D&D 5E Building a better Monk

[outsider]

I am new and now I am gone forever.

Okay, sorry, I guess?

 

[Yunru]

[MENTION=6893397]Gnomosapien[/MENTION]: You approached the thread with a haughty and demeaning attitude, decreeing that the only good Monk players are ones who play your way, and dismissing others as uniformed.

Even before we consider the uninformed nature of the other facts you provided, is it really surprising you got a hostile response?

 

[Gnomosapien]

Your hostility is your fault not mine. My suggestions were neither haughty or demeaning, thats your opinion and your attitude. You aren't building a culture of helpfulness, I feel like you are tearing me down. I mentioned feat mix up at lvl 1 to improve survivability. Also adjusting monk weapons to help the monk. You should stop telling people what you think they are saying and focus on your own posts. I'd report you for bullying but I don't want to take this away from you if it brings you joy. Good luck I finally figured out a way to turn all this unwanted intrusion into my email off.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm sure a number of mechanics work, and they continue to deliver what their fans want. I'd eliminate the class, it's too much questionable cultural reference and not enough actual class. It takes away from martial classes by segregating 'martial arts' in one class. The D&D Monk is essentially a light/un-armored & unarmed martial artist - a fighter - wrapped in a lot of questionable cultural baggage left over from 70s pop culture and tainted with so-called 'orientalism.'

The 5e fighter can work with lighter armor & weapons seamlessly enough and could have been designed to work effectively with any armor/weapon mix and/or style of martial art, armed or un-armed, were it not for the Monk's niche-protection.

The mystic martial artist should absolutely be its own concept, not part of the fighter.

I think there may be no single thing I dislike more in 5e than actual interesting concepts getting eaten by the egregiously bland fighter.

What the monk needs conceptually is for the mystical aesthetic thing to be done better. I won't accept the notion of just getting rid of the one strong concept in the game that isn't based in European tropes. Rather, we should be finding ways to expand dnd's scope. The monk needs more flavor of the near east, Africa, South America, etc. there are many mystical aesthetics who can perform feats beyond normal human limits, some of which are clearly supernatural, etc, all over the world.

Go ahead and give the fighter a martial artist, sure. Or better, because martial artists needn't all be unarmed and unarmored, redesign the whole class with the concept of the martial artist in mind.

Doesn't obviate the mystical, supernatural, strongly unarmored and often unarmed concept.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The mystic martial artist should absolutely be its own concept, not part of the fighter.
I think there may be no single thing I dislike more in 5e than actual interesting concepts getting eaten by the egregiously bland fighter.

Ironically, the fighter is bland because it covers too much concept with not enough support. It doesn't need less concept, but more support...

What the monk needs conceptually is for the mystical aesthetic thing to be done better.

The mystical thing should've just been done with the Mystic. A mystic martial artist could be an archetype, to the Mystic as the EK is to the fighter.

Cultural baggage would be better put in backgrounds and PrCs ...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My own fix is just reduce all ki costs of four-element disciplines by one. But I like your idea to give the four cantrippy ones away for free, too.

I do both. Makes it more similar to Shadow monk.

Two things I don't love about monks.

1, the feature that lets you speak all languages. Thematically, I don't see the connection it has with the class concept. Mechanically, I can't tell if it's meant to be a ribbon or a real feature, and I suspect it depends on the campaign.

2, Stunning Strike/fist/whatever it's called (I'm at work on mobile) is too specific and too big. It should have been 2-3 new options of special attacks that use Ki. I find it boring, but others love it, but either way, it can't be ignored because it is such a big part of the power of the class.

 

[ad_hoc]

Resilient is quite good, yes. It gets rendered useless eventually though(though not totally if you build for an odd con). Mobile starts quite good, and ends good.

Mobile is worth about the +1 Con early on. Later on it's barely worth anything.

Mobile basically allows you, whenever you were going to use your bonus action to disengage, to instead do a Flurry of Blows and still get that safe movement. Doing 2 more attacks and getting away is more useful than just getting away.

1. You are assuming that moving away from an enemy is useful. Most of the time it isn't.
2. It comes at a cost. You need to spend an attack on an enemy to move away from them. This is important because Monks are great at taking out specific foes. It's often a waste to run around doing a little damage to various low CR enemies.
3. You are ignoring many of the Monk's abilities. They have many abilities which allow them to move away from enemies, not just the bonus action 1 ki cost disengage (which is the weakest one).

You're of the opinion that you shouldn't be trying to get away that often. In certain parties I can see that being the case. If you've got a solid front line though, it's in your best interest to hit and run, letting them hold the enemy.

In this situation you are going to win the fight anyway so it doesn't matter. There is no challenge so any strategy will work.

In a challenging game you don't want to waste a feat on Mobile.

 

[outsider]

1. You are assuming that moving away from an enemy is useful. Most of the time it isn't.
2. It comes at a cost. You need to spend an attack on an enemy to move away from them. This is important because Monks are great at taking out specific foes. It's often a waste to run around doing a little damage to various low CR enemies.
3. You are ignoring many of the Monk's abilities. They have many abilities which allow them to move away from enemies, not just the bonus action 1 ki cost disengage (which is the weakest one).



In this situation you are going to win the fight anyway so it doesn't matter. There is no challenge so any strategy will work.

In a challenging game you don't want to waste a feat on Mobile.

1. My experience suggests that moving away from an enemy is frequently useful.

2. Mobile costs 1 attack(kindof, you still actually get the attack, it just might not be on your optimal target) to move away from one enemy. Disengage costs 2 attacks(you can't flurry) to move away from any amount of enemies. Mobile will often be enough, but you still have Disengage for when it isn't. I've already acknowledged that in this thread.

3. I've also noted in this thread that as time goes on, Mobile is required less(though still useful, as it doesn't cost ki). The Open Hand monk's push ability is a pretty sweet disengage.

4. Having two good front line tanks(or one REALLY good front line tank) is not a guaranteed win. It is a situation where hitting and running is your best defense though. I wouldn't waste a feat in a non-challenging game on Mobile, as I could just facetank everything without a care.

 

[Yunru]

1. You are assuming that moving away from an enemy is useful. Most of the time it isn't.

Ah yes, I'd forgotten that not being able to be attacked isn't useful.

Most enemies have a weaker ranged attack than melee, if they even have one, thus moving away from said enemy either reduces the damage you take or outright prevents it. Hardly "not useful."

 

[outsider]

Most enemies have a weaker ranged attack than melee, if they even have one, thus moving away from said enemy either reduces the damage you take or outright prevents it. Hardly "not useful."

Also, Deflect Missiles.