elements? thats actually 15 foot range versus 10 foot range.
but yeah they can use similar features in multiple sub classes/main class, However, thats not really merging, as the subclass remains there. Also I personally would expect them to alter or expand the subclasses they borrow heavily from in that case.
In the case of Astral, its subclass versus subclass, so the feature isnt a waste of space on astral, and overall the subclasses still feel like they offering an overall very different play.
if for example they gave every monk push or topple on FOB, they would have made open hands first feature almost useless, and I would expect changes to it.
I actually forgot about that because I value that change very low for the monk in the current bestiary.
so rereading that skill, the Astral monk one is different. It can be used on certain types of damage received, while the monk skill only works for ranged attacks. There is also no throwback option. These two rules have fairly different aims. One is about a large reduction to all ranged attacks, and redirecting them, the other is about a small reduction to elemental damage
The Astral monk one would still be used for cones, aoe, saves, and even melee attacks with extra properties. Which to be honest is generally more common for monks than ranged elemental attacks. Its also just a bullet point rather than a full feature.
if the things they 'borrow' are similar level of overlap, its ok imo, but if it its too similar, or too central to the subclass, I'd expect some type of note or rework.
And I don't think they should have 'legacy' stuff for 2024 stuff. This isnt being marketed as a soft new edition, its specifically marketed as a revision, or the equivalent of an expansion or patch update in digital games. This is problematic for them because with respect to subclasses, they should have put any subclass that needs changes as a result of the phb into the phb. But instead they seem to be trying to avoid needing to do that.
I think your poll should probably have been less specific and more general; I voted for "interrupt + neck pinch" option as they're both fun ideas though not necessarily exactly what I want to see. More generally I want to see a Monk's basic toolkit include more free options either initially or later so they have a core set of options to choose from round to round, and to gain more Ki-based abilities as standard.
Basically the goal for me is for Monk to become more versatile, as that was always what appealed to me about them in theory but which I don't think the 5e class fully realises. Disengaging for one should be "free" (bonus action only, no Ki cost) so that skirmishing is an option.
The defensive options are the tricky area for me with Monk; in Baldur's Gate 3 one item I love is the Armour of Uninhibited Kushigo, which grants a reaction attack when an enemy misses you if you have Patient Defense active, and it works well in that game because it's not hard to get enemies to attack you while you're using Patient Defense. I could see this becoming a core feature of Monk, possibly combined with some way to encourage an enemy to attack you (e.g- disadvantage against others if you're nearby) so you can not only maximise its effectiveness, but also lose less potential damage by going defensive.
I basically want Monk to be a risky swiss army knife of options more geared towards mobility, control and adaptation rather than trying to compete on damage against the Fighter.
i agree with additional options and especially mobility and control. rather than compete with fighters, i'd rather see monks as strongly complimenting other warriors, increasing the survivability of others. resource points being spent to empower attacks with poison-like nerve pokes, daze away enemy bonus actions, siphon off enemy reaction actions, reduce AC on the next melee strike, tangle the feet of any enemy within 5ft, etc.
but to accomplish that, i also think there must be more free passive abilities: dismantle drunken monk and give all monks (who are not exhausted or dazed) always-on disengage and 'spend 5ft of movement to end prone condition' as a reaction. mobility needs to be innate.
I'm in favor of the concept in general of taking some subclasses and just making their features inherent to the base class. I think you could pull most of the features from both Drunken Master and Open Hand and just make them core features, and you'd be just fine.
i had been (quietly) opposed to cannibalizing subclasses, but this move strengthens the lore niche of monks being warriors with mystical overtones by removing the two least mystical. clearly there's going to be more warriors than just monk punching things, so no sense trying to claw that specialization back. go the other way, then. lets have more running across still water, dodging an attack by swapping places with a conveniently teleported log, and stapling a foe's shadow to the ground.
I wish I had remembered those stereotypical cool martial arts moves...lol.
I'll have to ask the young one's sensei when he's going to cover the log move. I really want to sit in for that... XD
i wish i could convince my spawn to take up martial arts. they could use the confidence and balance and muscle memory to roll when they fall. anyway, i don't have to go further and stretch my neck out here to say this, but i'm going to anyway...
Avatar the Last Air Bender, iconic martial arts super power show for kids, is nearly twenty years old. to some it's a classic and just what they picture when they think '5e monk.' and, luckily, there's an elemental subclass that pays tribute. Naruto the log-switching-with ninja, iconic martial arts super power show for kids, is older than twenty years. and it's what a lot of other people imagine when they think '5e monk.' but shadow subclass (the subclass for ninjas, one would assume) doesn't relate to that IP at all. not that it has to. but it is a broadly recognized IP with mystical martial arts at its core.
...just sayin, the further this class gets from Bruce Lee, the closer it's going to get to martial artists who fight alongside a puppet with strings made of unbreakable ki or summon toad minions or swap places instantly with a log. that's not my jam anymore, but i have a hard time saying that doesn't sound like a rich trade route to plunder. save it for the 3rd party folks to explore, right? okay, sure. but for many the thought is still there.
So martial arts fiction today isnt just naruto, its also, Baki grappler, Jujustu kaisen, Ip man (ironically Bruce Lee's master is the icon of the last 15 years of MA movies), tenjo tenge
which is to say, it covers a bunch of different sub concepts. Yeah, the obvious super power one is big, but there is also the subtle super power ones. Tenjo Tenje manga illustrates my point in that the obviously superpowered shadow puppet guys, are fighting the guy with insane muscle memory and general ki mastery, are fighting the guys with extreme understanding of rhythym in combat.
Everything in the Class doesnt need to be the same type of thing. look at fighter, it has a tactical master, a magical swordsman, A general talented guy, a psionic dude, a runic knight, an improviser.
There is nothing bad about having a subclass whose abilities are more physical than energy, there is an audience for it. Pretty sure before 2024 open hand was one of, if not the the most popular subclass.
elements? thats actually 15 foot range versus 10 foot range.
but yeah they can use similar features in multiple sub classes/main class, However, thats not really merging, as the subclass remains there. Also I personally would expect them to alter or expand the subclasses they borrow heavily from in that case.
In the case of Astral, its subclass versus subclass, so the feature isnt a waste of space on astral, and overall the subclasses still feel like they offering an overall very different play.
if for example they gave every monk push or topple on FOB, they would have made open hands first feature almost useless, and I would expect changes to it.
Open hand push and topple on FOB is completely useless because of weapon masteries. It was okay design for 5e since most could not deal damage and push or topple with one attack. In 5eR all classes with weapon masteries can do that including all monk subclasses. Open hand needs a rework badly now. Push topple should be on any unarmed strike, and maybe addle is reserved for FoB.
elements? thats actually 15 foot range versus 10 foot range.
but yeah they can use similar features in multiple sub classes/main class, However, thats not really merging, as the subclass remains there. Also I personally would expect them to alter or expand the subclasses they borrow heavily from in that case.
In the case of Astral, its subclass versus subclass, so the feature isnt a waste of space on astral, and overall the subclasses still feel like they offering an overall very different play.
if for example they gave every monk push or topple on FOB, they would have made open hands first feature almost useless, and I would expect changes to it.
Open hand push and topple on FOB is completely useless because of weapon masteries. It was okay design for 5e since most could not deal damage and push or topple with one attack. In 5eR all classes with weapon masteries can do that including all monk subclasses. Open hand needs a rework badly now. Push topple should be on any unarmed strike, and maybe addle is reserved for FoB.
definitely.
