D&D 5E Building a better Monk

[ad_hoc]

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

Please explain. Most enemies are able to move. If they aren't and have no ranged attacks you could just kill them at range anyway.

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.

Disengage is a red herring.

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.

Over time? You mean the 3rd session of the game? Levels 1 and 2 only require 1 session (or less) each.

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.

How do they stop the enemies from fighting other characters? How do they, themselves survive? Chain plus Shield is AC 18. Monks start with AC 16. By level 5 they will have Splint or Plate for AC 19 or 20. Monks will have AC 17. It's really not that much of a difference. In many groups the difference won't even be that large. Switch a sword and board fighter for one with a heavy weapon and now they have the same AC.

Any fight where 1 character can make all enemies attack them and also withstand all of those attacks is not a challenging one. In such a circumstance it doesn't really matter what the rest of the party does.

All the strategies given for Mobile enable is (even it even works - most enemies can just move to the Monk on their turn) to have the Monk be the last character to die in a TPK.

 

[outsider]

Please explain. Most enemies are able to move. If they aren't and have no ranged attacks you could just kill them at range anyway.

If you've got something like a Sentinel using fighter, no, they might not be able to move. If you've got a pair of tanks, the enemy is going to eat a pair of opportunity attacks to get to you. If a monster eats two attacks to chase me, I feel pretty good about that. You don't get to put out nearly as much damage range vs melee as a monk.

Disengage is a red herring.

K.

Over time? You mean the 3rd session of the game? Levels 1 and 2 only require 1 session (or less) each.

Nope. More like level 8 or so, when you've actually got enough ki points to get you through a couple of fights. 3 ki won't last you through to your next short rest.

How do they stop the enemies from fighting other characters? How do they, themselves survive? Chain plus Shield is AC 18. Monks start with AC 16. By level 5 they will have Splint or Plate for AC 19 or 20. Monks will have AC 17. It's really not that much of a difference. In many groups the difference won't even be that large. Switch a sword and board fighter for one with a heavy weapon and now they have the same AC.

2-3 AC is a fairly noticeable difference. In addition, extra hit points. Like I said, good front line. If my frontliners aren't good, I'd be standing toe to toe with the enemy to pick up the slack, and I'd probably want to be playing something other than Monk.

Any fight where 1 character can make all enemies attack them and also withstand all of those attacks is not a challenging one. In such a circumstance it doesn't really matter what the rest of the party does.

As long as what the rest of the party does is efficiently kill the enemies, yeah I guess it doesn't matter what else they do.

All the strategies given for Mobile enable is (even it even works - most enemies can just move to the Monk on their turn) to have the Monk be the last character to die in a TPK.

They can't just move to me without a price. That's what the frontliner's job is. Either flat out stop the enemies from moving away from them, or make them pay a price for doing it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

I disagree with every statement here.

The fighter is bland because it has core features. The base class could easily be based on simple, flavor neutral, stances, and be vastly less bland while supporting just as many archetypes.

But yeah, the class also eats a bunch of concepts that have plenty of depth and variation within themselves to fill their own class. Honestly, barring my other idea, take the extra feats out of the fighter and make the subclasses bigger to fill the space. Let the fighter be the one class that is more subclass than core class.

The mystic has some overlap with the monk, but it isn't the same concept, and the monk doesn't fit in a mystic subclass. The soulknife kinda does, but I would rather have had that as a type of monk, so it's base was more oriented toward melee combat than pseudo-casting.

The monk isn't a mystic that happens to be able to hit things. It's an equal and inseparable blend of mysticism and martial prowess. The two are intertwined so that the monk is a mystical melee combatant. just like the paladin is a divine melee combatant.

cultural "baggage" should absolutely inform classes. It informs most of the classes as it is. The game is heavily steeped in European cultural artifacts and history, folklore, etc.

the game should not shy away from inspiration from non European cultures.

 

[Eltab]

In my experience, the Monk is intended to be a 'status effect Striker' after L5. You stun an enemy and let your Tank friends (or archer Ranger / archer Rogue) get crits on the barely-resisting target.

