D&D 5E Martials should just get free feats

[GMforPowergamers]

I would be ok with that, although we need to keep the Bladesinger as a full caster. We could get another class as a half caster if people need that.

maybe it's cause I;m old, but I remember when they were fighter/wizards in 2e style but I guess I can see why you would want full caster.

I think a spell caster class (full or half) that had a bunch of melee based spells some weapon based spells more then the cantrips and bonus if some were ONLY for that class not wizard would work

 

[James Gasik]

I like Monks, but I don't think they are good skirmishers or good damage dealers. They are fast though and they are pretty tough as long as you reserve kid for patent defense and don't waste it spamming stunning strike or flurry of blows.

While most Monks are pretty tough, Long Death is near unkillable at 11th level. They can keep up with any martial and are probably last longer than any martial at that point (again as long as you don't blow your ki on SS and FOB). You could have 1hp left and take 11 more hits, regardless of damage, and still be standing ... and do that after every single long rest. At that level that is about the equivalent of an extra 250hps .... more against spellcasters or AOE effects that do a lot on one hit. The free frightened within 30 feet is pretty awesome too, especially on a Shaddar-Kai or Eladrin.

I find a lot of players don't like that long-game play style where they want to wear down their enemy though. They want to do a lot of damage up front and a Monk is not good at that.

So Monks are fine as long as they don't use Ki to deal damage or try to control enemies on the battle, is what you're saying?

 

[James Gasik]

maybe it's cause I;m old, but I remember when they were fighter/wizards in 2e style but I guess I can see why you would want full caster.

I think a spell caster class (full or half) that had a bunch of melee based spells some weapon based spells more then the cantrips and bonus if some were ONLY for that class not wizard would work

Fighter/Wizards were full casters in AD&D; look at the xp charts, most of their career they'd be down one level from a single-classed character.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

Monks need to spend ki on flurries or stunning, because if they spend it on staying alive any smart enemy will ignore them. Being tough doesn't matter if the enemy can just target the actual threats.

I also wanted to comment, but Barbarian/Fighter's high damage usually comes from certain feats, not the classes themselves, especially in the the Barbarian's case.

 

[Clint_L]

Eh, barbarian base damage is pretty strong, though fighter pulls ahead at high levels. 2-handed weapon+str+rage with the option to take attacks at advantage if they want to sacrifice defence is pretty good. Bear totem barbarians can just sit there using reckless attacks while still being damage sponges, for example.

 

[ECMO3]

Monks need to spend ki on flurries or stunning, because if they spend it on staying alive any smart enemy will ignore them. Being tough doesn't matter if the enemy can just target the actual threats.

I have heard this strawman before, but I find the "ignore" argument difficult for enemies to implement effectively. I find it difficult to do for me when DMing. First it assumes it is possible to go around the Monk and get to others and when there is open space to move around your front liners, then there is generally enough open space for those rear echelon PCs who don't want to be engaged to move far enough away from such enemies not to be, especially since those enemies need to use extra movement to go around the PC. If enemies try to ignore someone in front of them that is usually a large hit on their action economy, because they will end turns not in melee range, and /or will burn actions on things dash or dodge and/or be taking AOOs.

Also on a Long Death Monk frightened enemies can't just move around the Monk. They can't move closer to him at all, and other PCs are presumably laying down similar effects with spells or abilities like slow, Tasha's Mind Whip, Cause Fear, Menacing Attack, Grasping Arrow, Ensaring Strike, Web, spike growth, Repelling Blast etc. Those are mostly available by level 3 and if someone is hit with one of these and engaged with a Monk their effective options to get around him and melee someone else are extremely limited, but they CAN still attack the Monk (assuming he is within range).

Finally this is not a build style, it is a tactic. If the enemy is "ignoring"" the Monk then he can use things like SS and FOB pretty easily and he will be getting AOOs as well. A guy spends 15 movement going around the dodging monk and now gets hit with an AOO and a stunning strike and the Monk is still dodging.

We had a wereboar Artificer in one of the games I played recently who was typically in hybrid form and immune to non-magic piercing, bludgeoning and slashsing. It was the only melee-oriented character in the party and was a compeltely defensive build (even aside from his immunity) but the DM had a hell of a time getting around himeven when it was impossible to damage him and made sense to use things like dodge.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

Feats and ASI should really be completely unrelated, you could get both at the normal levels. Would help, but the issues with a lot of classes usually are more than what feats can really fix.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

I have heard this strawman before, but I find the "ignore" argument difficult for enemies to implement effectively. I find it difficult to do for me when DMing. First it assumes it is possible to go around the Monk and get to others and when there is open space to move around your front liners, then there is generally enough open space for those rear echelon PCs who don't want to be engaged to move far enough away from such enemies not to be, especially since those enemies need to use extra movement to go around the PC. If enemies try to ignore someone in front of them that is usually a large hit on their action economy, because they will end turns not in melee range, and /or will burn actions on things dash or dodge and/or be taking AOOs.

