So something I find kind of odd is the fact that the 'Tavern Brawler' feat really clashes with the design of the Brawler class. The feat and subclass both provide most of the same benefits so taking both of them is less then optimal. What's most backwards is that if you start from level 1 and WANT to play as a Brawler Tavern Brawler would likely be the feat you'd want to take.
Perhaps instead of having "Unarmed Expert" we have a feature that grants the Tavern Brawler feat (or a different background feat if you already have a feat). The damage of Tavern Brawler's unarmed strikes probably needed a mild buff anyway and that solves at least one of the weird thing this class does.
tavern brawler is a lvl 1 feat, so giving out a d6 d8 unarmed to any character is a bit much. Also, some of these feats aren't really designed for the specialized class or subclass to get the most benefit out of. You get some benefit, but its not as useful for you as others. healer, martial fighting style, tough, magic initiate, etc. They are feats to give versatility more than enhance. You still get some benefit, rerolling 1 and push on unarmed hit, in case of tavern brawler, but a novice gets greater benefit.
Its a bit annoying mostly because there are not a lot of feats, and many times there is no other feat that synergizes with that playstyle.
Huh. Yeah, you're right. The Damage Rerolls still works well for your d6/d8 damage, and Shove is still a good option, but Furniture as Weapons, which guarantees d8 damage with two hands just doesn't qualify for any of the Brawler's features, since those only work for Improvised Weapons, while Tavern Brawler lets you treat furniture as actual weapons, rather than modifying how improvised weapons work for you.
Hopefully we'll see a redesign. Tavern Brawler is super slick and very clear about how it works, just explicitly letting you treat things as actual weapons. Still bad damage compared to weapons, but slick design.
Tavern Brawler Accustomed to brawling, you gain the following benefits:
Enhanced Unarmed Strike. When you hit with your Unarmed Strike* and deal damage, you can deal Bludgeoning Damage equal to 1d4 + your Strength modifier, instead of the normal damage of an Unarmed Strike.
Damage Rerolls. Whenever you roll a damage die for your Unarmed Strike, you can reroll the die if it rolls a 1, and you must use the new roll.
Shove. When you hit a creature with an Unarmed Strike as part of the Attack Action on your turn, you can deal damage to the target and also push it 5 feet away. You can use this benefit only once per turn.
Furniture as Weapons. You can wield furniture as a Weapon, using the rules of the Greatclub for Small or Medium furniture and the rules of the Club for Tiny furniture.
tavern brawler is a bit of a different thing. It probably still works with improvised expert. RAW an improvised weapon is any object you use to attack that you can hold in one or two hands. Furniture, treated as a club would still apply. The big difference between it and regular rules, is it allows you to treat objects that don't look like weapons as weapons.
That said its interesting how little people trust their DMs to follow the spirit of the thing.
Regardless, I think they will need to clarify the intent of improvised weapon use in general and in the context of brawler, also I wouldn't be surprised if tavern brawler and grappler feats are changed, as they were created with the early playtest rules in mind.
tavern brawler is a lvl 1 feat, so giving out a d6 d8 unarmed to any character is a bit much.
I don't see why. Putting unarmed strikes on par with simple weapons just means that they can be used instead of simple weapons. Why would it be a bit much to do 1d6 with unarmed strikes and a feat when you could instead do 1d6 with a weapon and no feat?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I think the fix for the Brawler is to use some of the Brute with some slight changes. And listen to what ArodGem said.
At 3rd they get a still get Unarmed Expert and Improvised Expert but unarmed expert is heavily changed
Unarmed Expert. You learn the Unarmed Fighting Style feat or the Tavern Brawler Feat. If you already know them both you may choose to learn a Fighting Style feat or a 1st level feat instead.
Brute Force
Starting at 7th level, you’re able to strike with your improvised weapons (not functioning as another weapon like a club) and unarmed strikes with especially brutal force. Whenever you hit with an improvised weapon or unarmed strike and deal damage, the damage increases by an amount based on your level in this class, as shown below.