I think open hand is in strong need of a rework, I just disagree with the idea that there is no place for a more physical, or classic monk concept subclass. I am not certain the base class must have topple/push, but I'm not really opposed to it. Addle with saving throw is kinda crazy to me. Especially a con save. It narrows its realistic use case to very few situations. Mastery push becomes 100% better for Op attack avoidance, which is the way it was being used 90% of the time. It then becomes a skill only useful for high impact reaction skills on monsters, which is very rare.
I guess if the guy is already toppled, and you can't or don't want to push, and you were using fb anyway, but it doesnt feel great in those cases. Especially if it adds an extra roll that you don't particularly care if it succeeds.
I can't really explain why any designer would think their base monk, or openhand was a good design in the 2024 context. Its like really really bad compared to any other class take I ve seen them do.
elements? thats actually 15 foot range versus 10 foot range.
but yeah they can use similar features in multiple sub classes/main class, However, thats not really merging, as the subclass remains there. Also I personally would expect them to alter or expand the subclasses they borrow heavily from in that case.
In the case of Astral, its subclass versus subclass, so the feature isnt a waste of space on astral, and overall the subclasses still feel like they offering an overall very different play.
if for example they gave every monk push or topple on FOB, they would have made open hands first feature almost useless, and I would expect changes to it.
Open hand push and topple on FOB is completely useless because of weapon masteries. It was okay design for 5e since most could not deal damage and push or topple with one attack. In 5eR all classes with weapon masteries can do that including all monk subclasses. Open hand needs a rework badly now. Push topple should be on any unarmed strike, and maybe addle is reserved for FoB.
definitely.
I think open hand is in strong need of a rework, I just disagree with the idea that there is no place for a more physical, or classic monk concept subclass. I am not certain the base class must have topple/push, but I'm not really opposed to it. Addle with saving throw is kinda crazy to me. Especially a con save. It narrows its realistic use case to very few situations. Mastery push becomes 100% better for Op attack avoidance, which is the way it was being used 90% of the time. It then becomes a skill only useful for high impact reaction skills on monsters, which is very rare.
I guess if the guy is already toppled, and you can't or don't want to push, and you were using fb anyway, but it doesnt feel great in those cases. Especially if it adds an extra roll that you don't particularly care if it succeeds.
I can't really explain why any designer would think their base monk, or openhand was a good design in the 2024 context. Its like really really bad compared to any other class take I ve seen them do.
I didn’t mean for base monk. I meant open hand should have push and topple on all unarmed strikes, and addle on FoB.
elements? thats actually 15 foot range versus 10 foot range.
but yeah they can use similar features in multiple sub classes/main class, However, thats not really merging, as the subclass remains there. Also I personally would expect them to alter or expand the subclasses they borrow heavily from in that case.
In the case of Astral, its subclass versus subclass, so the feature isnt a waste of space on astral, and overall the subclasses still feel like they offering an overall very different play.
if for example they gave every monk push or topple on FOB, they would have made open hands first feature almost useless, and I would expect changes to it.
Open hand push and topple on FOB is completely useless because of weapon masteries. It was okay design for 5e since most could not deal damage and push or topple with one attack. In 5eR all classes with weapon masteries can do that including all monk subclasses. Open hand needs a rework badly now. Push topple should be on any unarmed strike, and maybe addle is reserved for FoB.
definitely.
I think open hand is in strong need of a rework, I just disagree with the idea that there is no place for a more physical, or classic monk concept subclass. I am not certain the base class must have topple/push, but I'm not really opposed to it. Addle with saving throw is kinda crazy to me. Especially a con save. It narrows its realistic use case to very few situations. Mastery push becomes 100% better for Op attack avoidance, which is the way it was being used 90% of the time. It then becomes a skill only useful for high impact reaction skills on monsters, which is very rare.
I guess if the guy is already toppled, and you can't or don't want to push, and you were using fb anyway, but it doesnt feel great in those cases. Especially if it adds an extra roll that you don't particularly care if it succeeds.
I can't really explain why any designer would think their base monk, or openhand was a good design in the 2024 context. Its like really really bad compared to any other class take I ve seen them do.
I didn’t mean for base monk. I meant open hand should have push and topple on all unarmed strikes, and addle on FoB.
hmm,
my fix for this issue would be base class can choose any simple mastery per day
open Hand would have 2 Martial Arts attack options decided before attack
can choose a mastery for each 1 per day.
+1-2 attack with simple masteries +addle
+1-2 damage with martial masteries + dex or wis based grapple on hit mastery
wholeness of body: bonus action =+2 ki and MA+Monk level HP. wis mod times per day.
level 11, step of wind costs no Ki, can do it as a free action for 1ki.
17 Quivering Palm, doubles damage of round+stun when activated on failed save. Same damage on successful save, but gives a BA unarmed attack
thats if they want to follow the same general type of features. They could go totally different directions
Patient Defense. When taking the Dodge action, additionally grants Advantage on STR and DEX saving throws while not incapacitated.
FYI, Dodge already provides Adv on DEX saves.
Wholeness of Body. Because the optional rule Quickened Healing is weak. I'm leaning towards either a pool of Martial Arts Dice or spending Ki to roll hit dice and add their Wisdom modifier to the total. I don't know which is better, but some self-healing would go a long way.
Both of those are worse than the current Wholeness of Body, which is ~40% of your max HP back 1/LR at the cost of only 1 action.
I forgot that Dodge already did that, so I may have undertuned it. Originally, I was thinking advantage for all saving throws, but that's too strong. Maybe just advantage on the ones they're proficient in. It eventually becomes all of them, but only after some time. Or they can multiclass out and still keep the benefit with a feat like Resilient.
As for Wholeness of Body, I like the name and I like the idea of having a dice pool to roll. Rolling dice is fun, and the pool lets them throttle it throughout the day.
It use to be flurry of misses when it was free. Let’s not leave out the details. Making FoB free while leaving PD and SotW having the same cost as Stunning Strike breaks the Monk even more. It puts you in a position were it looks like your job is to keep punching and using stunning strike defense be dayumed.
at low level with no equipment and not set up . this doesn't mean it cant be used . also if you want to leave out details fighter didn't lose the extra attacks monk did in the transition to 5e. also the negative bonus to hit eventually disappeared at high level
3e and 3.5 monks were was trash. Flurry of Misses, More MAD than 5e, it required a very specific build in a time were you could not just get online and find the perfect build as easily as you can now. Technically in 5e both an monk and a fighter have 4 attacks, but the monk has to pay for it but gets it starting at level 5. 15 levels before the fighter can attack 4 times. Also thinking you can fix the 5e monk with more attacks short sighted. Unconscious things don’t get to attack.
First I didn't say It would fix monk I just think its an option to help them scale and is thematic.
2nd just becuase you didn't know how to build one in 3e and 3.5 doesn't mean there were not passable builds
. 3rd don't assume Im you, I actually play quite well in an Optimized campaign and I know how to keep alive even when my dm shows no mercy.
