pathfinder actually does it.
There are four degrees of success: critical fail (10 below DC/AC), fail (below DC/AC), success (above DC/AC), and critical success (10 above DC/AC). 1s bring your grade down a notch, and 20s bring it up. As I understand it, it works like that for attack rolls, ability checks, and most saving throws. I've never played Pathfinder, though, so I can't tell you how much it slows things down.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Now personally, I'm not sure how I feel about that. Is the armor really doing it's work if its preventing 40-50% of incoming attacks?
This is very much a subjective point of view, but what is the point of combat? IMO it should feel tense, dramatic, dangerous. Which means: (1) Turns should be relatively quick. (2) Monsters should get to use their awesome, terrifying abilities (3) There should be a reasonably high chance a PC at the very least gets knocked out. (4) Combat shouldn't last too long
#2 means that monsters based on attack rolls should get to hit the players to trigger their attack-based abilities #3 + #4 means that monsters should be dealing damage every round #1 means that monsters shouldn't be making a huge number of attack rolls -> which means based on the others they need to have relatively high chance to hit.
The system itself does not help, with the same result if you surpass the AC by 1 or by 10. If the damage would be according to how much the attack surpassed the AC would be easier, but seems hard to think that will change at all.
Yeah, that's a completely different fundamental system from D20, I've seen it before on D100 or "Degrees of success" type systems many years ago (I think, memory aint what it used to be). D20 is all about 'pass or fail', either you exceed the required threshold or you do not. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with either option, but I'd be hesitant to mix them outside of the occasional special rule on a failed save or something. Not something I'd want to be juggling constantly on anything that comes up as often as 'attack rolls'.
I wouldn't say it's a completely different fundamental system, considering Pathfinder actually does it.
There are four degrees of success: critical fail (10 below DC/AC), fail (below DC/AC), success (above DC/AC), and critical success (10 above DC/AC). 1s bring your grade down a notch, and 20s bring it up. As I understand it, it works like that for attack rolls, ability checks, and most saving throws. I've never played Pathfinder, though, so I can't tell you how much it slows things down.
The degrees of success I haven't felt slow things down, from what I can tell it is the 3 action economy when applied to monsters. It is much harder to group a large number of monsters together and have them do their turns at the same time because their actions are going to be different and the MAP means each attack basically has to be rolled separately.
I wouldn't say it's a completely different fundamental system, considering Pathfinder actually does it.
There are four degrees of success: critical fail (10 below DC/AC), fail (below DC/AC), success (above DC/AC), and critical success (10 above DC/AC). 1s bring your grade down a notch, and 20s bring it up. As I understand it, it works like that for attack rolls, ability checks, and most saving throws. I've never played Pathfinder, though, so I can't tell you how much it slows things down.
Once you're used to it it doesn't really make any difference to the speed; in fact it can feel pretty intuitive in practice as if you rolled well, it's reasonable to expect to do better, the main difference is just that it has a specific mechanical benefit. I do personally prefer the simplicity of 5e just being hit or not, but as a DM I do like to add "bonus effects" to monster profiles and player attacks when something succeeds or fails by more than 5.
For example, when I customise an enemy attack I often like to have save effects be more severe if a player fails by more than 5, so being pushed back might become push + prone on a worse failure, a good hit with an attack might push, put disadvantage on the next attack etc. When making monster profiles I'll usually make these effects always-on (just determined by the rolls) but for players the bonuses are usually judgement calls in the moment, e.g- get a good hit on an enemy that's near a ledge, and I'll have them test to remain on the ledge without the player having to shove them separately.
Not sure if that'd make a good formal "always on" mechanic for player effects though, as it relies on the DM to reveal whether a hit was a near miss (within 5) or solid hit (5+ over) etc., and this means giving players more information about the target's AC (makes it easier to work out). For example, if Graze only worked on near miss, and your DM describes a graze occurring on a 15, then you know the enemy's AC is no higher than 20. Not sure that's really unbalanced though, as you still have to narrow the range.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Simply adjusting the number of damage dice could be enough. Roll all the dice if exceeds by X the AC, or else half (rounding up). That could allow too longer fights.
I am trying to use the injuries and massive damage rules on DMG, have though many different things but the way are written is not easy. Probably I'll try this, rolling in the corresponding table if:
- Injuries: when dropping to 0 HP and failing a death ST by 5 or more.
- Massive damage: receiving half or more of max HP, or (not cumulative with previous) if rolling a critical that exceeds by 10 the target AC, for this using an open-ended rolling system, so rolling a 20, roll again until not 20 and add the numbers.