I think the fix for the Brawler is to use some of the Brute with some slight changes. And listen to what ArodGem said.
At 3rd they get a still get Unarmed Expert and Improvised Expert but unarmed expert is heavily changed
Unarmed Expert. You learn the Unarmed Fighting Style feat or the Tavern Brawler Feat. If you already know them both you may choose to learn a Fighting Style feat or a 1st level feat instead.
Brute Force
Starting at 7th level, you’re able to strike with your improvised weapons (not functioning as another weapon like a club) and unarmed strikes with especially brutal force. Whenever you hit with an improvised weapon or unarmed strike and deal damage, the damage increases by an amount based on your level in this class, as shown below.
7th 1d6
10th 1d8
16th 1d10
20th 1d12
why not just give the pb bonus to damage at level 7 instead of 15, or is this supposed to be in addition to the level 15 feat. Also why dice instead of a flat number, do you think randomness is important?
not to mention you are totally outclassing monks at unarmed damage here, doing d8+d12+mod, with 4-8 attacks per round. (they can actually get 6-10 via nick/gwm/pam) Not that you would bother, since you could be doing d12+d12+5 per hit,
but just interesting how different the expectation for whats ok for a fighter versus a monk.
in the other post you were worried about monks borrowing too much flavor from fighter, and also potential OPness, based on extra attacks. But here, your fighter dominates monk's unarmed abilities, and 4d12 bonus damage a round, is much more than an extra attack of a monk by far.
I'll freely admit that power level wise this not far from what the devs are suggesting for brawler, it really is just amazing how people view whats normal/acceptable/protected from class to class.
I think the fix for the Brawler is to use some of the Brute with some slight changes. And listen to what ArodGem said.
At 3rd they get a still get Unarmed Expert and Improvised Expert but unarmed expert is heavily changed
Unarmed Expert. You learn the Unarmed Fighting Style feat or the Tavern Brawler Feat. If you already know them both you may choose to learn a Fighting Style feat or a 1st level feat instead.
Brute Force
Starting at 7th level, you’re able to strike with your improvised weapons (not functioning as another weapon like a club) and unarmed strikes with especially brutal force. Whenever you hit with an improvised weapon or unarmed strike and deal damage, the damage increases by an amount based on your level in this class, as shown below.
7th 1d6
10th 1d8
16th 1d10
20th 1d12
Ya you were so against monk getting an extra attack but you think fighter getting basically a scaling ma die is ok lol. its only ok when you do it right?
tavern brawler is a lvl 1 feat, so giving out a d6 d8 unarmed to any character is a bit much.
I don't see why. Putting unarmed strikes on par with simple weapons just means that they can be used instead of simple weapons. Why would it be a bit much to do 1d6 with unarmed strikes and a feat when you could instead do 1d6 with a weapon and no feat?
because unarmed ability was considered a specialized skill, Your bare fists being as deadly as swords and dealing damage(and not taking it) through armor was considered a manifestation of monk's super powers
and they determined that the class most specialized for that ability has a d6 at it at lvl 1. (in ua6)
so if everyone can punch dragons with their bare fists at level 1 with even more efficiency than monk (d8 with nothing else in hands) that's something that needs to be addressed.
before you can give out Martial Arts unarmed dice to anyone, you probably need to figure out how you plan to make lvl 1 monk better at it than anyone else.
tavern brawler is a lvl 1 feat, so giving out a d6 d8 unarmed to any character is a bit much.
I don't see why. Putting unarmed strikes on par with simple weapons just means that they can be used instead of simple weapons. Why would it be a bit much to do 1d6 with unarmed strikes and a feat when you could instead do 1d6 with a weapon and no feat?
because unarmed ability was considered a specialized skill, Your bare fists being as deadly as swords and dealing damage(and not taking it) through armor was considered a manifestation of monk's super powers
and they determined that the class most specialized for that ability has a d6 at it at lvl 1. (in ua6)
so if everyone can punch dragons with their bare fists at level 1 with even more efficiency than monk (d8 with nothing else in hands) that's something that needs to be addressed.
before you can give out Martial Arts unarmed dice to anyone, you probably need to figure out how you plan to make lvl 1 monk better at it than anyone else.