It use to be flurry of misses when it was free. Let’s not leave out the details. Making FoB free while leaving PD and SotW having the same cost as Stunning Strike breaks the Monk even more. It puts you in a position were it looks like your job is to keep punching and using stunning strike defense be dayumed.
at low level with no equipment and not set up . this doesn't mean it cant be used . also if you want to leave out details fighter didn't lose the extra attacks monk did in the transition to 5e. also the negative bonus to hit eventually disappeared at high level
3e and 3.5 monks were was trash. Flurry of Misses, More MAD than 5e, it required a very specific build in a time were you could not just get online and find the perfect build as easily as you can now. Technically in 5e both an monk and a fighter have 4 attacks, but the monk has to pay for it but gets it starting at level 5. 15 levels before the fighter can attack 4 times. Also thinking you can fix the 5e monk with more attacks short sighted. Unconscious things don’t get to attack.
First I didn't say It would fix monk I just think its an option to help them scale and is thematic.
2nd just becuase you didn't know how to build one in 3e and 3.5 doesn't mean there were not passable builds
. 3rd don't assume Im you, I actually play quite well in an Optimized campaign and I know how to keep alive even when my dm shows no mercy.
The passable builds weren’t the norm in 3e and 3.5e. And passable doesn’t mean good. So their isn’t a point in continuing this debate.
A thematic fix that breaks other parts of the game is pointless.
Also I’m not assuming you are me. I don’t know how long you have played this game, how many other games you have tried, or if you have ever sat behind the screen. What I’m assuming is you aren’t the average player. Claiming you survive fine in an Optimized campaign means you are getting carried by optimal players or your DM is showing mercy (which technically all DMs are since CR isn’t balance properly and if we just wanted a tpk we could achieve it 100% of the time with a “Hard encounter”)
It use to be flurry of misses when it was free. Let’s not leave out the details. Making FoB free while leaving PD and SotW having the same cost as Stunning Strike breaks the Monk even more. It puts you in a position were it looks like your job is to keep punching and using stunning strike defense be dayumed.
at low level with no equipment and not set up . this doesn't mean it cant be used . also if you want to leave out details fighter didn't lose the extra attacks monk did in the transition to 5e. also the negative bonus to hit eventually disappeared at high level
3e and 3.5 monks were was trash. Flurry of Misses, More MAD than 5e, it required a very specific build in a time were you could not just get online and find the perfect build as easily as you can now. Technically in 5e both an monk and a fighter have 4 attacks, but the monk has to pay for it but gets it starting at level 5. 15 levels before the fighter can attack 4 times. Also thinking you can fix the 5e monk with more attacks short sighted. Unconscious things don’t get to attack.
First I didn't say It would fix monk I just think its an option to help them scale and is thematic.
2nd just becuase you didn't know how to build one in 3e and 3.5 doesn't mean there were not passable builds
. 3rd don't assume Im you, I actually play quite well in an Optimized campaign and I know how to keep alive even when my dm shows no mercy.
The passable builds weren’t the norm in 3e and 3.5e. And passable doesn’t mean good. So their isn’t a point in continuing this debate.
A thematic fix that breaks other parts of the game is pointless.
Also I’m not assuming you are me. I don’t know how long you have played this game, how many other games you have tried, or if you have ever sat behind the screen. What I’m assuming is you aren’t the average player. Claiming you survive fine in an Optimized campaign means you are getting carried by optimal players or your DM is showing mercy (which technically all DMs are since CR isn’t balance properly and if we just wanted a tpk we could achieve it 100% of the time with a “Hard encounter”)
"Claiming you survive fine in an Optimized campaign means you are getting carried by optimal players or your DM is showing mercy (which technically all DMs are since CR isn’t balance properly and if we just wanted a tpk we could achieve it 100% of the time with a “Hard encounter”)." there goes your projection again . now I see why you have the views you have . nice try. interesting that you have this view but also think it would be broken if monk did competitive dpr. your basically saying "yes monk does suck," but lets not fix it that would be broken .
It use to be flurry of misses when it was free. Let’s not leave out the details. Making FoB free while leaving PD and SotW having the same cost as Stunning Strike breaks the Monk even more. It puts you in a position were it looks like your job is to keep punching and using stunning strike defense be dayumed.
at low level with no equipment and not set up . this doesn't mean it cant be used . also if you want to leave out details fighter didn't lose the extra attacks monk did in the transition to 5e. also the negative bonus to hit eventually disappeared at high level
3e and 3.5 monks were was trash. Flurry of Misses, More MAD than 5e, it required a very specific build in a time were you could not just get online and find the perfect build as easily as you can now. Technically in 5e both an monk and a fighter have 4 attacks, but the monk has to pay for it but gets it starting at level 5. 15 levels before the fighter can attack 4 times. Also thinking you can fix the 5e monk with more attacks short sighted. Unconscious things don’t get to attack.
First I didn't say It would fix monk I just think its an option to help them scale and is thematic.
2nd just becuase you didn't know how to build one in 3e and 3.5 doesn't mean there were not passable builds
. 3rd don't assume Im you, I actually play quite well in an Optimized campaign and I know how to keep alive even when my dm shows no mercy.
The passable builds weren’t the norm in 3e and 3.5e. And passable doesn’t mean good. So their isn’t a point in continuing this debate.
A thematic fix that breaks other parts of the game is pointless.
Also I’m not assuming you are me. I don’t know how long you have played this game, how many other games you have tried, or if you have ever sat behind the screen. What I’m assuming is you aren’t the average player. Claiming you survive fine in an Optimized campaign means you are getting carried by optimal players or your DM is showing mercy (which technically all DMs are since CR isn’t balance properly and if we just wanted a tpk we could achieve it 100% of the time with a “Hard encounter”)
"Claiming you survive fine in an Optimized campaign means you are getting carried by optimal players or your DM is showing mercy (which technically all DMs are since CR isn’t balance properly and if we just wanted a tpk we could achieve it 100% of the time with a “Hard encounter”)." there goes your projection again . now I see why you have the views you have . nice try. interesting that you have this view but also think it would be broken if monk did competitive dpr. your basically saying "yes monk does suck," but lets not fix it that would be broken .
Most important is you ignored the sentence before that, “you aren’t the average player.” You are either happy being suboptimal in an optimized party or my previous statement is true. You are literally crying that you aren’t doing enough damage, but you are surviving just fine. Also it’s not projection. Any decent DM could by the book find what should be a hard encounter and easily TPK the most optimized players at any level. That’s not a projection it’s a flaw in the CR system. Also you haven’t read any of my other post in these forums because I’m in support of the monk being improved, but just giving them more attacks isn’t how you fix them. That just puts you in a situation of having to adjust other parts of the game. Same reason people are looking at the new Thirsting Blade 3rd attack with a side eye. I’m sorry you’re hyper focused on one class, but since I spend the majority of my playtime behind the screen I care about the game as a whole. There are other ways to fix monk DPR and more attacks isn’t it. More attacks gives optimizers more chances to add spells and items to take what you claim is balancing to overpowered in a half second. Also let’s be honest for the average player monks DPR is fine since they never reach 11th were the real issue with dpr starts. One flaw with the monk is they are getting a subclass feature at 11th while fighter and Paladin are gaining DPR from there base class. I actually posted a proposed fix for the monks 11th subclass feature that all included more damage.
