D&D 5E Homebrew: AJ's 5e SAD Monk

[goldenskull]

But what class wouldn't have a 14 Con. Seems pretty standard.

Standard for melee characters, sure. But casters and ranged can still neglect Con... even if they can't necessarily get away with DUMPING it like they sometimes could in 3.5 (Faerie Mysteries Initiate HR complaint ability LMAO).

Then you dodge with your action, grapple as a bonus action, and hold them next to the flaming sphere.

But then you aren't KITING anymore, are you?

*and yes, I remember Dex grabs are not your thing. But that's why you homebrew.

True that! Didn't mean to be too aggressive in my condemnation of the Revised Monk. Like I said... it's a solid and balanced class. Just not my cup of tea subjectively and not super-gamebreakingly OP objectively.

I will concede, whoever, that it is indeed game-breakingly OP if your DM doesn't know the combat rules by heart.

Maybe just have AC equal to Str+Wis?

I mean... that's basically what I did? Except it's basically Free Mage Armor + Wis + Whatever You Want. Unless you mean something else?

I envisioned the Strength Monk as a grapple beast using an aggressive, forceful style (like most IRL "tiger" styles, as I understand). A monk who toughens his hands so much he can rip somebody's throat out with one strike.

Actually, just because of this conversation, I'm adding another ability to Tiger Style. Kinda awkwardly worded but I love the flavor. I feel like it's powerful but fairly balanced for 9th level and is roughly at the same level as the other styles... what do you think?

Additionally at 9th level, once per turn when grappling two opponents, you may use an attack on your turn to smash them into each other: if your attack roll beats the AC of both opponents, you deal your unarmed strike damage to them both, but the attack fails if you fail to beat either opponent’s AC.

 

[Undrave]

Touché! I'll try to think up a better name... hit me if you come up with one!

Maybe something like 'Ancient Secret Styles'?

Honestly, I just don't see it. What's wrong with a monk getting non-upcastable Cure Wounds, Shadow Blade, and Spirit Shroud? Or Shield, Lesser Resto and Fireball? Or Wrathful Smite, Warding Bond and Counterspell? At 9th, Monk can cast the first 6x, the second 4x, the third 3x per short rest. Can you help me game it out to see how that breaks the game? I'm not saying I don't believe it, but I'd appreciate if you could make the case for me.

It's not that it's broken, it's just that I don't like the aesthetics of 'any spell'. It doesn't feel like a coherent style, restricting it to specific spells would give it a stronger flavour.

Why not duplicate the Cunning Action of the Rogue? I don't see it being overpowered... and there's a case for giving breathing room for a Monk to work like a ninja. Basically a Rogue... with Sneak Attack replaced by Flurry and most of the skill monkey juice carved out and replaced with limited Paladin abilities.

I get it, but it's just boring, I'd rather have variety between classes. It's also weird that it has the same effect as Cunning Action but not the same name.

I think that racial profs deserve a little love, no? A dwarven monk with a warhammer seems legit to me. An effective +1 damage for a handful of levels isn't going to break any games, especially with an arguably suboptimal race pick.

Oh I get it, I get it, but creating a dedicated class feature with a header and mechanics just for that... I can't help but think there's a more streamlined version to integrate them.

I can't see anyone making a 3-level dip to get it... plus the 4th to not sacrifice a precious ASI. Casters would benefit the most, but they don't get the bonus when spellcasting and they'd lock out 9th level spells. Heavy armor martials get basically the same protection or better without the hassle. And the bladelock has both problems: spellcasting AND they get medium armor + shield prof for free anyway, in addition to defensive spells.

My big objection is mostly that it's a lot of subsystem to learn for a new Monk player. A lot of moving parts and things to consider, it should be as streamlined as possible, and if you can push upgrades to be under their own header later on the line it becomes easier to read and absorb.

It's an average +3.6 DPR. At 11th, it's another 3.6 for 1 ki point. At that level, the Paladin is getting Improved Smite for 2.4975 DPR.