Sub-par damage is Monk's problem. It shouldn't bring every concept for an unarmed fighter down with it. I mean, imagine if every full caster suddenly became a half caster because people are sick of Artificer being outshone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
tavern brawler is a lvl 1 feat, so giving out a d6 d8 unarmed to any character is a bit much.
I don't see why. Putting unarmed strikes on par with simple weapons just means that they can be used instead of simple weapons. Why would it be a bit much to do 1d6 with unarmed strikes and a feat when you could instead do 1d6 with a weapon and no feat?
because unarmed ability was considered a specialized skill, Your bare fists being as deadly as swords and dealing damage(and not taking it) through armor was considered a manifestation of monk's super powers
and they determined that the class most specialized for that ability has a d6 at it at lvl 1. (in ua6)
so if everyone can punch dragons with their bare fists at level 1 with even more efficiency than monk (d8 with nothing else in hands) that's something that needs to be addressed.
before you can give out Martial Arts unarmed dice to anyone, you probably need to figure out how you plan to make lvl 1 monk better at it than anyone else.
Sub-par damage is Monk's problem. It shouldn't bring every concept for an unarmed fighter down with it. I mean, imagine if every full caster suddenly became a half caster because people are sick of Artificer being outshone.
the game can't fix one without the other. If they decide weapons are too weak, and give warlock pact of the blade +5 damage with any weapon, thats something they need to solve on martial classes before they solve it on mage classes.
Your example is odd, Artificer is a half caster, why should it compete with full casters at magic? Also artificer is not a weak half caster either.
Then there is an issue of lore/fantasy/etc.
Also, you aren't discussing an unarmed fighter class or subclass concept, you are talking about a lvl 0 feature everyone can pick up at character creation. This would be closer to magic initiate giving you 4 lvl 1, 1 lvl2, 1 lvl 3 spell slots at level 1.
if you decide to do that, for whatever reason, your plan needs to include a way in which actual spell casters aren't inferior until level 4.
Except spellcasting and weapons are significantly different, whereas weapons and unarmed strikes are mostly just different flavors of the same thing. Letting a character do 1d8 damage unarmed (for the cost of a feat) while they could do 2d6 with a weapon is, remarkably demonstrably, not broken.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I think the fix for the Brawler is to use some of the Brute with some slight changes. And listen to what ArodGem said.
At 3rd they get a still get Unarmed Expert and Improvised Expert but unarmed expert is heavily changed
Unarmed Expert. You learn the Unarmed Fighting Style feat or the Tavern Brawler Feat. If you already know them both you may choose to learn a Fighting Style feat or a 1st level feat instead.
Brute Force
Starting at 7th level, you’re able to strike with your improvised weapons (not functioning as another weapon like a club) and unarmed strikes with especially brutal force. Whenever you hit with an improvised weapon or unarmed strike and deal damage, the damage increases by an amount based on your level in this class, as shown below.
7th 1d6
10th 1d8
16th 1d10
20th 1d12
Ya you were so against monk getting an extra attack but you think fighter getting basically a scaling ma die is ok lol. its only ok when you do it right?
I’m against anyone getting extra attacks. I’m for monks getting more damage at 11th. See what happens when you don’t pay attention you make arguments that don’t make sense. Also this isn’t all fighters it’s a subclass. Someone suggested moving fighters 4th attack to 16th and giving them a 5th attack at 20th and I’m against that too. More attacks is not the way to balance the game. I’ll keep saying it because it’s true.
Except spellcasting and weapons are significantly different, whereas weapons and unarmed strikes are mostly just different flavors of the same thing. Letting a character do 1d8 damage unarmed (for the cost of a feat) while they could do 2d6 with a weapon is, remarkably demonstrably, not broken.
its not mechanically broken, its thematically broken if Monks aren't any better at unarmed combat as an unarmed specialist class than any random class. If they create a class that gets minus die size to every weapon except crossbows, And is called God crossbow, it thematically needs to be better at crossbows than any level zero character in game.