It use to be flurry of misses when it was free. Let’s not leave out the details. Making FoB free while leaving PD and SotW having the same cost as Stunning Strike breaks the Monk even more. It puts you in a position were it looks like your job is to keep punching and using stunning strike defense be dayumed.
at low level with no equipment and not set up . this doesn't mean it cant be used . also if you want to leave out details fighter didn't lose the extra attacks monk did in the transition to 5e. also the negative bonus to hit eventually disappeared at high level
3e and 3.5 monks were was trash. Flurry of Misses, More MAD than 5e, it required a very specific build in a time were you could not just get online and find the perfect build as easily as you can now. Technically in 5e both an monk and a fighter have 4 attacks, but the monk has to pay for it but gets it starting at level 5. 15 levels before the fighter can attack 4 times. Also thinking you can fix the 5e monk with more attacks short sighted. Unconscious things don’t get to attack.
First I didn't say It would fix monk I just think its an option to help them scale and is thematic.
2nd just becuase you didn't know how to build one in 3e and 3.5 doesn't mean there were not passable builds
. 3rd don't assume Im you, I actually play quite well in an Optimized campaign and I know how to keep alive even when my dm shows no mercy.
The passable builds weren’t the norm in 3e and 3.5e. And passable doesn’t mean good. So their isn’t a point in continuing this debate.
A thematic fix that breaks other parts of the game is pointless.
Also I’m not assuming you are me. I don’t know how long you have played this game, how many other games you have tried, or if you have ever sat behind the screen. What I’m assuming is you aren’t the average player. Claiming you survive fine in an Optimized campaign means you are getting carried by optimal players or your DM is showing mercy (which technically all DMs are since CR isn’t balance properly and if we just wanted a tpk we could achieve it 100% of the time with a “Hard encounter”)
"Claiming you survive fine in an Optimized campaign means you are getting carried by optimal players or your DM is showing mercy (which technically all DMs are since CR isn’t balance properly and if we just wanted a tpk we could achieve it 100% of the time with a “Hard encounter”)." there goes your projection again . now I see why you have the views you have . nice try. interesting that you have this view but also think it would be broken if monk did competitive dpr. your basically saying "yes monk does suck," but lets not fix it that would be broken .
Most important is you ignored the sentence before that, “you aren’t the average player.” You are either happy being suboptimal in an optimized party or my previous statement is true. You are literally crying that you aren’t doing enough damage, but you are surviving just fine. Also it’s not projection. Any decent DM could by the book find what should be a hard encounter and easily TPK the most optimized players at any level. That’s not a projection it’s a flaw in the CR system. Also you haven’t read any of my other post in these forums because I’m in support of the monk being improved, but just giving them more attacks isn’t how you fix them. That just puts you in a situation of having to adjust other parts of the game. Same reason people are looking at the new Thirsting Blade 3rd attack with a side eye. I’m sorry you’re hyper focused on one class, but since I spend the majority of my playtime behind the screen I care about the game as a whole. There are other ways to fix monk DPR and more attacks isn’t it. More attacks gives optimizers more chances to add spells and items to take what you claim is balancing to overpowered in a half second. Also let’s be honest for the average player monks DPR is fine since they never reach 11th were the real issue with dpr starts. One flaw with the monk is they are getting a subclass feature at 11th while fighter and Paladin are gaining DPR from there base class. I actually posted a proposed fix for the monks 11th subclass feature that all included more damage.
Ok well im glad you are somewhat open minded in that regard . I don't know why more attacks itself is what sends ya over. but ya id be ok with other solutions as well . in fact I wouldn't mind more offensive style ki powers like blasts or power punches, stances or modes might be cool too .
Is like half of the fighters shtick, so when you give it to another class now the fighter needs to be improved.
The math is inconsistent. Mainly because you can find ways to add damage from items, spells, and other features and people don’t do that when calculating dpr.
For the reason above more attacks makes multiclassing harder to balance.
Is like half of the fighters shtick, so when you give it to another class now the fighter needs to be improved.
The math is inconsistent. Mainly because you can find ways to add damage from items, spells, and other features and people don’t do that when calculating dpr.
For the reason above more attacks makes multiclassing harder to balance.
more attacks is also always been part of monks shtick, not all shticks are for one class only. And in the UA, I'd say fighter is no longer defined just by that. They also are dominant with weapon mastery, have more fighting styles, and lvl 0 fighting styles. And with the current equip/unequip rules, more attacks= more mastery options per turn. Fighter right now doesnt really need any improvements, its actually probably borderline OP relative to other martials. The max numbers are running in the 100+ dpr range, while also having extreme combat versatility. Relative to mages thats ok, but if other martials improve, they aren't in danger of surpassing fighters at all, especially monk.
Also, more attacks is not inherently any worse for balancing than anything else. The most broken things in the game are not really based around having more attacks. The monk literally had as many attacks as a lvl 20 fighter for the whole of 5e, and they were still one of the weakest classes. The problem with the new warlock is not more attacks, its the things that add to their attacks. And its not a difficult solve, its just numbers.
for some reason people really worry about martial attacks, but the 40d6 meteor from up to a mile away, in four 40ft locations doesnt bother them.
I can tell you right now what effect monk getting five attacks would have, and it would actually still probably have them close to bottom.
(5d12+25)*.65 37.75no advantage 50 with advantage. best subclass damage 50ish to 65ish dpr depending on advantage. (which doesnt compete with dps focused builds)
still no where near top casters, or martials. Some characters may benefit more from damage riders, others might benefit more from forcing disadvantage on saves, other benefit more from crits, or off turn attacks. Its not as simple as more attacks = unbalance.
there is no intrinisic power of having multiple attacks, its just another math equation. 5attacks with +2 versus 4 attacks with +6 vs 1 attack with 40 dice.
Is like half of the fighters shtick, so when you give it to another class now the fighter needs to be improved.
The math is inconsistent. Mainly because you can find ways to add damage from items, spells, and other features and people don’t do that when calculating dpr.
For the reason above more attacks makes multiclassing harder to balance.
more attacks is also always been part of monks shtick, not all shticks are for one class only. And in the UA, I'd say fighter is no longer defined just by that. They also are dominant with weapon mastery, have more fighting styles, and lvl 0 fighting styles. And with the current equip/unequip rules, more attacks= more mastery options per turn. Fighter right now doesnt really need any improvements, its actually probably borderline OP relative to other martials. The max numbers are running in the 100+ dpr range, while also having extreme combat versatility. Relative to mages thats ok, but if other martials improve, they aren't in danger of surpassing fighters at all, especially monk.
Also, more attacks is not inherently any worse for balancing than anything else. The most broken things in the game are not really based around having more attacks. The monk literally had as many attacks as a lvl 20 fighter for the whole of 5e, and they were still one of the weakest classes. The problem with the new warlock is not more attacks, its the things that add to their attacks. And its not a difficult solve, its just numbers.
for some reason people really worry about martial attacks, but the 40d6 meteor from up to a mile away, in four 40ft locations doesnt bother them.
I can tell you right now what effect monk getting five attacks would have, and it would actually still probably have them close to bottom.
(5d12+25)*.65 37.75no advantage 50 with advantage. best subclass damage 50ish to 65ish dpr depending on advantage. (which doesnt compete with dps focused builds)
still no where near top casters, or martials. Some characters may benefit more from damage riders, others might benefit more from forcing disadvantage on saves, other benefit more from crits, or off turn attacks. Its not as simple as more attacks = unbalance.
there is no intrinisic power of having multiple attacks, its just another math equation. 5attacks with +2 versus 4 attacks with +6 vs 1 attack with 40 dice.