Also on a Long Death Monk frightened enemies can't just move around the Monk. They can't move closer to him at all, and other PCs are presumably laying down similar effects with spells or abilities like slow, Tasha's Mind Whip, Cause Fear, Menacing Attack, Grasping Arrow, Ensaring Strike, Web, spike growth, Repelling Blast etc. Those are mostly available by level 3 and if someone is hit with one of these and engaged with a Monk their effective options to get around him and melee someone else are extremely limited, but they CAN still attack the Monk (assuming he is within range).

Finally this is not a build style, it is a tactic. If the enemy is "ignoring"" the Monk then he can use things like SS and FOB pretty easily and he will be getting AOOs as well. A guy spends 15 movement going around the dodging monk and now gets hit with an AOO and a stunning strike and the Monk is still dodging.

We had a wereboar Artificer in one of the games I played recently who was typically in hybrid form and immune to non-magic piercing, bludgeoning and slashsing. It was the only melee-oriented character in the party and was a compeltely defensive build (even aside from his immunity) but the DM had a hell of a time getting around himeven when it was impossible to damage him and made sense to use things like dodge.

Certainly circumstances will dictate that the monk may need to, or it is advantageous, to use their defensive abilities in lieu of the more offensive ones. The same way a fighter might choose to dodge instead of attacking. However, from my own experience in seeing monks being played is that going all in on stunning is usually the better option, because stunned enemies can't attack back anyway. Likewise, in the case of a lot of the CC abilities mentioned, the monk might be better off not engaging the enemy and using a ranged attack for example, if the opponent couldn't reach the other party members because of them. The Long Death frightened ability with a bonus action dodge or disengage is pretty decent though I will admit.

 

[NotAYakk]

And (as I have had to say far too many times), if it's a resource everyone gets, it doesn't count. Everyone gets a background and four skills and racial/species features. In "One D&D," everyone gets a background feat. If it's something legitimately everyone gets, it does not count as an advantage addressing the gap in what the Fighter itself brings to the table.

This is a trap and a mistake!

If you add something that both a wizard and a fighter get, and using that feature is an alternative to (say) casting a spell, this can make fighters better than they where but have almost no impact on wizard capabilities!

In short, in a game where some PCs have "I can change reality with magic", making skills better for everyone actually closes the utility gap. Even if wizards can also use skills.

The size of the gap matters. Imagine a game where everyone had near-wizard spellcasting, near-rogue skills, etc. And the wizard got slightly better spellcasting, the rogue got slightly better skills, and the fighter got 4 attacks per turn. The lower gap in areas besides attacks per turn reduces (and maybe reverses) the gap between fighters and other classes.

I am belabouring this point because if you hold it as an axiom, you miss entire ways to solve design problems and you discard viable fixes as irrelevant.

So yes, background skills actually boost the fighter more than they boost the rogue. Despite the fact the rogue has access to the skill as well. Having more baseline options to interact with the world boosts non-spellcasters more than it does spellcasters. Despite the fact that they are available to spellcasters as well.

In both cases, the diminishing marginal returns kicks in, and reduces the benefit to the "richer" party.

And if enough of it is done, the fighter doesn't have to be that much better at combat to make up for being poorer in other areas.

 

[ECMO3]

Certainly circumstances will dictate that the monk may need to, or it is advantageous, to use their defensive abilities in lieu of the more offensive ones. The same way a fighter might choose to dodge instead of attacking. However, from my own experience in seeing monks being played is that going all in on stunning is usually the better option, because stunned enemies can't attack back anyway. Likewise, in the case of a lot of the CC abilities mentioned, the monk might be better off not engaging the enemy and using a ranged attack for example, if the opponent couldn't reach the other party members because of them. The Long Death frightened ability with a bonus action dodge or disengage is pretty decent though I will admit.

The problem with stunning strike is enemies often save, meaning it does not work and if you don't use ki to dodge you are not very durable as a monk. Also most Monks I have seen played tend to max Dex and sometimes even Constitution before they max Wisdom. I don't, I usually max Wisdom first, but if you don't your DC is usually not going to be that good. Obviously it depends on what you are fighting, how many attacks they get etc.

When you get to higher level (10th or so) you can use both pretty effectively because you have enough ki to dodge every turn while still using stunning strike a couple times a fight.

What makes a Monk dodging better than a fighter dodging is that they do it as a bonus action, giving up a relatively low damage martial arts attack to do it as opposed to a fighter who gives up an entire action to dodge.

FOB is a much bigger ki-waste than stunning strike. You are using a ki to get MAYBE 10 more damage .... if you hit.

I agree on a ranged attack, but that is kind of a build style I think. If you are making a ranged single classed Monk you are usually going to take feats to do that well and if you don't it will be difficult to be very effective in that role.