I'd like to have deadly combat options in OD&D but seems the opposite, simplifying the things.
Just to be explicit about my opinion of my own suggestion: I wanted to put it out there to get perspectives about it, because it seemed interesting on paper, but that doesn't mean it works once it's out in the wild. While I still like it in theory, I'm in agreement that over all the PB based damage and AC are not workable, especially when you think about it's exploitability via multiclassing. I don't exactly consider the "class specific PB" to be horrible, but I can see how it would be better to just make it another column than have people do the math. The other side of that is: it seems like WOTC really wanted to reduce the number of columns in the class tables, when compared to 3e (which I approve of the reduction in complexity). Which brings it back to: even that "fix" for the multiclassing problem isn't workable.
You might notice that my most recent post about a revision to the Monk and Martial Arts ... doesn't make use of this idea at all.
For my monk revision, I decided to make it part of Heightened Metabolism at 7th level: In addition, you may use the Dash action as a Bonus Action.
So you sort of get both (at the cost of a Superiority Die or 2 DP) at 2nd level via the Battle Master Maneuver ... or you get "Disengage" without spending any resource other than your Bonus Action. If you want Dash by itself as a Bonus Action (and no DP cost), you have to wait until 7th level.
MA defense should move to Reaction, and Attack to Bonus Action.
But we have the Warlock which they are using the class level for some things, then I see no problem to extend and fix this way the multi-class issues. And IMO using the score modifier is even worse, clearly used to simplify to maximum the mechanics, but is a terrible way. A feature based on score allows to any other class using that score to dip and get full feature power. That is terrible.
And we have the spell casting, using the class level for each casting ability, which is much more confusing. A player can easily make a mistake more when you have higher spell slots which are simply empty for upcasting.
Those are not "reasonable", those are imposed forcing you to have very low Str, Int and Cha. Why ALL the monks must be like that? And later, good luck choosing your feats.
In 3.5e, Monks got a flat boost to AC based upon their Monk level (in addition to Unarmored Defense). I would suggest that WotC revisit that design idea. It would give the Monk a controlled boost to AC at whatever levels the designers see fit, and it would solve the one-level dip multi-class issue.
Maybe I don’t understand your response or I didn’t write clear enough. Using PB but based on monk level is not the right way. If you want something similar just put the number on the monk table so the bonus is by monk level, like Barbarian rage bonus damage is on the table. Or give the monk a base AC number, similar to how draconic sorcerer AC is 13+Dex, that scales with monk level. Either way there is no multiclassing issue as it scales with monk level. Basically what frobinj said above.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The tricky part is making a monk level based AC work out to the right scale; currently a Monk player can start with AC 15 or 16 pretty easily with a +3 in DEX and a +2 or +3 in WIS for example. So is that where we should start, with what progression? You could for example start with AC 15 at 1st-level, then increase by +1 on every odd level, so AC 16 at 3rd-level, 17 at 5th-level and so-on, but this scales to AC 24 at level 19, is that too high for a class with access to Patient Defense (and by that point a lot more Discipline to spend on it)?
Comparing to classes that wear armour is difficult, because those are equipment bound. If we assume classes never get upgraded armour, then a Rogue is usually going to max out at AC 16, a fighter, Paladin etc. can have up to AC 18 with chain mail and a shield (or AC 19 with the Defense Fighting style), so the Monk getting up to AC 20 as standard in 5e is… fine as an AC of 16 is equivalent to heavy armour without a shield. But that's not a realistic progression because in practice most characters are going to get magic armour or other boosts by that kind of level, so your Rogue might have studded leather, +3 and a ring of protection for AC 20 with +1 to all saving throws, a sword and board fighter could have plate, +3 and a shield, +3 for AC 26 (or AC 27 with the Defense Fighting Style). While a Monk that gets both bracers of defense and a dragonhide belt, +3 could get an AC of 25, that comes at the cost of two attunement choices (to the fighter's none), and it requires a specific item from a specific book.
Personally I think the current baseline AC for a Monk is fine, the problem is that we only have access to attunement based equipment options to boost it, which is a penalty compared to other classes that don't. That can't be fixed with a class feature because it's an equipment problem, we really just need some kind of attunement-free bracers of defense that can't be abused by casters, ideally with multiple levels (not just +2 only).
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 just used PB because seems like a good progression also for AC bonus. If you like more then add an unarmored AC feature with a number equal or slightly adjusted from PB numbers, but I did not see it necessary. Maybe D&D people is much used to have everything written by specific name, so I am not used to that, in other games that is not so important while the numbers are correct.