We are discussing 5e specifically so none of this goal post moving please. For 5e the fighter is the only class that had a 3rd attack at 11th and a 4th at 20th. Monks get a bonus action attack and FoB. Adding Attacks above this to the monk is stepping on the fighters gimmick. Also considering almost everyone gets access to weapon Masteries don’t try to say it’s a fighter thing, it’s clearly not. Also fighter isn’t dominating it because they still only have one property on each weapon at a time and most builds only need two properties to functions. So you aren’t selling me on that argument. Also once you get attuned magical weapons almost nobody is switching weapons every attack. The fighter is far from OP compared to other martials and I can’t believe you can type that with a straight face. The Martial/Caster gap hasn’t been addressed at all. The Paladin has been Nerfed, but unless they plan to extend combat to more than 3-4 rounds the Paladin still out damages the Fighter, except maybe BM if he is willing to drop all his Maneuvers.
Then you try to explain with numbers that and extra attack won’t add that much damage, but literally did it in a way that I said everyone does. You didn’t factor in magic items, feats or spells.
More attacks is definitely intrinsic to more power in a game were hex and hunters mark are a feat or multiclass away.
The better way to improve monk dpr is either through a once per turn damage boost or a small boost to every hit, either way it needs to be a part of their 11th level subclass feature.
Is like half of the fighters shtick, so when you give it to another class now the fighter needs to be improved.
The math is inconsistent. Mainly because you can find ways to add damage from items, spells, and other features and people don’t do that when calculating dpr.
For the reason above more attacks makes multiclassing harder to balance.
more attacks is also always been part of monks shtick, not all shticks are for one class only. And in the UA, I'd say fighter is no longer defined just by that. They also are dominant with weapon mastery, have more fighting styles, and lvl 0 fighting styles. And with the current equip/unequip rules, more attacks= more mastery options per turn. Fighter right now doesnt really need any improvements, its actually probably borderline OP relative to other martials. The max numbers are running in the 100+ dpr range, while also having extreme combat versatility. Relative to mages thats ok, but if other martials improve, they aren't in danger of surpassing fighters at all, especially monk.
Also, more attacks is not inherently any worse for balancing than anything else. The most broken things in the game are not really based around having more attacks. The monk literally had as many attacks as a lvl 20 fighter for the whole of 5e, and they were still one of the weakest classes. The problem with the new warlock is not more attacks, its the things that add to their attacks. And its not a difficult solve, its just numbers.
for some reason people really worry about martial attacks, but the 40d6 meteor from up to a mile away, in four 40ft locations doesnt bother them.
I can tell you right now what effect monk getting five attacks would have, and it would actually still probably have them close to bottom.
(5d12+25)*.65 37.75no advantage 50 with advantage. best subclass damage 50ish to 65ish dpr depending on advantage. (which doesnt compete with dps focused builds)
still no where near top casters, or martials. Some characters may benefit more from damage riders, others might benefit more from forcing disadvantage on saves, other benefit more from crits, or off turn attacks. Its not as simple as more attacks = unbalance.
there is no intrinisic power of having multiple attacks, its just another math equation. 5attacks with +2 versus 4 attacks with +6 vs 1 attack with 40 dice.
We are discussing 5e specifically so none of this goal post moving please. For 5e the fighter is the only class that had a 3rd attack at 11th and a 4th at 20th. Monks get a bonus action attack and FoB. Adding Attacks above this to the monk is stepping on the fighters gimmick. Also considering almost everyone gets access to weapon Masteries don’t try to say it’s a fighter thing, it’s clearly not. Also fighter isn’t dominating it because they still only have one property on each weapon at a time and most builds only need two properties to functions. So you aren’t selling me on that argument. Also once you get attuned magical weapons almost nobody is switching weapons every attack. The fighter is far from OP compared to other martials and I can’t believe you can type that with a straight face. The Martial/Caster gap hasn’t been addressed at all. The Paladin has been Nerfed, but unless they plan to extend combat to more than 3-4 rounds the Paladin still out damages the Fighter, except maybe BM if he is willing to drop all his Maneuvers.
Then you try to explain with numbers that and extra attack won’t add that much damage, but literally did it in a way that I said everyone does. You didn’t factor in magic items, feats or spells.
More attacks is definitely intrinsic to more power in a game were hex and hunters mark are a feat or multiclass away.
The better way to improve monk dpr is either through a once per turn damage boost or a small boost to every hit, either way it needs to be a part of their 11th level subclass feature.
this is the unearthed arcana subforum, about fixing the monk.
this means making changes is on the table.
Everyone gets masteries, but fighter gets 6, barb gets 4, and everyone else gets 2. getting more of something can be considered being your 'shtick' like extra attacks. Also its not usually just one thing that defines a class, but a combination of things.
fighter is the only one who can change masteries beyond what each weapon is born with. They also have 4-8 attacks, which means they can swap weapons more often.
and hex and hunters mark are already figured into the game balance. they are concentration spells, one is currently ranger only, And once per turn damage. They require multiclassing. d6 damage per hit bonus is considered an acceptable damage bonus by the game for a lvl 1 concentration spell. Basically the devs have decided that concentration spells have a large dps value. Animate objects contributes way more damage than hex or hunter's mark would with up to 20 hits in a round. This is not considered a power of extra attack, it is considered a power of the spell. its balance is based on what else the casters can do with concentration and those spell slots.
They put in hunters mark and hex because they are fine with its existence. They also don't need to worry that people can MC them. MC is an optional rule for tables that are OK with it. A monk can pick up hm through mc, but so can the fighter, so can the barbarian.
magic items are not balanced in general, they are balanced via The DM, and their rarity. Its the dm's job to adjust for them, or not add them. They are rule breakers. You think items that give 3 wishes are figured into the game balance? Blackrazor? If the GM decides to give you a +3d6 item, they are comfortable with that.The DM can alter monsters or increase CR to compensate, its not the same type of balance. Magic items determine power level of the players, not balance of classes.
There is no intrinisic strength of extra hits. Its always based on the math.
Its totally intentional that some things benefit extra hits more than others. Its a question, not an answer. Does an extra hit for this class make it extremely powerful. It depends on the class, and level. Whether you give a flat damage boost, a per hit boost, an accuracy boost, an action economy boost, or an attack which one is most powerful is based on the class/features/etc. There is no always too powerful answer. An extra attack for a barbarian is strong, an extra attack for a rogue is weak. Its not all the same. Path to the grave, paralyze, or unconscious is a lot more effective for sneak attack than extra attack is.
short version, you have to evaluate the value of each feature differently.
Playtest 6 was written with Playtest 5 in mind. We're now on to Playtest 7, and the feedback period for Playtest 6 has closed.
This means any and all suggestions put forth in this thread are, technically, obsolete.
What we're doing here can, at present, be a fun little exercise. It should not be viewed more seriously than that. And, lest we forget, we aren't the ones making any changes. How many people have commented in this thread? How many users fill out the surveys? We barely register.
Is like half of the fighters shtick, so when you give it to another class now the fighter needs to be improved.
The math is inconsistent. Mainly because you can find ways to add damage from items, spells, and other features and people don’t do that when calculating dpr.
