D&D (2024) 1st level monk. Why?

[Horwath]

The problem with abilities based on ability score mod per day is that it encourages the race to 20 in that key score. To max out your ability to use that ability, you need to sink your background +2 in that score and makes +2 ASI at 4th an auto pick. Then at 8th, you can get that feat you wanted...

And proficiency is tied to level anyway, so you might as well build it right into the progression unless you want to give a boon to multi-class monks.

I was very in favor of abilities moving away from ability score mod per rest and I don't want to see the trend reversed.

Oh, I agree on that 100% and I would remove ability modifiers from everything that is not a direct ability check(skill check).

Attack, damage, saves, DCs, should all be based from proficiency modifier alone.

 

[Horwath]

Monks already have a fighting style. It is called Discipline.

paladins and rangers already have a fighting style. It is called spells.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Elemental monk, with ranged melee is pretty great.

Not that's its level 1.

I agree, but you can't use any weapon masteries that way, even though using that ability is something that should be standard for that monk.

And if you are using a Light Crossbow and have 40+ ft of movement... why would you ever be within 15 ft to use those abilities?

 

[Chaosmancer]

IMO, add the following to level 1.

DexterousAttacks.You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attack, saving throw, and damage rolls of your Unarmed Strikes and Simple Weapons...

1ST LEVEL: UNARMORED MOVEMENT
Your speed increases by 5 feet... this bonus increases as shown on the monk table.

This would help a lot.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm sure I'm in the minority when I say that I'm not a fan of increasing their HP. When I think of monks, I don't think of someone that's taking damage when constantly when they're in a fight. I think more about them being evasive and elusive. I won't get into the weeds of HP = meat but I do think that if there's going to be a monk that stands as a frontliner, they should be doing so by avoiding damage altogether.

That's fair, but let's take a moment and look at the comparisons.

Should a monk be able to take a hit (yes they should ideally avoid it, but assume they don't) better than an Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Rogue or Warlock? An argument could be made that the rogue and monk should be identical, but the argument could be made that the monk should be better. And they certainly should be taking hits better than bards, warlocks and spellcasting clerics.

I don't think all monks should be like that, but it could be cool if a monk subclass let the monk add an AC bonus equal to their proficiency if they haven't moved on their turn. Or if they get to take dodge as a bonus action for free in contrast with the open hand's free step of the wind.

Kensei was always pretty defensive I thought.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Would a one level dip in monk be that compelling?

Hmmm…maybe yes with the new step of the wind.

With the current playtest? You don't get step of the wind until 2nd. So no. A level 1 dip into monk literally gives you nothing as it stands.

 

[Chaosmancer]

They buffed monks.

Did they?

The arugment is likely to be about the martial arts die, but, frankly, Monks still are going to be doing just about the same damage as before. Buffing the die was more an acknowledgement that that was where the standard should be, but monks had more problems than just damage output.

For example, all "warrior" and "half-warrior" classes get a buff to damage at level 11. Except monks. They are all getting a mobility boosting ability, Which means even if their damage was competitive (big if) before then, it falls behind at level 11. This was a problem before, so why they didn't fix it this time...

 

[DEFCON 1]

Last I checked... Monks still only need 300 XP to reach 2nd level. So if you as a Monk player can't even make it through a single session because you don't have enough "unique" stuff to do before reaching 2nd level... maybe you need to stop playing Monks that often if you grow bored of them that quickly.

 

[Asisreo]

That's fair, but let's take a moment and look at the comparisons.

Should a monk be able to take a hit (yes they should ideally avoid it, but assume they don't) better than an Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Rogue or Warlock?

In my opinion, not really. That's why they emphasize evasion, because they're not particularly hardy or tough like the fighter or barbarian. A monk nevers plans on taking hits, so they wouldn't train themselves to be any better than other classes that don't plan on being hit either.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You've just jumped from comparing two weapon fighters to monks to comparing all fighters to monks. When you point out that the monk only has limited mastery choices this is true - but to two weapon fight the fighter only has limited mastery choices.

Because Martial Arts is the exact same as two-weapon fighting. So I showed that the fighter can achieve the exact same set-up as the monk. Then I demonstrated that that is a choice for the fighter, while the monk has no choice. Two-Weapon fighting is their only option.

And for some reason you picked what is both absolutely and situationally the worst in Flex.

That reason was because it is the only way to get a d8 melee weapon as a monk. Additionally, the spear which is a flex weapon is one of the default options the playtest recommends the monk take for their masteries.

Sap would easily be my choice. It fixes the monk survivability problem. It can't be used by a twf fighter (without a feat) and is a poor choice for a level 5+ fighter because it's not self-stacking so doesn't go well with extra attacks.

I wouldn't say it fixes the monk survivability problem, but it does assist in lessening it. But you seem to forget a few things.

1) Monks get Extra attack too, so it won't be good for a 5+ monk either
2) Since the damage die doesn't increase with weapons, by level 5 the monk choosing to use a weapon mastery is dealing less damage. And this problem only grows as the monk levels.