Notice that using PB is correct as it keep the hit chance balance, at the same time the attack hit rate increases, then the unarmored AC increases the same.
That's not how game balance works though, AC should be compared to the enemy to hit bonus not the player's to hit bonus, and enemy to hit increases by 1 for every 2 CR.
But the CR is made for against a party of 4, not only against the Monk. The other characters usually don’t upgrade their AC at that rate too, with greater CR creatures having more hit chance.
Thanks for sharing those numbers. So if a Monk's AC increases by 1 every ~4 levels (from ASI) with no other bonuses, then over the course of the campaign the monk will be taking an increasing number of hits from monster's accuracy increasing. That makes me wary that increasing Monk AC is the solution we are looking for.
What about damage reduction? From my googling (which could be wrong), it appears monster's damage per round is roughly 5 x CR. Barbarians reduce damage by 1/2 (assuming slashing/piercing/bludgeoning) even with a mediocre AC. Someone else has already proposed changing Deflect Attack to redirect half damage, which could scale easily across levels. The other option is Deflect Attack being based on Monk Level (such as Martial Arts + Monk Level) which avoid multiclass temptations. Both lag against multi-attack. Would adding a second (and maybe third) Reaction solely for Deflect Attack suffice for survival? Yes I am aware of the discussion in another thread about multiple reactions. At what levels would be best to gain extra Reaction(s)?
Indeed, and by tier 4, the range of typical ACs we see in the game has almost no effect on survivability. Damage resistances, saving throws, hit points and healing are much more important. It's why fighting over +1 or +2 AC in tier 3 & 4 is not going to do anything for monk survivability. In tier 3 & 4, Evasion, Saving Throw proficiency / Paladin aura, and Bear Totem Resistances are what makes the difference for survivability.
This statement just sent me down such a rabbit hole. But you're correct.
If you assume the CR rating of the monsters of the multiverse is a good indicator (I know, but let me cook). the to hit bonus of level appropriate creatures stays within +-1 to the level appropriate AC of player characters from levels 4 to about level 11 and then starts to pull ahead in favor of the To-Hit Bonus. But it only gets to about a +10-11.
Assuming the Average D20 roll is an 11, then at Tier III, the average attack will be a 21 and and at Tier IV the average attack roll will be a 22.
So at all levels of play, a D20 roll of an 11 would be just about enough to meet the AC of appropriate heavy armor, even if including Magic Armor.
Now personally, I'm not sure how I feel about that. Is the armor really doing it's work if its preventing 40-50% of incoming attacks? I guess, but given how much effort it might be to get Full Plate +1 or Full Plate +2 on a character or taking all my Feat options to increase stats....does it feel like its worth the effort? Not to mention we all know the CR system is....Flawed when it comes to presenting a challenge.
As a DM, I think I'm going to have to consider shaving one or two points of 'to hit bonus' off my monsters, especially in groups where I have to run higher CR creatures to challenge them, at the very least to let the Warriors on the Front Line feel like their investment into AC isn't so much of an Uphill battle. As a Player, that Shield on a Fighter is suddenly looking WAY more appealing! The Monk though is still in a weird spot where I think the AC is actually scaling appropriately (assuming you invest all your Feats into increasing your Dex and Wisdom).
Like I said, Still not sure how i feel about all that.
The system itself does not help, with the same result if you surpass the AC by 1 or by 10. If the damage would be according to how much the attack surpassed the AC would be easier, but seems hard to think that will change at all.
I don't think it's necessary to weaken the monsters; keep in mind even very high level creatures don't have all that many attacks (typically three or four on their turn, plus maybe another three via legendary actions at most) so the fact that there's any kind of increased chance for them to miss is a big deal.
Even when a CR 30 monster has +19 to hit, that still means an AC 21 or better is still increasing its chances of missing (as at AC 20 it'll hit on 2's, and 1's always miss anyway). One miss at that kind of level is a big deal for an attack-centric monster, and AC 21 is what a plate, +3 two-handing fighter might have in tier 4. While it might not sound like much, an extra 5% chance of missing still matters, and that's if you give no other defensive items like cloak and/or ring of protection, they don't have have Defense fighting style, no further boosts such as shield of faith from an ally, shield as an Eldritch Knight (though you can ignore this if we're staying pure martial), an animated shield or whatever.