For the reason above more attacks makes multiclassing harder to balance.
more attacks is also always been part of monks shtick, not all shticks are for one class only. And in the UA, I'd say fighter is no longer defined just by that. They also are dominant with weapon mastery, have more fighting styles, and lvl 0 fighting styles. And with the current equip/unequip rules, more attacks= more mastery options per turn. Fighter right now doesnt really need any improvements, its actually probably borderline OP relative to other martials. The max numbers are running in the 100+ dpr range, while also having extreme combat versatility. Relative to mages thats ok, but if other martials improve, they aren't in danger of surpassing fighters at all, especially monk.
Also, more attacks is not inherently any worse for balancing than anything else. The most broken things in the game are not really based around having more attacks. The monk literally had as many attacks as a lvl 20 fighter for the whole of 5e, and they were still one of the weakest classes. The problem with the new warlock is not more attacks, its the things that add to their attacks. And its not a difficult solve, its just numbers.
for some reason people really worry about martial attacks, but the 40d6 meteor from up to a mile away, in four 40ft locations doesnt bother them.
I can tell you right now what effect monk getting five attacks would have, and it would actually still probably have them close to bottom.
(5d12+25)*.65 37.75no advantage 50 with advantage. best subclass damage 50ish to 65ish dpr depending on advantage. (which doesnt compete with dps focused builds)
still no where near top casters, or martials. Some characters may benefit more from damage riders, others might benefit more from forcing disadvantage on saves, other benefit more from crits, or off turn attacks. Its not as simple as more attacks = unbalance.
there is no intrinisic power of having multiple attacks, its just another math equation. 5attacks with +2 versus 4 attacks with +6 vs 1 attack with 40 dice.
We are discussing 5e specifically so none of this goal post moving please. For 5e the fighter is the only class that had a 3rd attack at 11th and a 4th at 20th. Monks get a bonus action attack and FoB. Adding Attacks above this to the monk is stepping on the fighters gimmick. Also considering almost everyone gets access to weapon Masteries don’t try to say it’s a fighter thing, it’s clearly not. Also fighter isn’t dominating it because they still only have one property on each weapon at a time and most builds only need two properties to functions. So you aren’t selling me on that argument. Also once you get attuned magical weapons almost nobody is switching weapons every attack. The fighter is far from OP compared to other martials and I can’t believe you can type that with a straight face. The Martial/Caster gap hasn’t been addressed at all. The Paladin has been Nerfed, but unless they plan to extend combat to more than 3-4 rounds the Paladin still out damages the Fighter, except maybe BM if he is willing to drop all his Maneuvers.
Then you try to explain with numbers that and extra attack won’t add that much damage, but literally did it in a way that I said everyone does. You didn’t factor in magic items, feats or spells.
More attacks is definitely intrinsic to more power in a game were hex and hunters mark are a feat or multiclass away.
The better way to improve monk dpr is either through a once per turn damage boost or a small boost to every hit, either way it needs to be a part of their 11th level subclass feature.
this is the unearthed arcana subforum, about fixing the monk.
this means making changes is on the table.
Everyone gets masteries, but fighter gets 6, barb gets 4, and everyone else gets 2. getting more of something can be considered being your 'shtick' like extra attacks. Also its not usually just one thing that defines a class, but a combination of things.
fighter is the only one who can change masteries beyond what each weapon is born with. They also have 4-8 attacks, which means they can swap weapons more often.
and hex and hunters mark are already figured into the game balance. they are concentration spells, one is currently ranger only, And once per turn damage. They require multiclassing. d6 damage per hit bonus is considered an acceptable damage bonus by the game for a lvl 1 concentration spell. Basically the devs have decided that concentration spells have a large dps value. Animate objects contributes way more damage than hex or hunter's mark would with up to 20 hits in a round. This is not considered a power of extra attack, it is considered a power of the spell. its balance is based on what else the casters can do with concentration and those spell slots.
They put in hunters mark and hex because they are fine with its existence. They also don't need to worry that people can MC them. MC is an optional rule for tables that are OK with it. A monk can pick up hm through mc, but so can the fighter, so can the barbarian.
magic items are not balanced in general, they are balanced via The DM, and their rarity. Its the dm's job to adjust for them, or not add them. They are rule breakers. You think items that give 3 wishes are figured into the game balance? Blackrazor? If the GM decides to give you a +3d6 item, they are comfortable with that.The DM can alter monsters or increase CR to compensate, its not the same type of balance. Magic items determine power level of the players, not balance of classes.
There is no intrinisic strength of extra hits. Its always based on the math.
Its totally intentional that some things benefit extra hits more than others. Its a question, not an answer. Does an extra hit for this class make it extremely powerful. It depends on the class, and level. Whether you give a flat damage boost, a per hit boost, an accuracy boost, an action economy boost, or an attack which one is most powerful is based on the class/features/etc. There is no always too powerful answer. An extra attack for a barbarian is strong, an extra attack for a rogue is weak. Its not all the same. Path to the grave, paralyze, or unconscious is a lot more effective for sneak attack than extra attack is.
short version, you have to evaluate the value of each feature differently.
More Masteries is not equal to more power. They don’t stack, it’s literally the problem with the Kensei Monk. Instead of giving them improving features they gave them more weapon choices. That doesn’t offer any more power. Having 6 is a joke. You will very rarely see someone use more than 2 in an adventuring day. Also only most spellcasters don’t get any weapon masteries. So it’s not a Fighter gimmick. Can and having a reason to do so are two completely different things. Please come up with your best scenario for a fighter to switch weapons and use 4 different masteries that wouldn’t gimp his damage because he isn’t using his attuned magic weapon.
Hex and Hunters mark are as figured into game balance as Monks current low DPR and 2014 GWM doing way more damage than they thought it would. So that argument is pointless. Also a Barbarian can’t concentrate on spells, so I’m not sure why you mentioned them. As for the fighter my argument is that their 4 attacks a turn at level 20 is the limit and their gimmick. You are pushing for more attacks on the monk. The monk already has 4 attacks via FoB way earlier than the fighter and you are pushing for even more. I’m just highlighting that an additional attack is not equal to 1dx+y more dpr. There are other variables at play that make adding attacks far more powerful than your math suggested.
As far as magic items I don’t need to get into how flametongues and items like that break balance, a simple plus 1 item with more attacks changes the math. People who don’t think 1 damage matters haven’t spent enough time behind the screen to see how often something survives with 1-3 hp that would have died if all the things that hit did 1 more damage.
“There is no intrinisic strength of extra hits. Its always based on the math.” That doesn’t even make sense, because the math says that an extra attack always increases damage. An extra attack for a rogue is not weak. It’s another opportunity to apply sneak attack if you missed. Sometimes people type stuff without thinking about what they typed. I’ll let you slide since I’m guilty of doing that myself sometimes. More importantly extra attacks improve damage in a way that can easily be manipulated to increase the damage beyond the intended amount.
Jounichi you might be surprised how many monks are more of me and gwars opinion. We would like monk to be much better in this version I fill out my survey every time and I bet gwar does too. To be fair we got to wait til next ua to see if it had effect but don’t be to surprised if some good stuff happens. On the flip side you could be right and wotc will say monk will suck again lol
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
elements? thats actually 15 foot range versus 10 foot range.
but yeah they can use similar features in multiple sub classes/main class, However, thats not really merging, as the subclass remains there. Also I personally would expect them to alter or expand the subclasses they borrow heavily from in that case.