At 12th, assuming you use ASI on your FA, it's 4.8 + 4.8 DPR. Twice the benefit the Pally's getting or 4x for 1 ki (and you've got 16 ki per short rest at that point).

Again I just think it could be simplified.

 

[goldenskull]

Maybe something like 'Ancient Secret Styles'?

"School Style" or "Style Tradition"?

It's not that it's broken, it's just that I don't like the aesthetics of 'any spell'. It doesn't feel like a coherent style, restricting it to specific spells would give it a stronger flavour.

What do you think about restricting it to a specific class, chosen at 9th?

One of the problems with restricting it to specific spells is that... well, that's a lot less powerful and flexible and doesn't do justice to the variety of powers in wuxia and Japanese fantasy. What if it's a spell the player doesn't want? And it'd be waste to duplicate a spell that's already in their subclass like Shadow or Four Elements?

I get it, but it's just boring, I'd rather have variety between classes. It's also weird that it has the same effect as Cunning Action but not the same name.

Fair enough. I'll think about cutting it. I don't think another martial class has it... unless I'm forgetting something from Ranger?

Oh I get it, I get it, but creating a dedicated class feature with a header and mechanics just for that... I can't help but think there's a more streamlined version to integrate them.

I dig that. But I also didn't write it

It's from Tasha's or Xan's or something.

My big objection is mostly that it's a lot of subsystem to learn for a new Monk player. A lot of moving parts and things to consider, it should be as streamlined as possible, and if you can push upgrades to be under their own header later on the line it becomes easier to read and absorb.

True. I could just make it a flat AC bonus, but that would be VERY powerful and BEGGING for a 3-level dip from a lot of builds. This is the best balance I could find, but I'm open to alternatives.

Again I just think it could be simplified.

I'll think about it. Giving it to all attacks would be way too powerful though. Limiting it to only action attacks wouldn't really be powerful enough. Maybe flurry only???

It definitely scales and balances well, but I really do need to think about whether it's too complicated as written.

 

[mellored]

Additionally at 9th level, once per turn when grappling two opponents, you may use an attack on your turn to smash them into each other: if your attack roll beats the AC of both opponents, you deal your unarmed strike damage to them both, but the attack fails if you fail to beat either opponent’s AC.

Given the need for the setup, I would allow full damage to both.

 

[Undrave]

What do you think about restricting it to a specific class, chosen at 9th?

One of the problems with restricting it to specific spells is that... well, that's a lot less powerful and flexible and doesn't do justice to the variety of powers in wuxia and Japanese fantasy. What if it's a spell the player doesn't want? And it'd be waste to duplicate a spell that's already in their subclass like Shadow or Four Elements?

Or maybe limit it to certain schools?

Or the chosen spells have to be from three different schools?

 

[Clint_L]

Let's be fair. A level 3 fighter can probably afford splint for 20AC or 21AC with Defensive Fighting Style. Thugs have 32 HP each and fighter has 34. Let's assume vanilla Fighter has Champion subclass for Improved Crit and the Thugs roll higher for init.

S&B Fighter with Dueling Style @20AC:
Thugs get 10.99 DPR. Fighter gets 15.15 DPR first turn and 7.575 subsequent turns.
1st: Fighter 21HP. Thug 1 19hp.
2nd: Fighter 10HP +9 = 19hp from second wind. Thug 1 4hp.
3rd: Fighter 8hp. Thug 1 drops. 2nd thug's DPR is only 3.1 now.
4th: Fighter 5hp. Thug 2 25hp.
5th: Fighter 2hp. Thug 2 18hp.
6th: Fighter drops.

S&B Fighter with Defensive Style @21AC:
Thugs get 9.285 DPR. Fighter gets 12.15 DPR first turn and 6.075 subsequent turns.
1st: Fighter 25hp. Thug 1 20hp.
2nd: Fighter 16hp. Thug 1 14hp.
3rd: Fighter 7hp+9=16hp second wind. Thug 1 8hp.
4th: Fighter 6hp. Thug 1 2hp.
5th: Fighter drops.