Meanwhile a sword and board Fighter or Paladin could have a base AC of 26 with plate, +3 and a shield, +3, AC 27 with Defense, so for +19 that's a 25-30% chance for the monster to miss which is suddenly a lot more significant, as a quarter or third(-ish) fewer hits is that much less damage taken. And again that's without any other boosts; slap on both items of protection, shield of faith or haste from an ally (because if you're the one getting attacked, then someone ought to be helping you to take it) and that's another 20% chance to miss.
Even though Crawford always insists the game was designed to be playable without magic items, it was 100% designed to be played with magic items and he's a dirty rotten liar, because no magic items means a DM has to do a load of extra work adjusting everything. If you're handing out gear appropriate for each tier, it should run as-is. 😉
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.
Yeah, that's a completely different fundamental system from D20, I've seen it before on D100 or "Degrees of success" type systems many years ago (I think, memory aint what it used to be). D20 is all about 'pass or fail', either you exceed the required threshold or you do not. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with either option, but I'd be hesitant to mix them outside of the occasional special rule on a failed save or something. Not something I'd want to be juggling constantly on anything that comes up as often as 'attack rolls'.
I'd rather work with the current 'Abstraction of Combat' system in place and keep it snappy and quick then adding extra steps to calculate damage. Heck most of the time I don't even roll damage when i DM, I just take the average to keep things moving. I'd do it as a player too if I were allowed, I might suggest that to the DM at some of the bigger tables I play at come to think of it.
I wouldn't say it's a completely different fundamental system, considering Pathfinder actually does it.
There are four degrees of success: critical fail (10 below DC/AC), fail (below DC/AC), success (above DC/AC), and critical success (10 above DC/AC). 1s bring your grade down a notch, and 20s bring it up. As I understand it, it works like that for attack rolls, ability checks, and most saving throws. I've never played Pathfinder, though, so I can't tell you how much it slows things down.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
This is very much a subjective point of view, but what is the point of combat? IMO it should feel tense, dramatic, dangerous. Which means:
(1) Turns should be relatively quick.
(2) Monsters should get to use their awesome, terrifying abilities
(3) There should be a reasonably high chance a PC at the very least gets knocked out.
(4) Combat shouldn't last too long
#2 means that monsters based on attack rolls should get to hit the players to trigger their attack-based abilities
#3 + #4 means that monsters should be dealing damage every round
#1 means that monsters shouldn't be making a huge number of attack rolls -> which means based on the others they need to have relatively high chance to hit.
The degrees of success I haven't felt slow things down, from what I can tell it is the 3 action economy when applied to monsters. It is much harder to group a large number of monsters together and have them do their turns at the same time because their actions are going to be different and the MAP means each attack basically has to be rolled separately.
Once you're used to it it doesn't really make any difference to the speed; in fact it can feel pretty intuitive in practice as if you rolled well, it's reasonable to expect to do better, the main difference is just that it has a specific mechanical benefit. I do personally prefer the simplicity of 5e just being hit or not, but as a DM I do like to add "bonus effects" to monster profiles and player attacks when something succeeds or fails by more than 5.
For example, when I customise an enemy attack I often like to have save effects be more severe if a player fails by more than 5, so being pushed back might become push + prone on a worse failure, a good hit with an attack might push, put disadvantage on the next attack etc. When making monster profiles I'll usually make these effects always-on (just determined by the rolls) but for players the bonuses are usually judgement calls in the moment, e.g- get a good hit on an enemy that's near a ledge, and I'll have them test to remain on the ledge without the player having to shove them separately.
Not sure if that'd make a good formal "always on" mechanic for player effects though, as it relies on the DM to reveal whether a hit was a near miss (within 5) or solid hit (5+ over) etc., and this means giving players more information about the target's AC (makes it easier to work out). For example, if Graze only worked on near miss, and your DM describes a graze occurring on a 15, then you know the enemy's AC is no higher than 20. Not sure that's really unbalanced though, as you still have to narrow the range.
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.
Simply adjusting the number of damage dice could be enough. Roll all the dice if exceeds by X the AC, or else half (rounding up). That could allow too longer fights.
I am trying to use the injuries and massive damage rules on DMG, have though many different things but the way are written is not easy. Probably I'll try this, rolling in the corresponding table if:
- Injuries: when dropping to 0 HP and failing a death ST by 5 or more.
- Massive damage: receiving half or more of max HP, or (not cumulative with previous) if rolling a critical that exceeds by 10 the target AC, for this using an open-ended rolling system, so rolling a 20, roll again until not 20 and add the numbers.
I'd like to have deadly combat options in OD&D but seems the opposite, simplifying the things.