In the case of Astral, its subclass versus subclass, so the feature isnt a waste of space on astral, and overall the subclasses still feel like they offering an overall very different play.
if for example they gave every monk push or topple on FOB, they would have made open hands first feature almost useless, and I would expect changes to it.
Oohh, the Energy skill.
I actually forgot about that because I value that change very low for the monk in the current bestiary.
so rereading that skill, the Astral monk one is different. It can be used on certain types of damage received, while the monk skill only works for ranged attacks. There is also no throwback option. These two rules have fairly different aims. One is about a large reduction to all ranged attacks, and redirecting them, the other is about a small reduction to elemental damage
The Astral monk one would still be used for cones, aoe, saves, and even melee attacks with extra properties. Which to be honest is generally more common for monks than ranged elemental attacks. Its also just a bullet point rather than a full feature.
if the things they 'borrow' are similar level of overlap, its ok imo, but if it its too similar, or too central to the subclass, I'd expect some type of note or rework.
And I don't think they should have 'legacy' stuff for 2024 stuff. This isnt being marketed as a soft new edition, its specifically marketed as a revision, or the equivalent of an expansion or patch update in digital games. This is problematic for them because with respect to subclasses, they should have put any subclass that needs changes as a result of the phb into the phb. But instead they seem to be trying to avoid needing to do that.
So martial arts fiction today isnt just naruto, its also, Baki grappler, Jujustu kaisen, Ip man (ironically Bruce Lee's master is the icon of the last 15 years of MA movies), tenjo tenge
which is to say, it covers a bunch of different sub concepts. Yeah, the obvious super power one is big, but there is also the subtle super power ones. Tenjo Tenje manga illustrates my point in that the obviously superpowered shadow puppet guys, are fighting the guy with insane muscle memory and general ki mastery, are fighting the guys with extreme understanding of rhythym in combat.
Everything in the Class doesnt need to be the same type of thing. look at fighter, it has a tactical master, a magical swordsman, A general talented guy, a psionic dude, a runic knight, an improviser.
There is nothing bad about having a subclass whose abilities are more physical than energy, there is an audience for it. Pretty sure before 2024 open hand was one of, if not the the most popular subclass.
Open hand push and topple on FOB is completely useless because of weapon masteries. It was okay design for 5e since most could not deal damage and push or topple with one attack. In 5eR all classes with weapon masteries can do that including all monk subclasses. Open hand needs a rework badly now. Push topple should be on any unarmed strike, and maybe addle is reserved for FoB.
definitely.
I think open hand is in strong need of a rework, I just disagree with the idea that there is no place for a more physical, or classic monk concept subclass. I am not certain the base class must have topple/push, but I'm not really opposed to it. Addle with saving throw is kinda crazy to me. Especially a con save. It narrows its realistic use case to very few situations. Mastery push becomes 100% better for Op attack avoidance, which is the way it was being used 90% of the time. It then becomes a skill only useful for high impact reaction skills on monsters, which is very rare.
I guess if the guy is already toppled, and you can't or don't want to push, and you were using fb anyway, but it doesnt feel great in those cases. Especially if it adds an extra roll that you don't particularly care if it succeeds.
I can't really explain why any designer would think their base monk, or openhand was a good design in the 2024 context. Its like really really bad compared to any other class take I ve seen them do.
I didn’t mean for base monk. I meant open hand should have push and topple on all unarmed strikes, and addle on FoB.
hmm,
my fix for this issue would be base class can choose any simple mastery per day
open Hand would have 2 Martial Arts attack options decided before attack
can choose a mastery for each 1 per day.
+1-2 attack with simple masteries +addle
+1-2 damage with martial masteries + dex or wis based grapple on hit mastery
wholeness of body: bonus action =+2 ki and MA+Monk level HP. wis mod times per day.
level 11, step of wind costs no Ki, can do it as a free action for 1ki.
17 Quivering Palm, doubles damage of round+stun when activated on failed save. Same damage on successful save, but gives a BA unarmed attack
thats if they want to follow the same general type of features. They could go totally different directions
I forgot that Dodge already did that, so I may have undertuned it. Originally, I was thinking advantage for all saving throws, but that's too strong. Maybe just advantage on the ones they're proficient in. It eventually becomes all of them, but only after some time. Or they can multiclass out and still keep the benefit with a feat like Resilient.
As for Wholeness of Body, I like the name and I like the idea of having a dice pool to roll. Rolling dice is fun, and the pool lets them throttle it throughout the day.
First I didn't say It would fix monk I just think its an option to help them scale and is thematic.
2nd just becuase you didn't know how to build one in 3e and 3.5 doesn't mean there were not passable builds
. 3rd don't assume Im you, I actually play quite well in an Optimized campaign and I know how to keep alive even when my dm shows no mercy.
The passable builds weren’t the norm in 3e and 3.5e. And passable doesn’t mean good. So their isn’t a point in continuing this debate.
A thematic fix that breaks other parts of the game is pointless.
Also I’m not assuming you are me. I don’t know how long you have played this game, how many other games you have tried, or if you have ever sat behind the screen. What I’m assuming is you aren’t the average player. Claiming you survive fine in an Optimized campaign means you are getting carried by optimal players or your DM is showing mercy (which technically all DMs are since CR isn’t balance properly and if we just wanted a tpk we could achieve it 100% of the time with a “Hard encounter”)
"Claiming you survive fine in an Optimized campaign means you are getting carried by optimal players or your DM is showing mercy (which technically all DMs are since CR isn’t balance properly and if we just wanted a tpk we could achieve it 100% of the time with a “Hard encounter”)." there goes your projection again . now I see why you have the views you have . nice try. interesting that you have this view but also think it would be broken if monk did competitive dpr. your basically saying "yes monk does suck," but lets not fix it that would be broken .
Most important is you ignored the sentence before that, “you aren’t the average player.” You are either happy being suboptimal in an optimized party or my previous statement is true. You are literally crying that you aren’t doing enough damage, but you are surviving just fine. Also it’s not projection. Any decent DM could by the book find what should be a hard encounter and easily TPK the most optimized players at any level. That’s not a projection it’s a flaw in the CR system. Also you haven’t read any of my other post in these forums because I’m in support of the monk being improved, but just giving them more attacks isn’t how you fix them. That just puts you in a situation of having to adjust other parts of the game. Same reason people are looking at the new Thirsting Blade 3rd attack with a side eye. I’m sorry you’re hyper focused on one class, but since I spend the majority of my playtime behind the screen I care about the game as a whole. There are other ways to fix monk DPR and more attacks isn’t it. More attacks gives optimizers more chances to add spells and items to take what you claim is balancing to overpowered in a half second. Also let’s be honest for the average player monks DPR is fine since they never reach 11th were the real issue with dpr starts. One flaw with the monk is they are getting a subclass feature at 11th while fighter and Paladin are gaining DPR from there base class. I actually posted a proposed fix for the monks 11th subclass feature that all included more damage.
Ok well im glad you are somewhat open minded in that regard . I don't know why more attacks itself is what sends ya over. but ya id be ok with other solutions as well . in fact I wouldn't mind more offensive style ki powers like blasts or power punches, stances or modes might be cool too .