I think the fix for the Brawler is to use some of the Brute with some slight changes. And listen to what ArodGem said.
At 3rd they get a still get Unarmed Expert and Improvised Expert but unarmed expert is heavily changed
Unarmed Expert. You learn the Unarmed Fighting Style feat or the Tavern Brawler Feat. If you already know them both you may choose to learn a Fighting Style feat or a 1st level feat instead.
Brute Force
Starting at 7th level, you’re able to strike with your improvised weapons (not functioning as another weapon like a club) and unarmed strikes with especially brutal force. Whenever you hit with an improvised weapon or unarmed strike and deal damage, the damage increases by an amount based on your level in this class, as shown below.
7th 1d6
10th 1d8
16th 1d10
20th 1d12
Ya you were so against monk getting an extra attack but you think fighter getting basically a scaling ma die is ok lol. its only ok when you do it right?
I’m against anyone getting extra attacks. I’m for monks getting more damage at 11th. See what happens when you don’t pay attention you make arguments that don’t make sense. Also this isn’t all fighters it’s a subclass. Someone suggested moving fighters 4th attack to 16th and giving them a 5th attack at 20th and I’m against that too. More attacks is not the way to balance the game. I’ll keep saying it because it’s true.
you know, they basically gave every martial extra attacks via nick right? Any martial do 4 attacks baseline now by using nick, and Pam, or gwm. Classes that could previously do 4 can now do 5.
monk can do 5, it just doesnt actually serve much purpose at high levels. Ranger can do 5. Fighters can do 6.
for rangers its actually sub optimal at high levels.
which goes back to my point, you are highly overstating the value of extra attack. Haste gives extra attack, +2AC and double movement speed, still many casters would rather not. I'm not saying its the only solution or even the best solution for every situation, but its not an inherently wrong or OP option.
tavern brawler is a bit of a different thing. It probably still works with improvised expert. RAW an improvised weapon is any object you use to attack that you can hold in one or two hands. Furniture, treated as a club would still apply. The big difference between it and regular rules, is it allows you to treat objects that don't look like weapons as weapons.
That said its interesting how little people trust their DMs to follow the spirit of the thing.
Regardless, I think they will need to clarify the intent of improvised weapon use in general and in the context of brawler, also I wouldn't be surprised if tavern brawler and grappler feats are changed, as they were created with the early playtest rules in mind.
That's a fair interpretation, and as a DM, I would definitely allow synergy!
I trust my DMs and am not afraid to have such conversations. I would just prefer the conversation not be required in the first place.
My main issue, though, is organized play. I helped start a weekly D&D club of 80+ participants at my college where DMs and players are constantly shifting. No matter what you do, there will be players who create a character expecting the rules to work one way and then DMs who interpret things a different way, which can takes time from the table to align expectations. Most players in the club will ultimately respect the DM's ruling, but it can be disappointing for the player if their build concept is squashed, especially if that's one of the main ways they enjoy the game. If the rules are more precise (without being excessively long), then it can often mean more consistent expectations and a smoother experience.
I think the fix for the Brawler is to use some of the Brute with some slight changes. And listen to what ArodGem said.
At 3rd they get a still get Unarmed Expert and Improvised Expert but unarmed expert is heavily changed
Unarmed Expert. You learn the Unarmed Fighting Style feat or the Tavern Brawler Feat. If you already know them both you may choose to learn a Fighting Style feat or a 1st level feat instead.
Brute Force
Starting at 7th level, you’re able to strike with your improvised weapons (not functioning as another weapon like a club) and unarmed strikes with especially brutal force. Whenever you hit with an improvised weapon or unarmed strike and deal damage, the damage increases by an amount based on your level in this class, as shown below.
7th 1d6
10th 1d8
16th 1d10
20th 1d12
Ya you were so against monk getting an extra attack but you think fighter getting basically a scaling ma die is ok lol. its only ok when you do it right?