At lower levels - most of my play time - a monk is a 'Fisher battlecruiser' (4e Skirmisher), not a 'fast battleship'. You really want to use your speed to get in-and-out, leaving the enemy with tactical decisions to make. Don't stop at point-blank range from a Bruiser, because you have no armor and not a whole lot of HP to avoid/absorb punishment.
Coordinate: you and the Tank and a Rogue can take turns clobbering an enemy, each in your own way, until he goes down.
Or you can fly through the enemy's front line and go after a squishier-than-you Artillery in their rear.
I've also found that using Martial Arts is like having Advantage on a normal attack roll: something or other will hit each turn, even if it's only the d4 "death of 1000 cuts" attack.

My worst day as a Monk: after trying to show off my naturally-high Acrobatics (be all Jackie Chan and jump up on a pile of crates) but rolling a '2', I was flat on my back ahead of the group Tank (blocking his forward progress) and in a square next to an enemy guard. Of course the guard pounded me into the pavement and ran yelling for help, knowing that nobody could catch him before he found reinforcements.

 

[Tony Vargas]

. The game is heavily steeped in European cultural artifacts and history, folklore, etc.

Sure, it was written by someone with that background,...

the game should not shy away from inspiration from non European cultures.

Very true. By the same token (npi), it should do so respectfully. The Monk isn't a Wu-Xia or Shao-lin, steeped in a mellinia-old culture, it's ripped straight from 70s exploitation...

...and Its the only one. Wouldn't It've been better to have a full set of backgrounds and even PrCs doing a full range, rather than just John Caradine, a ninja, and a 'Bender?

 

[Blue]

Lets talk Monks. What works about them? What would you change and why? How can they be improved?

First, lack of base variety. This is before even subclass.

1. All monks are extremely agile, needing high DEX for offense and defense. But this means that if you want to build like a sumo, focusing on STR instead of DEX, you're out of luck. Part of this is how good DEX is to start with and then adding more onto it.

2. The most efficient use of Ki points in general is stunning because of what it does for the team. But this makes monks end up tactically acting much alike, even when they take different subclasses which should encourage different playstyles.

Second, the subclasses don't feel like they were designed with the same calibration in terms of what a ki point can do. For example, Way of the Four Elements monks spend boatloads of Ki for merely moderate effects.

Third, the class should also be setting you up for plenty of multiclass possibilities with other martial-arts archetypes, but it's too limiting. For example, your entire unarmed combat feature goes away if you wear armor, even if after all of the editions where finally casters can use armor. So any armored martial arts concept is gone. Not just ones from all the great movies and books, but any variants based on your setting. And it could work - Unarmored Defense gives you options for armored (normal) or unarmored (unarmored defense) both giving viable ACs, and I've seen barbarians played both ways. But monks don't have the freedom to fulfill those concepts.

 

[Darkness]

Truly you do not understand the Monk.

I'm just going to assume you've never played a Monk.

Lies.

Keep it civil, please. This is just an internet board dedicated to pretending to be an elf, after all.

 

[Yunru]

Keep it civil, please. This is just an internet board dedicated to pretending to be an elf, after all.

I misread that as "an internet board pretending to be an elf" and was very confused.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure, it was written by someone with that background,...

Very true. By the same token (npi), it should do so respectfully. The Monk isn't a Wu-Xia or Shao-lin, steeped in a mellinia-old culture, it's ripped straight from 70s exploitation...

...and Its the only one. Wouldn't It've been better to have a full set of backgrounds and even PrCs doing a full range, rather than just John Caradine, a ninja, and a 'Bender?

On PrCs, no, I don't think 5e needs or should have them, unless they replace feats rather than class levels.

The PHB has only so much space. The Monk has expanded, and should continue to do so, and the Mystic has brought in more non-European archetypes. Backgrounds should have had some more non European influences, but ultimately they are mostly pretty generic. And they don't replace or obviate concepts that have been full classes for decades.


As to respect, the I would simply posit that your own biases are coloring the 5e monk with much more 70's Kung fu movie than is actually there.

If the 5e monk is any movie, its Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

Also, no, the Hermit doesn't fill the same space. Not even if you give it tavern brawler.

 

[Zilong]

I'm Chinese and I'd say the monk is close enough to xiaolin and wuxia. Just like the paladins are close enough to Arthurian knights and druids are close enough to to their Celtic (and other) roots. It really doesn't need to be exact. I'm happy with getting any refernces to my culture at all (without it getting confused with Japanese tropes, but that's a whole other discussion).