More attacks:
more attacks is also always been part of monks shtick, not all shticks are for one class only. And in the UA, I'd say fighter is no longer defined just by that. They also are dominant with weapon mastery, have more fighting styles, and lvl 0 fighting styles. And with the current equip/unequip rules, more attacks= more mastery options per turn. Fighter right now doesnt really need any improvements, its actually probably borderline OP relative to other martials. The max numbers are running in the 100+ dpr range, while also having extreme combat versatility. Relative to mages thats ok, but if other martials improve, they aren't in danger of surpassing fighters at all, especially monk.
Also, more attacks is not inherently any worse for balancing than anything else. The most broken things in the game are not really based around having more attacks. The monk literally had as many attacks as a lvl 20 fighter for the whole of 5e, and they were still one of the weakest classes. The problem with the new warlock is not more attacks, its the things that add to their attacks. And its not a difficult solve, its just numbers.
for some reason people really worry about martial attacks, but the 40d6 meteor from up to a mile away, in four 40ft locations doesnt bother them.
I can tell you right now what effect monk getting five attacks would have, and it would actually still probably have them close to bottom.
(5d12+25)*.65 37.75no advantage 50 with advantage. best subclass damage 50ish to 65ish dpr depending on advantage. (which doesnt compete with dps focused builds)
still no where near top casters, or martials. Some characters may benefit more from damage riders, others might benefit more from forcing disadvantage on saves, other benefit more from crits, or off turn attacks. Its not as simple as more attacks = unbalance.
there is no intrinisic power of having multiple attacks, its just another math equation. 5attacks with +2 versus 4 attacks with +6 vs 1 attack with 40 dice.
We are discussing 5e specifically so none of this goal post moving please. For 5e the fighter is the only class that had a 3rd attack at 11th and a 4th at 20th. Monks get a bonus action attack and FoB. Adding Attacks above this to the monk is stepping on the fighters gimmick.
Also considering almost everyone gets access to weapon Masteries don’t try to say it’s a fighter thing, it’s clearly not. Also fighter isn’t dominating it because they still only have one property on each weapon at a time and most builds only need two properties to functions. So you aren’t selling me on that argument. Also once you get attuned magical weapons almost nobody is switching weapons every attack. The fighter is far from OP compared to other martials and I can’t believe you can type that with a straight face. The Martial/Caster gap hasn’t been addressed at all. The Paladin has been Nerfed, but unless they plan to extend combat to more than 3-4 rounds the Paladin still out damages the Fighter, except maybe BM if he is willing to drop all his Maneuvers.
Then you try to explain with numbers that and extra attack won’t add that much damage, but literally did it in a way that I said everyone does. You didn’t factor in magic items, feats or spells.
More attacks is definitely intrinsic to more power in a game were hex and hunters mark are a feat or multiclass away.
The better way to improve monk dpr is either through a once per turn damage boost or a small boost to every hit, either way it needs to be a part of their 11th level subclass feature.
this is the unearthed arcana subforum, about fixing the monk.
this means making changes is on the table.
Everyone gets masteries, but fighter gets 6, barb gets 4, and everyone else gets 2. getting more of something can be considered being your 'shtick' like extra attacks. Also its not usually just one thing that defines a class, but a combination of things.
fighter is the only one who can change masteries beyond what each weapon is born with. They also have 4-8 attacks, which means they can swap weapons more often.
and hex and hunters mark are already figured into the game balance. they are concentration spells, one is currently ranger only, And once per turn damage. They require multiclassing. d6 damage per hit bonus is considered an acceptable damage bonus by the game for a lvl 1 concentration spell. Basically the devs have decided that concentration spells have a large dps value. Animate objects contributes way more damage than hex or hunter's mark would with up to 20 hits in a round. This is not considered a power of extra attack, it is considered a power of the spell. its balance is based on what else the casters can do with concentration and those spell slots.
They put in hunters mark and hex because they are fine with its existence. They also don't need to worry that people can MC them. MC is an optional rule for tables that are OK with it. A monk can pick up hm through mc, but so can the fighter, so can the barbarian.
magic items are not balanced in general, they are balanced via The DM, and their rarity. Its the dm's job to adjust for them, or not add them. They are rule breakers. You think items that give 3 wishes are figured into the game balance? Blackrazor? If the GM decides to give you a +3d6 item, they are comfortable with that.The DM can alter monsters or increase CR to compensate, its not the same type of balance. Magic items determine power level of the players, not balance of classes.
There is no intrinisic strength of extra hits. Its always based on the math.
Its totally intentional that some things benefit extra hits more than others. Its a question, not an answer. Does an extra hit for this class make it extremely powerful. It depends on the class, and level. Whether you give a flat damage boost, a per hit boost, an accuracy boost, an action economy boost, or an attack which one is most powerful is based on the class/features/etc. There is no always too powerful answer. An extra attack for a barbarian is strong, an extra attack for a rogue is weak. Its not all the same. Path to the grave, paralyze, or unconscious is a lot more effective for sneak attack than extra attack is.
short version, you have to evaluate the value of each feature differently.
Playtest 6 was written with Playtest 5 in mind. We're now on to Playtest 7, and the feedback period for Playtest 6 has closed.
This means any and all suggestions put forth in this thread are, technically, obsolete.
What we're doing here can, at present, be a fun little exercise. It should not be viewed more seriously than that. And, lest we forget, we aren't the ones making any changes. How many people have commented in this thread? How many users fill out the surveys? We barely register.
More Masteries is not equal to more power. They don’t stack, it’s literally the problem with the Kensei Monk. Instead of giving them improving features they gave them more weapon choices. That doesn’t offer any more power. Having 6 is a joke. You will very rarely see someone use more than 2 in an adventuring day. Also only most spellcasters don’t get any weapon masteries. So it’s not a Fighter gimmick. Can and having a reason to do so are two completely different things. Please come up with your best scenario for a fighter to switch weapons and use 4 different masteries that wouldn’t gimp his damage because he isn’t using his attuned magic weapon.
Hex and Hunters mark are as figured into game balance as Monks current low DPR and 2014 GWM doing way more damage than they thought it would. So that argument is pointless. Also a Barbarian can’t concentrate on spells, so I’m not sure why you mentioned them. As for the fighter my argument is that their 4 attacks a turn at level 20 is the limit and their gimmick. You are pushing for more attacks on the monk. The monk already has 4 attacks via FoB way earlier than the fighter and you are pushing for even more. I’m just highlighting that an additional attack is not equal to 1dx+y more dpr. There are other variables at play that make adding attacks far more powerful than your math suggested.
As far as magic items I don’t need to get into how flametongues and items like that break balance, a simple plus 1 item with more attacks changes the math. People who don’t think 1 damage matters haven’t spent enough time behind the screen to see how often something survives with 1-3 hp that would have died if all the things that hit did 1 more damage.
“There is no intrinisic strength of extra hits. Its always based on the math.” That doesn’t even make sense, because the math says that an extra attack always increases damage. An extra attack for a rogue is not weak. It’s another opportunity to apply sneak attack if you missed. Sometimes people type stuff without thinking about what they typed. I’ll let you slide since I’m guilty of doing that myself sometimes. More importantly extra attacks improve damage in a way that can easily be manipulated to increase the damage beyond the intended amount.
Jounichi you might be surprised how many monks are more of me and gwars opinion. We would like monk to be much better in this version I fill out my survey every time and I bet gwar does too. To be fair we got to wait til next ua to see if it had effect but don’t be to surprised if some good stuff happens. On the flip side you could be right and wotc will say monk will suck again lol