I’m against anyone getting extra attacks. I’m for monks getting more damage at 11th. See what happens when you don’t pay attention you make arguments that don’t make sense. Also this isn’t all fighters it’s a subclass. Someone suggested moving fighters 4th attack to 16th and giving them a 5th attack at 20th and I’m against that too. More attacks is not the way to balance the game. I’ll keep saying it because it’s true.
you know, they basically gave every martial extra attacks via nick right? Any martial do 4 attacks baseline now by using nick, and Pam, or gwm. Classes that could previously do 4 can now do 5.
monk can do 5, it just doesnt actually serve much purpose at high levels. Ranger can do 5. Fighters can do 6.
for rangers its actually sub optimal at high levels.
which goes back to my point, you are highly overstating the value of extra attack. Haste gives extra attack, +2AC and double movement speed, still many casters would rather not. I'm not saying its the only solution or even the best solution for every situation, but its not an inherently wrong or OP option.
You are highly understating it. People don’t haste because it’s concentration and it horrible when you lose it in combat. I complained about Nick as well when weapon masteries were introduced and Nick is the main reason I don’t like monks getting whatever weapon masteries they want on there unarmed strikes as some have suggested. Again additional attacks allow for more variables in the math that is much stronger than just adding damage per attack or to one attack per turn. It’s the simple truth.
Again additional attacks allow for more variables in the math that is much stronger than just adding damage per attack or to one attack per turn. It’s the simple truth.
I don't think anyone is arguing whether or not more attacks is more random variables. I think the question is: why is that bad?
The difference is:
flat distribution (just bonuses)
vs
bell-ish distribution (increasing averages, but more likely to get a total result that is close to that average instead of close to the fringes -- less likely to get the minimum, but also less likely to get the maximum)
it's a trade-off of which of those you want vs dislike. And that's not typically deterministic (ie. individual preference). I personally lean toward bell shaped distribution over flat distribution, so I would rather have more attacks as an easy way to increase the expected average.
Again additional attacks allow for more variables in the math that is much stronger than just adding damage per attack or to one attack per turn. It’s the simple truth.
I don't think anyone is arguing whether or not more attacks is more random variables. I think the question is: why is that bad?
The difference is:
flat distribution (just bonuses)
vs
bell-ish distribution (increasing averages, but more likely to get a total result that is close to that average instead of close to the fringes -- less likely to get the minimum, but also less likely to get the maximum)
it's a trade-off of which of those you want vs dislike. And that's not typically deterministic (ie. individual preference). I personally lean toward bell shaped distribution over flat distribution, so I would rather have more attacks as an easy way to increase the expected average.
Because one more attack doesn’t just increase the expected average. People never figure spells, magic items, and features into those calculations. Adding a dice to damage doesn’t have that interaction.
Again additional attacks allow for more variables in the math that is much stronger than just adding damage per attack or to one attack per turn. It’s the simple truth.
I don't think anyone is arguing whether or not more attacks is more random variables. I think the question is: why is that bad?
The difference is:
flat distribution (just bonuses)
vs
bell-ish distribution (increasing averages, but more likely to get a total result that is close to that average instead of close to the fringes -- less likely to get the minimum, but also less likely to get the maximum)
it's a trade-off of which of those you want vs dislike. And that's not typically deterministic (ie. individual preference). I personally lean toward bell shaped distribution over flat distribution, so I would rather have more attacks as an easy way to increase the expected average.
Because one more attack doesn’t just increase the expected average. People never figure spells, magic items, and features into those calculations. Adding a dice to damage doesn’t have that interaction.
Again additional attacks allow for more variables in the math that is much stronger than just adding damage per attack or to one attack per turn. It’s the simple truth.
I don't think anyone is arguing whether or not more attacks is more random variables. I think the question is: why is that bad?
The difference is:
flat distribution (just bonuses)
vs
bell-ish distribution (increasing averages, but more likely to get a total result that is close to that average instead of close to the fringes -- less likely to get the minimum, but also less likely to get the maximum)
it's a trade-off of which of those you want vs dislike. And that's not typically deterministic (ie. individual preference). I personally lean toward bell shaped distribution over flat distribution, so I would rather have more attacks as an easy way to increase the expected average.