PAM fighter with GWF @18AC:
Thugs get 4.2+7.035=11 first turn (only one gets advantage) and 14.07 subsequent turns. Fighter gets 27.615 first turn from Action Surge + OA and 12.45 subsequent turns.
1st: Fighter 23hp. Thug 1 5hp.
2nd: Fighter 9hp+9=18hp from second wind. Thug 1 drops even without PAM bonus attack at a DPR of 6.9. Thug 2's DPR is now 4.2
3rd: Fighter 14hp. Thug 2 20hp.
4th: Fighter 10hp. Thug 2 8hp.
5th: Fighter 6hp. Thug 2 drops.

Now for revised Monk with 21hp with 12 Con because you don't need 14Con to be "halfway viable".
Thugs get roughly 10.088 DPR (EDIT: precisely 9.862). Monk DPR 15.2 with flurry and 10.15 without.
1st: Monk 11hp. Thug 1 18hp.
2nd: Monk 1hp. Thug 1 3hp.
3rd: Monk drops.
But what if - unlike the fighter - the monk has a chance to get initiative? 56% chance the monk loses init to at least 1 and drops. 43.56% of getting init on both and MAYBE surviving round 3.
3rd: Thug 1 drops. Thug 2 takes 10 damage for 22hp and DPR drops to 1.5026. Monk drops.
BUT what if - like I said - the monk needs 14 Con to be "halfway viable"? So you've got 24hp instead of 21 and start round 3 with 4hp instead?
3rd: Thug 1 drops. Thug 2 takes 10 damage for 22hp and DPR drops to 1.5026. Monk 3hp and runs out of monk juice.
4th: Thug 2 12hp. Monk 1hp and runs out of monk juice.
5th: Thug 2 2hp. Monk drops.

Like I said originally: the revised monk is "balanced", with power weighted towards earlier levels and also it can do cool grappley/shovey stuff. It's not OP by any means and - like I pointed out to @Clint_L - it's ABSOLUTELY pigeonholed into Dex/Wis/Con twink build. If the monk in my example had 18hp from 10 Con, it wouldn't have survived Round 2, less than half the S&B tank which is the most suboptimal example.

Oh yeah and in the hypothetical scenario where we're using UA rules if/when they roll out, the fighter probably has Weapon Mastery too so the halberd fighter is making a cleave attack with every hit too and the S&B's are negating advantage on one of the attacks per turn.

Okay, so we are for some reason assuming that an important test of the monk is how well it can tank two thugs at level 3?

1) Should a monk be as good a tank as a fighter or barbarian at level 3? Should they be as mobile as a monk?

2) Why 2 thugs? Multiple opponents with multiple attacks obviously favours a tank with constant damage reduction (i.e. barbarian). What about a single opponent with 1-2 hard-hitting attacks, like an owlbear?

3) Why level 3? Why not, say, level 20, where the UA monk is easily the best tank in the game?

4) Why do you play the monk so poorly?

Because in spite of you choosing a test that plays to the monk's weaknesses, it still outperforms a level 3 fighter.

Let's assume the monk goes first. They have higher dex than the thugs, and are much more mobile. Since you keep bringing up a wizard, let's assume the monk sees the threat and charges out to keep them away from a weaker party member, classic tank style. I'll do the math in my head but it'll be pretty accurate. Also, I just gave the monk a 12 con, so at level 3 they have 21 HP (9+6+6), AC 16. You have generously given the fighter splint, but I won't bother giving the monk a cloak of protection or whatever as they won't need it.

Round 1: Monk goes full offence, and attacks 1 thug with FoB for an average of 16 damage (1d8+3, 1d6+3, 1d6+3 x 1.05 x .75). Both thugs attack back, hitting (a bit generously, since they only have 45% chance to hit with each attack) once each for 11 damage total (5.5+5.5), EXCEPT the monk immediately deflects one of those attacks as a reaction (1d10+3+3) and spends a di to do another 7 damage to the injured thug (2d6).

End of round 1: Monk is at 15 HP (I rounded down, to give the thugs every chance), thug 1 is at 9 HP, thug 2 is at 32 HP.

