D&D 5E monk magic weapon

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Unfortunately I think the math disagrees with you here...

Is that before, or after, you assume that everyone is getting a magical item that directly boosts their attacks? Because it is important to remember "the math" assumes no particular sorts of magic items being handed out, and thus that not only does the monk not get a magical weapon, but neither does the fighter (or anybody else).

 

[nswanson27]

Alright, so this magic weapon would let a monk do the following, at 5th level:

Attack Action: Magic weapon attack for 1d6 + 1d4 damage; Extra Attack with magic weapon for 1d6 + 1d4 (+1d4 if the first attack hit)
Bonus Action: Unarmed attack for 1d6 (+0, 1, 2, or 3d4 depending on hits scored and whether treating unarmed as a weapon for this purpose), (potential flurry of blows unarmed attack for 1d6 +0, 1, 2, 3, or 4d4 depending on hits scored and whether treating unarmed as a weapon for this purpose).

And then at 6th level would completely stop affecting unarmed attacks if it even did so before that point.

Seems like an item that would frustrate my players more than anything.

Not quite. Unarmed strikes then are considered magical only for the intent and purpose of bypassing nonmagical immunities and resistances. Otherwise, they are still nonmagical. They could have just said unarmed strikes were magical, but they took the care to spell out that specific case instead. Anyways, even if they were magical (in the general sense), a monk should have the ability not "ki-empower" their strikes if they chose not to.

​

 

[nswanson27]

Is that before, or after, you assume that everyone is getting a magical item that directly boosts their attacks? Because it is important to remember "the math" assumes no particular sorts of magic items being handed out, and thus that not only does the monk not get a magical weapon, but neither does the fighter (or anybody else).

I was assuming before, so we have an apples-to-apples comparison.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Is that before, or after, you assume that everyone is getting a magical item that directly boosts their attacks? Because it is important to remember "the math" assumes no particular sorts of magic items being handed out, and thus that not only does the monk not get a magical weapon, but neither does the fighter (or anybody else).

Not only that, but the lack of DPR compared to those other classes is more than made up for with the monk's other abilities, like being able to stunlock pretty much at will. And why does a monk need a magic weapon? By the time other classes start to get one, the monk's marital arts attacks are considered magical anyway.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Lanliss]

Not quite. Unarmed strikes then are considered magical only for the intent and purpose of bypassing nonmagical immunities and resistances. Otherwise, they are still nonmagical. They could have just said unarmed strikes were magical, but they took the care to spell out that specific case instead. Anyways, even if they were magical (in the general sense), a monk should have the ability not "ki-empower" their strikes if they chose not to.

​

But why is it relevant, that their attacks are only magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance? One of the main reasons I can think of to get a magic item is to be able to hit things that are immune to non-magical attacks. What gets left out by this clause in the monk, that is so important you need to make a magic item for them? I am not badmouthing the idea of Magic items for monk btw, just curious.

 

[nswanson27]

Not only that, but the lack of DPR compared to those other classes is more than made up for with the monk's other abilities, like being able to stunlock pretty much at will. And why does a monk need a magic weapon? By the time other classes start to get one, the monk's marital arts attacks are considered magical anyway.

Because assuming that the classes are balanced without magical weapons, they should all have equal access to effective weapons that suit them well to maintain that balance. Does a monk "need" a weapon? No. But on the other hand no other class really "needs" one either.
Also, read the my previous post(s) about ki-empowered strikes being magical.

 

[Lanliss]

Because assuming that the classes are balanced without magical weapons, they should all have equal access to effective weapons that suit them well to maintain that balance. Does a monk "need" a weapon? No. But on the other hand no other class really "needs" one either.
Also, read the my previous post(s) about ki-empowered strikes being magical.

Fighters and Barbs DO need weapons though, or you are looking at miniscule DPR, even with 4 attacks or Rage thrown in. The spell casters might be able to get by without weps, but martial classes need them, and even the halfcasters need them to be really effective, due to their reduced number of spells.

 

[nswanson27]

As much as I enjoy theorycrafting as the next person*, I find the exercise unsatisfying from a chargen standpoint. From the early days, when it was obvious to all that d8 was preferable to d6 damage, to today, when we determine that, given all situations possible, that 31.285 DPR is obviously and clearly superior to 30.896 DPR, I think something has been missed.

For example, it is somewhat difficult to determine what, in DPR terms, proficiency in all saves is worth. Or, for that matter, the ability to fall without taking damage. Or increased mobility on the battlefield (which will matter more, or less, if you're using a battlemap or theater of the mind).

A monk does have difficulty keeping up in a theorycrafted DPR tournament; but in that case, I would recommend not picking the monk.


The monk is not supposed to be your frontline fighter (there is a name for that, which is likely, "Fighter"). But I've found it a very enjoyable class to play. I would even go so far as to say that one of the monk's abilities is tied into not needing magic weapons, which is kind of cool as well.

Of course, if you prefer to run a more combat-oriented campaign, then you should disregard this. IIRC, there is an item that you should look at- Insignia of the Claws (Hoard of the Dragon Queen).




*So long as the next person doesn't enjoy it.

Are you saying that it shouldn't matter whether or not monks get a magical weapon? If so - if it doesn't really matter, then I should be able to take one without any objections.
Are you saying that giving monks a magic weapon will make them too strong? Assuming that the classes are balanced without magical weapons, they should all have equal access to effective weapons that suit them well to maintain that balance. Does a monk "need" a weapon? No. But on the other hand no other class really "needs" one either.

 

[nswanson27]

Fighters and Barbs DO need weapons though, or you are looking at miniscule DPR, even with 4 attacks or Rage thrown in. The spell casters might be able to get by without weps, but martial classes need them, and even the halfcasters need them to be really effective, due to their reduced number of spells.

Umm... Barbs and fighters out-damage monks (without magic weapons) any day of the week. I've watched a raging Barb solo a boss in two turns. Not buying your "miniscule" argument.