Because one more attack doesn’t just increase the expected average. People never figure spells, magic items, and features into those calculations. Adding a dice to damage doesn’t have that interaction.
And why is that _bad_?
I’m pretty sure you read my explanation over on the monk thread? Do you want me to plaster the same thoughts on every thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
tavern brawler is a lvl 1 feat, so giving out a d6 d8 unarmed to any character is a bit much. Also, some of these feats aren't really designed for the specialized class or subclass to get the most benefit out of. You get some benefit, but its not as useful for you as others. healer, martial fighting style, tough, magic initiate, etc. They are feats to give versatility more than enhance. You still get some benefit, rerolling 1 and push on unarmed hit, in case of tavern brawler, but a novice gets greater benefit.
Its a bit annoying mostly because there are not a lot of feats, and many times there is no other feat that synergizes with that playstyle.
tavern brawler is a bit of a different thing. It probably still works with improvised expert. RAW an improvised weapon is any object you use to attack that you can hold in one or two hands. Furniture, treated as a club would still apply. The big difference between it and regular rules, is it allows you to treat objects that don't look like weapons as weapons.
That said its interesting how little people trust their DMs to follow the spirit of the thing.
Regardless, I think they will need to clarify the intent of improvised weapon use in general and in the context of brawler, also I wouldn't be surprised if tavern brawler and grappler feats are changed, as they were created with the early playtest rules in mind.
I don't see why. Putting unarmed strikes on par with simple weapons just means that they can be used instead of simple weapons. Why would it be a bit much to do 1d6 with unarmed strikes and a feat when you could instead do 1d6 with a weapon and no feat?
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)
I think the fix for the Brawler is to use some of the Brute with some slight changes. And listen to what ArodGem said.
At 3rd they get a still get Unarmed Expert and Improvised Expert but unarmed expert is heavily changed
Unarmed Expert. You learn the Unarmed Fighting Style feat or the Tavern Brawler Feat. If you already know them both you may choose to learn a Fighting Style feat or a 1st level feat instead.
Brute Force
Starting at 7th level, you’re able to strike with your improvised weapons (not functioning as another weapon like a club) and unarmed strikes with especially brutal force. Whenever you hit with an improvised weapon or unarmed strike and deal damage, the damage increases by an amount based on your level in this class, as shown below.
why not just give the pb bonus to damage at level 7 instead of 15, or is this supposed to be in addition to the level 15 feat. Also why dice instead of a flat number, do you think randomness is important?
not to mention you are totally outclassing monks at unarmed damage here, doing d8+d12+mod, with 4-8 attacks per round. (they can actually get 6-10 via nick/gwm/pam) Not that you would bother, since you could be doing d12+d12+5 per hit,
but just interesting how different the expectation for whats ok for a fighter versus a monk.
in the other post you were worried about monks borrowing too much flavor from fighter, and also potential OPness, based on extra attacks. But here, your fighter dominates monk's unarmed abilities, and 4d12 bonus damage a round, is much more than an extra attack of a monk by far.
I'll freely admit that power level wise this not far from what the devs are suggesting for brawler, it really is just amazing how people view whats normal/acceptable/protected from class to class.
Ya you were so against monk getting an extra attack but you think fighter getting basically a scaling ma die is ok lol. its only ok when you do it right?
because unarmed ability was considered a specialized skill, Your bare fists being as deadly as swords and dealing damage(and not taking it) through armor was considered a manifestation of monk's super powers
and they determined that the class most specialized for that ability has a d6 at it at lvl 1. (in ua6)
so if everyone can punch dragons with their bare fists at level 1 with even more efficiency than monk (d8 with nothing else in hands) that's something that needs to be addressed.
before you can give out Martial Arts unarmed dice to anyone, you probably need to figure out how you plan to make lvl 1 monk better at it than anyone else.
The monk can do 2d6 unarmed damage + 2x ability mod at 1st level. Seems a little better than 1d8 + 1x ability mod.