Round 2: Monk annihilates thug 1. They can FoB if they miss with their initial quarterstaff attack, but otherwise they save the last di point; it is now more effective if saved for deflect attack. Thug 2 hits once (again, being slightly generous) and the monk casually deflects it. If they have the extra di they can spend it now to speed up the inevitable, though it doesn't really matter as the single thug is not much of a threat.

Rounds 3+: monk kills the thug at their leisure. If they've been unlucky and the thugs got in an extra hit or two, the monk can just take the dodge action while attacking with their bonus action, which combined with deflect attacks makes them almost impervious to the single thug, though it will slow down the monk's pretty inevitable victory.

Edit: If you think it is unfair to let the monk go first, we can say the thugs sprang an ambush and BOTH go first, in which case the monk is at 10 HP when the first thug dies, and after that the fight is basically over, as above. It doesn't make much difference; in some ways it is easier for the monk as they can do deflect attack damage twice onto thug 1, which at this level is more reliable and a bit more damage than using di for FoB.

TLDR: Even in your cherry-picked test, the UA monk easily outperforms the fighter at level 3 as a tank. Should a monk be outperforming a fighter as a tank, even when the fighter has given up considerable offence to tank, and the monk has not?

You are really not understanding how much of a game-changer deflect attacks is for monk survivability, not to mention the ability, from level 1, to take the dodge action and still attack as a bonus action. It so much exceeds having a few more hit points that it's not even a comparison.

For fun, I welcome you to simulate my current UA Way of Mercy monk at level 20, with just my current magic items (bracers, ring of protection, eldritch claw tattoos) solo tanking a CR 24 ancient red dragon (hint: she finishes off the dragon and is still at full health).

 

[Clint_L]

Follow-up: the UA monk is built around damage avoidance rather than damage soaking (well, until superior defence comes online at level 18). That's great; it fits the class fantasy far better! It performs differently though.

Against a single BBEG with relatively few attacks the UA monk is a fantastic tank - the best. Against a bunch of foes with multiple attacks, you would prefer a barbarian, though the UA monk is still much better than the 2014 monk. The fighter is a capable tank in all situations, but not the best in any. The paladin tank is like the fighter, but on steroids.

The upshot is that the UA monk is much tougher to kill than the 2014 monk, but in a way that fits the monk archetype much better than just giving them more HP and a higher AC.

 

[goldenskull]

Or maybe limit it to certain schools?

Or the chosen spells have to be from three different schools?

I mean... those are ideas. I don't know if any of these restrictions are worth in game value what they cost in word count.

My gut feeling is that - if this ability is only going to give you three spells of 1st, 2nd and 3rd - why restrict it further? It doesn't even give a cantrip, you know?

3) Why level 3? Why not, say, level 20, where the UA monk is easily the best tank in the game?

As I already explained to you, this is only true if you have an extremely lenient and/or inexperienced DM. You said that a monk could solo an ancient dragon and I gave you plenty of reasons why that's not true.

If I had the mental energy right now, I could even demonstrate for you how a basic 20th Level halberdier would slice your 20th level Revised Monk into ribbons with just two feats.

I'm sorry for not taking your hypothetical combat scenario seriously, but I feel that I'm entitled to after having gone through the painstaking effort of actually calculating DPR with Deflect Blows - which was a spectacular PITA in Anydice and then Excel - while you're just making vague suggestions on the fly without having factored in advantage and crits etc. (for instance, there's a 36.97% chance of at least one crit from the thugs per round)

And you evidently didn't read my combat scenarios either, or you would have noticed that the Revised Monk only performs as well as a PAM Halberdier with 14 Con and Tough at 1st level. You were the one who very confidently said that Revised Monks absolutely don't need Con.

2) Why 2 thugs? Multiple opponents with multiple attacks obviously favours a tank with constant damage reduction (i.e. barbarian). What about a single opponent with 1-2 hard-hitting attacks, like an owlbear?