Sub-par damage is Monk's problem. It shouldn't bring every concept for an unarmed fighter down with it. I mean, imagine if every full caster suddenly became a half caster because people are sick of Artificer being outshone.
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)
the game can't fix one without the other. If they decide weapons are too weak, and give warlock pact of the blade +5 damage with any weapon, thats something they need to solve on martial classes before they solve it on mage classes.
Your example is odd, Artificer is a half caster, why should it compete with full casters at magic? Also artificer is not a weak half caster either.
Then there is an issue of lore/fantasy/etc.
Also, you aren't discussing an unarmed fighter class or subclass concept, you are talking about a lvl 0 feature everyone can pick up at character creation. This would be closer to magic initiate giving you 4 lvl 1, 1 lvl2, 1 lvl 3 spell slots at level 1.
if you decide to do that, for whatever reason, your plan needs to include a way in which actual spell casters aren't inferior until level 4.
Except spellcasting and weapons are significantly different, whereas weapons and unarmed strikes are mostly just different flavors of the same thing. Letting a character do 1d8 damage unarmed (for the cost of a feat) while they could do 2d6 with a weapon is, remarkably demonstrably, not broken.
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)
I’m against anyone getting extra attacks. I’m for monks getting more damage at 11th. See what happens when you don’t pay attention you make arguments that don’t make sense. Also this isn’t all fighters it’s a subclass. Someone suggested moving fighters 4th attack to 16th and giving them a 5th attack at 20th and I’m against that too. More attacks is not the way to balance the game. I’ll keep saying it because it’s true.
its not mechanically broken, its thematically broken if Monks aren't any better at unarmed combat as an unarmed specialist class than any random class. If they create a class that gets minus die size to every weapon except crossbows, And is called God crossbow, it thematically needs to be better at crossbows than any level zero character in game.
you know, they basically gave every martial extra attacks via nick right? Any martial do 4 attacks baseline now by using nick, and Pam, or gwm. Classes that could previously do 4 can now do 5.
monk can do 5, it just doesnt actually serve much purpose at high levels. Ranger can do 5. Fighters can do 6.
for rangers its actually sub optimal at high levels.
which goes back to my point, you are highly overstating the value of extra attack. Haste gives extra attack, +2AC and double movement speed, still many casters would rather not. I'm not saying its the only solution or even the best solution for every situation, but its not an inherently wrong or OP option.
That's a fair interpretation, and as a DM, I would definitely allow synergy!
I trust my DMs and am not afraid to have such conversations. I would just prefer the conversation not be required in the first place.
My main issue, though, is organized play. I helped start a weekly D&D club of 80+ participants at my college where DMs and players are constantly shifting. No matter what you do, there will be players who create a character expecting the rules to work one way and then DMs who interpret things a different way, which can takes time from the table to align expectations. Most players in the club will ultimately respect the DM's ruling, but it can be disappointing for the player if their build concept is squashed, especially if that's one of the main ways they enjoy the game. If the rules are more precise (without being excessively long), then it can often mean more consistent expectations and a smoother experience.
That's been my observation at least.
You are highly understating it. People don’t haste because it’s concentration and it horrible when you lose it in combat. I complained about Nick as well when weapon masteries were introduced and Nick is the main reason I don’t like monks getting whatever weapon masteries they want on there unarmed strikes as some have suggested. Again additional attacks allow for more variables in the math that is much stronger than just adding damage per attack or to one attack per turn. It’s the simple truth.
I don't think anyone is arguing whether or not more attacks is more random variables. I think the question is: why is that bad?
The difference is:
it's a trade-off of which of those you want vs dislike. And that's not typically deterministic (ie. individual preference). I personally lean toward bell shaped distribution over flat distribution, so I would rather have more attacks as an easy way to increase the expected average.
Because one more attack doesn’t just increase the expected average. People never figure spells, magic items, and features into those calculations. Adding a dice to damage doesn’t have that interaction.
And why is that _bad_?
I’m pretty sure you read my explanation over on the monk thread? Do you want me to plaster the same thoughts on every thread.