Because this perfectly illustrates the weakness of a monk in the party:
It's an anti-tank. Deflect Blows and dodge-attack encourages enemies to target other party members first.

Only a very generous DM - or one using encounter mobs of animalistic intelligence - will patiently slap exactly one enemy with one or two attacks in front of the monk and let you slowly wear it down. The Revised Monk is a strong and roughly balanced class whose powers are frontloaded to early and middle levels, which is nice because most campaigns tap out around 10th. But it's not the super greatest class in the game mega OP awesome sauce.

With that said, I will admit there's a decent chance that Deflect Blows will be severely nerfed come the end of UA.

Edit: Also... I haven't even LOOKED at the Revised Fighter. Considering the vanilla fighter measures up well to the Revised Monk, I wouldn't be surprised if the new fighter is straight-up better - especially at higher levels.

Against a single BBEG with relatively few attacks the UA monk is a fantastic tank - the best. Against a bunch of foes with multiple attacks, you would prefer a barbarian, though the UA monk is still much better than the 2014 monk. The fighter is a capable tank in all situations, but not the best in any. The paladin tank is like the fighter, but on steroids.

As I said, the point of a tank is to draw threat, not to push threat onto other party members (what the revised monk actually does most of the time). If you want to talk up the Revised Monk as a tank, at least you should mention grappling and dragging and shoving. Instead (?I'm pretty sure?) you brought up kiting... which is the opposite of tanking.

I suggest you read this great article about The Tank Fallacy. I also am really feeling what Treantmonk said in his old monk analysis video about how people keep cycling through various arguments about the monk and ignore evidence at each step.

The upshot is that the UA monk is much tougher to kill than the 2014 monk, but in a way that fits the monk archetype much better than just giving them more HP and a higher AC.

1) I never said otherwise - the revised monk is a good class, that I just don't like the flavor and I think people overestimate how good it is
2) My class doesn't give the monk higher HP
3) I don't even know why any of this is worth this level of argument over
4) I'm going to decline as politely as I can to engage with you any further, since you seem rather emotional and it feels like you're not debating entirely in good faith

 

[Blue]

The flavor is very cool and I understand that a lot of people have had a lot of fun playing Monks… some have even claimed that Monks are OP. With respect, that’s factually untrue. They were underpowered in AD&D, D&D 3.5, OG Pathfinder and they’re underpowered in 5e. As a matter of pure indisputable math, monks in D&D have always been underpowered in almost every way. There is not a single thing that the monk is better at than anyone else, except for (in some cases) movement speed, so – as the old joke goes – they can be useless all over the battlefield.

Okay, I will call you on this. Please show, as a "matter of pure indisputable math", that monks are the worst skirmish action denial in the game.

Because if you are in the slightest comparing their DPR, then you don't know enough about monks to have an opinion.

If you feel differently, that’s cool. I’ll just point you to this video instead of arguing with you.

Okay, it's a 49 minute video. You haven't earned 49 minutes of my time. If you want to make a point, make a point. I reject your appeal-to-authority fallacy.

I ran the math, and the current UA playtest Monk is somewhat DPR balanced,

But what about what the monk is focused on? If they do all that PLUS do DPR akin to strikers, that sound like it's better than all the rest. I hadn't realized the UA monk was that good. Or have they changed it's role and removed the action denial?

 

[Undrave]

I mean... those are ideas. I don't know if any of these restrictions are worth in game value what they cost in word count.

My gut feeling is that - if this ability is only going to give you three spells of 1st, 2nd and 3rd - why restrict it further? It doesn't even give a cantrip, you know?

A lot of it is still aesthetic. The other ways Monks can get spells, in class, involve fairly curated spell lists.

Another issue is analysis paralysis: Give the player the ability to choose from ANY spell and they'll scour every book and weight in on every single spell... it'll be a whole ordeal. At least limit it to a single class. Preferably not Wizard, because they get almost everything anyway. I think Bard or Sorcerer would fit the Charisma focus, but Druid or Cleric could also fit the 'Monk who learned in an isolated monastery' schtick of like Shaolin monks and stuff.